Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on ensuring an inclusive and rights-respecting digital future, particularly in the context of implementing the UN Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the WSIS+20 review. Speakers emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in digital governance, highlighting the need to involve diverse voices from civil society, the private sector, technical community, and academia.

A key theme was the challenge of achieving meaningful multi-stakeholder participation in UN processes, especially in New York-based negotiations. Several speakers noted that while the GDC emphasizes multi-stakeholderism, its development process was not sufficiently inclusive. The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was highlighted as a valuable platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue, with calls to strengthen its role and secure sustainable funding.

Participants stressed the importance of capacity building to enable effective engagement from underrepresented groups, particularly from the Global South. The need for a multilingual internet and consideration of local contexts in digital governance was also emphasized. Speakers advocated for focusing on national and regional initiatives, such as national IGFs, to complement global processes.

The Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) was recognized as an important platform for promoting human rights online and facilitating multi-stakeholder collaboration. Speakers called for continued support of the FOC and its Advisory Network. The discussion also touched on the role of the technical community in ensuring that governance discussions are grounded in technical realities.

Overall, the conversation highlighted the complex challenges of achieving inclusive digital governance and the need for continued efforts to evolve multi-stakeholder processes to address emerging digital issues.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in internet governance and digital policy processes

– Challenges with inclusivity and meaningful participation, especially for stakeholders from the Global South

– The role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and other forums in facilitating inclusive dialogue

– Implementation of the Global Digital Compact and WSIS+20 review process

– Building capacity and expertise among diverse stakeholders to enable effective participation

Overall purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how to ensure an inclusive and rights-respecting digital future through multi-stakeholder engagement in global internet governance processes, with a focus on implementing the Global Digital Compact and preparing for the WSIS+20 review.

Tone:

The tone was largely constructive and collaborative, with speakers building on each other’s points. There was a sense of shared purpose in promoting inclusive governance, though some frustration was expressed about the limitations of multilateral UN processes in New York. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end, with speakers emphasizing the need for concrete steps to improve stakeholder engagement and capacity building.

Speakers

– Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Senior Policy Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of the Netherlands

– Ernst Noorman: Ambassador for Cyber Affairs, Kingdom of the Netherlands

– Filippo Pierozzi: Office of the UN Tech Envoy

– Rasmus Lumi:Director General of the Department of International Organizations and Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia

– Anja Gengo: IGF Secretariat

– Emilar Gandhi: Global Head of Stakeholder Engagement, META

– Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Executive Director, TechGlobal Initiative, member of the FOC Advisory Network

– Adeboye Adegoke: Paradigm Initiative

– Olaf Kolfman: Executive-level Advisor and Spokesperson, ISOC

– Fiona Alexander: American University

Additional speakers:

– Audience

Expanded Summary: Ensuring an Inclusive and Rights-Respecting Digital Future

This discussion focused on the critical challenge of ensuring an inclusive and rights-respecting digital future, particularly in the context of implementing the UN Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the upcoming WSIS+20 review. The conversation brought together diverse perspectives from government representatives, international organisations, civil society, the private sector, and the technical community.

Setting the Context: Multi-stakeholder Engagement and Global Initiatives

Ernst Noorman, the Ambassador for Cyber Affairs of the Netherlands and current chair of the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), set the tone for the discussion. He emphasized that a multi-stakeholder approach is crucial for addressing complex digital issues and highlighted the recent adoption of the Global Digital Compact. Noorman stressed the need for evolving multi-stakeholder governance and creating an appealing narrative to engage diverse stakeholders. He framed the GDC as integrating human rights, sustainable development, and technology governance in an interconnected way.

Rasmus Lumi, representing Estonia as the incoming Chair of the FOC for 2025, echoed the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches. He noted the increasing complexity of the UN ecosystem and emphasized the need for inclusive governance that respects human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Lumi suggested that the FOC could play a role in GDC implementation aligned with these principles.

The Role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

The Internet Governance Forum was highlighted as a valuable platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue on digital policy issues. Anja Gengo from the IGF Secretariat provided insights into the forum’s growth, citing statistics on increased participation. She emphasized the IGF’s role as an inclusive space for dialogue and its adaptation to emerging technologies like AI. Gengo also stressed the need for multi-disciplinary approaches in addressing digital governance challenges.

However, there was recognition that the IGF needs strengthening to enhance its effectiveness. Fiona Alexander from American University stressed the need for sustained funding to strengthen the IGF’s capacity, while others called for evolving the forum to produce more actionable outcomes.

Challenges in Multi-stakeholder Processes

The discussion highlighted significant challenges in achieving meaningful multi-stakeholder participation, especially in UN-based processes. Fiona Alexander provided a critical perspective, stating that “New York processes, by design and by structure, are limited in their way to involve stakeholders. And I don’t see a meaningful way to change that.” This unexpected consensus on the limitations of UN processes in New York sparked a broader conversation about alternative approaches and the importance of local and national initiatives.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya, Executive Director of the TechGlobal Initiative, and Adeboye Adegoke from Paradigm Initiative highlighted power asymmetries in multi-stakeholder processes. They emphasized the need for capacity building to enable effective engagement from underrepresented groups, particularly from the Global South. Diya made a thought-provoking comment on the importance of meaningful participation: “Even when we are in these kinds of spaces, and I think that’s where the technical community, the private sector, governments have a tremendous role to play in terms of how do we ensure that when groups have access to international spaces, are sitting on these tables, they’re active.”

Private Sector and Technical Community Perspectives

Emilar Gandhi from META provided insights into the private sector’s role, highlighting META’s human rights policy and employee training. She emphasized the importance of stakeholder engagement and creating intentional spaces for diverse voices in digital governance discussions.

Olaf Kolkman from the Internet Society offered a technical community perspective, making a memorable analogy comparing multi-stakeholder mechanisms to large language models: “If you train a large language model and you provide it with incomplete input, it will start to hallucinate. And I think that the multi-stakeholder mechanisms, if you do not provide all the inputs that you have at the table, the output of the process will be a hallucination.” This reinforced the importance of including diverse perspectives, including technical expertise, in governance discussions. Kolkman also noted that the technical community often speaks a different “language” and stressed the need for mutual understanding among stakeholders.

Local and National Initiatives

Several speakers, including Adeboye Adegoke and Olaf Kolkman, stressed the importance of focusing on national and regional initiatives, such as national IGFs, to complement global processes. There was a shared viewpoint that local and national processes are key for implementing digital governance principles and engaging stakeholders effectively. Fiona Alexander particularly emphasized this point, suggesting a focus on local and national processes as a way to overcome the limitations of UN-based mechanisms.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The discussion concluded with a recognition of the complex challenges in achieving inclusive digital governance and the need for continued efforts to evolve multi-stakeholder processes. Key takeaways included the crucial role of multi-stakeholder engagement, the importance of local and national processes, the need for capacity building, and the significance of technical expertise in governance discussions.

Several unresolved issues were identified, including how to effectively integrate multi-stakeholder input into UN processes, balance multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches, address power asymmetries within multi-stakeholder processes, and ensure meaningful participation from marginalized groups.

Moving forward, participants suggested focusing on renewing and strengthening the IGF mandate in the upcoming WSIS+20 review, securing sustained funding for the IGF, and encouraging stakeholders to engage in local and national digital governance processes. The discussion underscored the ongoing need for collaborative efforts to shape an inclusive and rights-respecting digital future.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: for this year’s IGF. The session is called Ensuring an Inclusive and Right-Respecting Digital Future, and the session seeks to allow input from various stakeholder and regional groups on the role of the multistakeholder community in the implementation of the UN Global Digital Compact and the WSIS plus 20 review. Without further ado, I will give the floor to Mr. Ernst-Norman, Ambassador for Cyber Affairs of the Netherlands for his opening remarks.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you very much, Jakob. And welcome to all the friends of the Freedom Online Coalition, esteemed panelists, and, of course, also our online audience. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us today at the open forum session of the Freedom Online Coalition. Today, we are going to talk about Ensuring an Inclusive and Right-Respecting Digital Future. The Netherlands organized this session in its role as the current Freedom Online Coalition chair. The Netherlands is one of the founders who created the Freedom Online Coalition in 2011 and acted as the first chair, and has been an honor for our country to have been chairing this ever more important coalition this year for the second time. And I’m delighted to see such a great variety of panelists to the roles that we see as essential for discussions on digital issues. We have experts from the FOC advisory network, civil society, private sector, the technical community, and the tech and voice office, and the IGF Secretariat present today. And last but not least, my colleague and friend from Estonia, Rasmus Lumi, who will be chairing our coalition in 2025. When I first started my role as a cyber ambassador for the Netherlands, they were telling me that 2025 would be an extremely important year for internet governance and human rights online. Therefore, I must thank Estonia from the bottom of my heart for their willingness to take over our FOC chairship next year. At the same time, in 2024, we have not been calmly waiting for the Estonians to save us. The adoption of the Global Digital Compact at the Summit of the Future has been a key milestone in our journey towards the WSIS Plus 20 review next year. The events we have been hosting with the FOC over the course of 2024 have been largely focused on laying the groundwork while preparing ourselves for these important negotiations. As most of you are familiar with the WSIS, we do not need to start the review negotiations with a blank slate. I’m going to use a term that most of you will have a love-hate relationship with, but we do have agreed language to work with. The principles, commitments, and actions in the Global Digital Compact are closely linked to the existing WSIS agreements. The Tunisia Agenda and the Geneva Plan of Action. The GDC sets out a vision for digital cooperation built on principles ingrained in sustainable development and human rights, both mutually dependent and reinforcing, as well as for global internet and AI governance. The GDC also acknowledges the role of the IGF as a primary multi-stakeholder platform for discussions on internet issues. Moreover, in April this year, the Sao Paulo Multi-Stakeholder Guidelines were adopted at the NetMundial Plus 10 conference. These underline the need to protect and get participation in internet and digital governance. And lastly, just this week, on the initiative of Canada, the FOC published a joint statement on the future of the multi-stakeholder approach at the United Nations. The statement recognizes that multi-stakeholder processes must evolve to address emerging and complex challenges. It is precisely this idea of evolving that I would like to address in the remainder of my remarks. Agreed language is no guarantee in today’s world. Characterized by geopolitical dynamics, economic power concentrations, a decline in internet freedom worldwide, and rapid technological development. In order to actually strengthen and evolve the multi-stakeholder governance of the internet and digital technologies, we will need to have an appealing narrative, a narrative underpinned by commitments and actions that actually do, one, keep discussions on technical issues within the technical domain, two, bridge the digital divides without reinforcing existing inequalities, three, strengthen the protection of human rights worldwide, online and offline, four, govern emerging digital technologies in a responsible and rights-respecting manner, while making the existing multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance more inclusive. This is no way an easy task. But we as the Netherlands and the broader Freedom Online Coalition believe that these commitments resonate around the world and are the best way to work towards a digital future for all of us. The 20-year review of WSIS is around the corner. And it will be up to us to ensure that it will continue to steer global digital cooperation and governance together with the implementation of the GDC. I hope the forum session will not only address those issues that are close to our hearts, but we want to defend human rights online, multistakeholder governance, and the IGF itself, but also those issues that need to evolve to ensure that the implementation of the GDC and the WSIS process remain fit for purpose also in 2025. While I have full confidence in Estonia, in my chair of the FOC, it does set me to that today is the very last event that we are organizing as a chair of the Freedom Online Coalition. Nikki of the USA, most of you know her, asked me last night what the most memorable event for me was during our FOC chairship. As this is our last event, I hope this will be the one. So without putting any pressure on all of you, I wish you all a very fruitful and inspirational discussion. Thank you very much. And back to Jakob Pepijn.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you very much, Mr. Norman, for your opening remark. We will now have a round through the panelists, through the different speakers. Each panelist will have about five minutes to answer a question related to their role in the multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance. And after that, we will have time for questions from the audience, followed by closing remarks from all the speakers. So without further ado, and also because Mr. Filippo from the Secretary General’s office, from the Office of the Tech Envoy, has to leave, unfortunately, already in half an hour, I will give the floor first to him. And Filippo, the implementation of the Global Digital Compact, so to ensure that it and other relevant processes maintain and are in alignment with international human rights law.

Filippo Pierozzi: Thanks, Jakob. And I would like also to acknowledge the statement from Ambassador Norman, and especially on the role of the Global Digital Compact, the role of IGF. I mean, I guess all of you would agree that if IGF didn’t exist, we would need to invent something like this. And this is also still a landing point of the Global Digital Compact, where most member states and all stakeholders found an agreement that the role of IGF and its convening role should be strengthened. Rather than weaken it, we count, I acknowledge also Director General Lumi, we count on the Freedom Online Coalition to work in this coalition building when it comes to the role of this multi-stakeholder forum. Now, the Global Digital Compact, and sorry, my body language, I’m trying to be in an open forum, trying to be as open as possible, and not turn my back on anyone. The Global Digital Compact is refreshing the agreement that member states found in 2005 with the Tunis Agenda, the principles, and introduces some areas that are new. It’s comprehensive. It’s comprehensive and has multi-stakeholder at the center. And most of you and several member states and even stakeholders ask me, hold on, that is an intergovernmental process. How can it be multi-stakeholder? And that is the tricky answer, the tricky question that we’ll need to answer. Because yes, the Global Digital Compact, as much as we exist, it’s an intergovernmental process. So something that I would like to see moving forward in both processes is to see a concerted effort from our side, from the United Nations, from member states to be as inclusive as possible from stakeholders. Again, even the concept of human rights that is the very core of this conversation developed and evolved. And as, again, Ambassador Norman said, it’s based on the sustainable development goals and human rights. If you’re going back to the Geneva Declaration of Principles of 2003, the concept of human rights was mostly anchored to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its freedom of expression. 20 years later, when we are in the digital space, we know that human rights is way more than just… freedom of expression. So ideally we want to work together with all stakeholders and start implementing the Global Digital Compact not in one year time, not in two years time, but right now. There are provisions that broaden the understanding of what human rights are. There is a section that is objective three of the Global Digital Compact that has a strong cluster of human rights and there are commitments from member states, there are calls for the private sector that is here represented at this table and it would be very good to hear from them how they plan of acting even further on new… is already undertaking. There is the digital advisory service run by the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights and that we hope it will be another tool to sharpen the accountability of the private sector and of member states when it comes to respecting human rights online. Coming back on how we can do this in a multi-stakeholder way, a provision in the Global Digital Compact is to have a call for endorsement and you might have heard me saying this over and over again versus a time or two days ago. Endorsement, yes or no. It’s an online form, stakeholders can tell the UN Secretariat what they are doing or what they plan to do to implement the Global Digital Compact and any reference in there to what you have been doing over the last 20 years in connection to WSIS are most welcome and there is again an option to endorse. We do understand that for some civil society organizations sometimes endorsing can be a tough undertaking so that’s why we wanted to give the option of just specifying the areas of action. The Secretary General will publish a report on the implementation map and this will constitute the way forward and will run in parallel to the WSIS process. Where did I have to dash to the airport and trying to, not to prevent, but maybe to address one of the FAQs that we are getting on how these two processes can go together and this is just my personal take having been in the GDC negotiation and consultations since day one. I don’t see this as two different roads that diverge but rather as a stack. WSIS is fit for purpose if we make it fit for purpose. The action lines encompass a lot of the areas that are in the Global Digital Compact but not all of them and vice versa. Ideally you will have the implementation of the Global Digital Compact strengthening and adding to what is already in WSIS because again times are changing and we hope that with over the coming months engaging in Geneva with the WSIS plus 20 consults, co-facilitators for the process will be appointed by the end of March in New York by the President of the General Assembly and with the Global Digital Compact implementation process. And again to all of you around this table it is very, very important to hear from you on what you would like to see in the implementation of the Global Digital Compact because again multi-stakeholder processes they don’t happen by themselves. We as the UN Tech Envoy office and as the UN we are committed to keep it as multi-stakeholder as possible and to preserve that dimension but we really need to hear from all of you and with this Jaco back to you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you so much Filippo and thank you for especially for elaborating on the Global Digital Compact laying out what it entails exactly also in terms of human rights and on how the implementation of the Global Digital Compact also can be nurtured and can be especially also endorsed or how the role of stakeholders in its implementation and upon that last point especially on the WSIS and the GDC relationship because I think that’s a question that many of us have and that we are all thinking about how we can best ensure that there is no duplication on that side and that we are not only reviewing text but actually implement it. So thank you Filippo and without further ado I will give the floor to Rasmus Lumi the Director General of the Department of International Organizations and Human Rights and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia and who is also going to be the Chair of the Freedom Online Coalition in 2025. Rasmus, what role can the FOC and individual governments play in the implementation of the Global Digital Compact and how can we ensure, how can governments ensure together with the stakeholders of course to make sure that the GDC and the relevant implementation of the GDC and the different aspects of that and the WSIS plus 20 are in alignment with the international human rights law.

Rasmus Lumi: Maybe, okay good. So thank you very much and first of all I should be thankful to Ambassador Norman for his kind keynote although I’m now a bit much pressure on Estonia that I don’t know how to respond to that. So thank you very much. Now if you’ll allow me in the very beginning I would like to concentrate a bit also on the issue of multi-stakeholderism and the importance of it in the upcoming processes but then definitely will also say a few words about the possible FOC role. As a government representative it’s to note that for us fostering the multi-stakeholder approach is extremely important and we too have been looking with concern into the situation that many discussions have been varying towards multilateralism and not so much multi-stakeholderism but we will have to see what we can do about it. So looking back of course in the last 10 years tech governance has changed quite a bit and the recent GDC negotiations have gained prominence and at the same time become much more contested and meanwhile the UN ecosystem has grown much more complex and there is an increasing number of agencies competing for their role in different technology-related mandates and also now that the new UN tech office is entering the fora it will be even more complicated to figure out what is the best way of moving forward. But despite all this complexity we have learned during many years that everything about it has to be a multi-stakeholder effort in order for it to be more successful and more inclusive. There should be absolutely no one single country or entity who is controlling the internet and we can see it very well at the national level where one government is in control of the internet structures then in the form of internet shutdown this is something that is happening in the world quite often and in our future endeavors we should definitely avoid this happening on a global scale. We also know that there is no way to have a comprehensive approach when some stakeholders are excluded from the discussions and especially those stakeholders who are in other ways. So ultimately if we don’t have a sufficiently inclusive approach the outcome will be worse for everybody especially of course the people. And there is plenty of room for improvement since we have millions and even billions of people still without proper access to the internet. But this is again something that the governments must not and should not do alone but the global community should support this and also play a part. Now the digital governance as opposed to the internet governance is of course a much broader topic with wider scope and focus where we include e-governance, cyber security, digital inclusion, artificial intelligence and so on. But just like internet governance we cannot and must be very important that even in digital governance each stakeholder plays its role and not only for the sake of inclusion but also because they have specific competencies and then they could use them to play their part in those discussions. And since the digital society is an ecosystem and not an institution we should not forget that when we also talk about implementation of the GDC. Now as I said in the beginning during the GDC negotiations also we felt a shift towards a multilateral approach and this is proving how and why we need to continue showcasing the benefits and support of other stakeholder. This is a great example of this being such a global policy dialogue and bringing all the stakeholders together from technologists to the governments to civil society. And therefore as we approach the WSIS plus 20 process and discuss the implementation of the GDC we must adopt a strong common approach to ensure the protection of internet’s decentralized model. Regarding digital governance we must prioritize the inclusive governance and policy making that takes into account and respects human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Count the governance system we already have created and how to use it to its full potential instead of creating new mechanisms that might duplicate already existing formats. And with regard now to the role of the FOC and individual governments I will just mention that in Estonia’s experience technology generally is a very powerful tool. accompanied by proper change management, which is very important. And we have to focus on how to transform the societies as a whole, with the help of technologies. Now, in the FOC, as a coalition of like-minded, we can message, and the FOC states can and will protect this principle, across different forums. As advocacy, as you know, is the FOC’s strongest tool. And another, and finally I will mention that another important aspect is capacity building. This is one of the priorities for the Estonian chairship in the FOC, and we will definitely continue our efforts in this regard. Often there is confusion and sometimes even resistance how exactly human rights can be followed and implemented when using and developing technologies. So, and by capacity building, it’s very important. And the OHCHR has a crucial role to play in this, which the GDC also affirmed. So, the FOC, as well as individual governments, will have to continue supporting the OHCHR and its work. And it also means that we have to continue doing it financially. So I will leave it to that for now, and maybe come back later after some questions. Thank you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you very much, Rasmus. And yeah, especially thank you also for mentioning the complexities, because indeed, digital governance, internet governance are very complex fields. But I think you would agree with me that if we underline that including as many stakeholders as possible in the conversation is not something that makes it more complex, but actually helps us engage with the complexities of the governance and of the technical and governmental issues. Governmental, yeah, the governing challenges which is emerging technologies and the internet. And especially also change management, which you mentioned. You mentioned it, of course, in the context of digital transformation, but I also think that for the WSIS plus 20 review, we need to develop together a very strong and agile change management for the WSIS. So, having said that, we will turn to Anja Jengel from the IGF Secretariat. I’m glad you could make it. How can forums and spaces like the Internet Governance Forum continue to serve as an inclusive space for dialogue amidst changes in the global digital ecosystem? Anja, I will give you the mic too.

Anja Gengo: Thank you. Thank you very much, Jaakko and Riad. Thank you for being patient and waiting for me. The Secretariat is extremely busy on the first and last day, especially of the IGF. But it’s a great honor for us to join the Freedom Online Coalition in this setup in Riad. We have been cooperating, collaborating particularly over the past two years very closely. And I use this opportunity to recognize the excellent work that the Coalition has been doing, especially during the consultations on the Global Digital Compact leading toward its adoption. And I use the opportunity as well on behalf of the Secretariat to congratulate the Chair, Ambassador Norman, on… …wonderful, and we welcome certainly working closely with Estonia and new leadership in the months to come. That is indeed a very important question. The IGF, as you know, has been convened in 2006 by the Secretary General as a neutral platform that will allow for facilitation of multi-stakeholder dialogue on issues pertaining to public digital policy. Indeed, some of the terms that especially in the recent times are present in our discourse, such as Internet governance and digital governance, what is the difference? It is an interesting debate. But essentially, I think nothing is better to tell us in terms of description of the digital public policy issues than people. And through the IGF, we really see, because of its bottom-up nature and, of course, multi-stakeholder approach, that people really see digital technologies as something that’s more and more integrated in their lives. And therefore, speaking indeed about one entity, one… …is really impossible now. It’s part of our lives, and it’s deeply integrated in all spheres. Therefore, including at the UN system, various institutions can now not even avoid not to deal with the digital, because it’s just there in every sphere of our lives and of our dynamics. If we look back in the past now 19 years of the IGF, things have been changing, and as digital technologies have been evolving, so has the IGF. I always like to start from the numbers, a nice indicator of the success or maybe of an alarm where we need to do more. And, you know, always these WSIS Plus 20 preparations are reminding me of my beginnings with the IGF, which was around WSIS Plus 10, when the IGF was hosted by the government of Brazil. And in Brazil, we could speak about certainly less than 1,000 stakeholders that were participating in Joao Pessoa’s annual meeting, coming from around 120, 22 different member states. The numbers in the past changed, I would say, in favor of all those who are diligently standing to protect the multi-stakeholder approach to Internet, which is, for example, that in Kyoto last year, we could speak about triple participation than 10 years ago, so more than 9,000 stakeholders participated from around 178 member states. That’s a significant increase in just a 10-year period. And that also tells us that the multi-stakeholder approach is being endorsed or adopted or visible in other various parts of the world. Another indicator, which I think is a mere fact of the endorsement of the multi-stakeholder approach through the IGF model, is the growing number of the local IGFs, national, regional, sub-regional and youth IGFs. So, for example, during the WSIS Plus 10, the Secretary has been reporting to the community that we work with about 50, less than 50, NRIs. They were really proud to say that we work with a very firm, robust, stable network of 178 national, regional, sub-regional and youth IGFs. And just to tell the number, but the community tripled the number of the IGF models that are deployed at the local level through the multi-stakeholder approach. So those are, for example, some of the indicators of the success. The IGF as a platform, and I certainly can speak for the Secretariat, continues to serve people around the world and continues to react on the demand that comes from the people. That’s why the agenda every year is changing, basically being reflective of the demand that’s coming from stakeholders from around the world through the public consultations. As the digital technologies are changing, as, for example, the artificial intelligence is becoming more and more prominent, or more and more part of us, so is the agenda or the program of the IGF annually speaking. Since 2016, there’s been a significant shift. Topics that were dominating the agenda by that time, such as cybersecurity, safety online, access and connectivity, have slowly been pushed a little bit on the maybe second place by the topics related to new and emerging technologies, especially artificial intelligence, just because it’s bringing a new wave of challenges to us and it’s bringing an additional layer of responsibilities in front of the multistakeholder community to respond how to govern this very important piece of technology that is more and more accessible. I would say those are the indicators, and I think in terms of the IGF, we will certainly see how the WSIS Plus 20 and the whole preparatory process will behave, but the Secretariat remains committed to its community to listen what is the demand, and then to respond within its capacity to the best of its ability to adjust the process so that it’s reflective of the needs and hopefully to help us resolve the issues that have been identified by the community for having a sustainable development overall. Thank you very much.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Aymar. Thank you for your remarks. And if I may try to summarize them, I think you wanted to emphasize mostly that the IGF, throughout its existence, has been, the character of the IGF has been very much bottom-up and flexible to make sure that it can actually stand the test of time and continue to evolve together with the technical, social, political, all the developments that are ongoing. And I think that’s also something that we want to retain. So thank you very much for that. And then we’ll move to the private sector because we have different stakeholders around the table. So we will move to the private sector now. To Emila Adladi, Global Head of Stakeholder Engagement from META. Emila, given the critical role of online platforms in the private sector in guiding global digital cooperation, how can industry contribute to the realization of a rights-perspective and inclusive digital future while ensuring accountability? And what does this look like in practice?

Emilar Gandhi: Thank you so much for… It’s weird when you hear yourself. Thank you so much for that question. So tough, the end of the IGF, after four or five days of conversations, but, yeah, I think that, you know, as private sector, we have a huge role to play. And META has taken several steps or several initiatives to ensure that we contribute to rights-respecting in the future. And some of it actually aligns with what the Director General said and what, you know, my colleague also mentioned. I think I’ll take a step back… a little bit and say, for us, our approach is stemmed from our goals or our mission as a company is embedded in how we actually approach human rights and how we build our products and how we build our policies. So by that, I mean, it’s good and nice to be here, for us to be able to share the tales. But if our foundation is not strong, then we might as well just be theorizing everything that we are saying here. So for us, it’s part of our mission. It’s part of how we approach inclusivity and how we approach human rights. And by that, I mean, in terms of our hiring, in terms of ensuring that we have people in our teams that actually also represent the people who are using our platforms. As most of you know, over 90% of the people that use our platforms are outside of the US and Canada. Of course, our staff is not at our levels, but ensuring that people who are working on these issues, particularly in terms of policy, have the lived experiences, can speak the languages and can engage and do outreach as we need. We also have a human rights policy team that actually experts on these issues. So that’s one. So having a mission that is actually, it’s inclusivity and inclusion at the heart of everything that we do. Secondly, multi-stakeholder engagements. We are here to be part of this conversation, one, at the Internet Governance Forum, but also in the FOC as a META member. I was a co-chair of the FOC Advisory Network for about three years. I think it’s an important platform in Estonia, as you take on the chairship. But it’s also a place where you have civil society, you have governments having conversations. I think that’s very, very important because you just do not want partners who tap you on the back to say you’re doing well, but also who will make sure that you are accountable. The third thing that I would also mention is our human rights corporate policy that we launched in 2020, which is, for us, groundbreaking. But also, it’s not just a policy that we say, now we have it, let’s tick a box. Within that framework, we are ensuring that we are training our employees internally for them to be aware of human rights principles, for our employees to be aware, not only to be trained, but also aware of the human rights principles as they build products and as they build policies as well. We also do regular human rights due diligence assessments to identify and mitigate as well. And the third thing that I’ll mention is, the fourth one is stakeholder engagement, and then I’ll pass on the mic. With regards to stakeholder engagement, I think this actually contributes to how inclusive our policies and products are. Every time we write our community standards, we engage externally. But I think that sounds nice on paper, but how we do it is ensuring that we identify not only people that identify themselves as experts, but also people with lived experiences. We go beyond just geographical, but we also look at cultural inclusion. Who has the cultural competence to ensure that they can engage with these issues? But also, I want to reference what the Director General also mentioned around, you know, some people not having access. So you might, and access, I mean infrastructure and also content access. So even if you are reaching out to someone because you want to be inclusive, but do they even have internet access to engage with you? Is engaging virtually something that’s, you know, is that the right format of engaging? Or should you ensure that you meet them where they are at? Content access, can they actually meaningfully engage in the issue that is at hand? Because for the engagement and for the stakeholder engagement to be inclusive and to be meaningful, then we have to also invest in ensuring that we build the capacity of the people that actually talk to us to ensure that we improve our policies. Otherwise, then it’s not inclusive at all. The transparency, which we can talk about later on once we’ve done all of this. But if we are not sharing about our decision making, who we engaged with, we have the transparency center where you can actually see the changes that go through our policies. Everything is there. But I think one criticism will be who has the time to go through that transparency center. And I think I’m sure we have so much more work to do to ensure that it’s not just there, but also it can be used as a mechanism for accountability.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, and thank you for being very comprehensive and explaining that I was working to actually holistically approach this issue with all the stakeholders and also touching upon your role in the advocacy advisory network, which of course, also, yeah, I’m going to repeat this many times, but the advisory network is also, especially because we want to include the stakeholders in our work as a free online We’ll go to the next question, which is the same question, both for Savannas and Boja. So, first, let’s refer to Savannas Pashithia, the executive director of TechGlobal Initiative and also a member of the advocacy advisory network. Savannas, how can stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, international organizations, and civil society work in collaboration with civil society to ensure that the voices of the global majority and marginalized groups are being engaged in both shaping and implementing global digital governance frameworks, like the UN Global Digital Conflict and the WSIS plus 20 review, taking into account the unique challenges of digital like the UN Global Digital Conflict and the WSIS plus 20 review, taking into account the unique challenges and local context in different regions.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, everyone, for having us here. So, at TechGlobal Institute, we primarily focus on getting the global majority stakeholders of the private sector, civil society, marginalized communities, refugees into the conversation around what does the internet mean to them and how do we govern it better. And I think it’s quite fundamental to us that when we see the differences, not only between the global north and the global majority, but also even within the global majority, there’s a number of different equities that are at play. For example, we have gender inequalities that continue to be persistent, even in rooms when there is multi-stakeholderism happening, we oftentimes see there’s more men or we see certain groups having a more majority role in these conversations than many of the other groups. So, I think to ensure that we have a truly multi-stakeholder model, I think we have to first acknowledge the fact that the multi-stakeholder model, while it is all well and good and has been the bedrock of internet governance for the last 20 years, is not perfect and that there are many power asymmetries that exist within the multi-stakeholder model itself, which has made many communities across the global majority particularly feel disenfranchised and excluded. And this is not just the communities that don’t have access to the internet as it is, but also communities that don’t have access to these kinds of spaces, whether it’s because of financial capital, because of knowledge, because of networks, there’s a number of different power asymmetries at play. I think it’s very important to acknowledge that. The director-general from Estonia has also alluded to, is really around even when communities are connected, sometimes because of shutdowns, they become disconnected and again, they’re left out of the conversation. So, there’s different layers to that and I think for us to really preserve the multi-stakeholder model and to be able to ensure that it works for the global majority and for people around the world, it is really important to start interrogating some aspects of the multi-stakeholder model to ensure that it is responding to the needs of the people on the ground. I think the second is really on the capacity piece. Even when we are in these kinds of spaces, and I think that’s where the technical community, the private sector, governments have a tremendous role to play in terms of how do we ensure that when groups have access to international spaces, are sitting on these tables, they’re active. In the last one year, we’ve seen that with the GDC and a number of other processes, it’s actually quite extraordinary the amount of things happening and it’s a lot to keep track of. And if you are a under-resourced suicide organization in the global majority, where you have existential crisis around not just the internet and being online and surviving online, but also in terms of food security, climate change, political geopolitics, there’s so many things at play and in that kind of environment, keeping track of what’s happening in New York and Geneva is really, really difficult. And so I think to be able to, again, make the multi-stakeholder model work, it’s really important to invest quite deliberately in capacity of communities from the very sort of grassroots up to the very… You heard from the IGF Secretary about the NRIs, and oftentimes in the last sort of 20 years, we’ve also seen that while NRIs are great in terms of engaging local communities, oftentimes they also are not sufficiently multi-stakeholder. They oftentimes become politicized or they end up only capturing the majority of voices that women are left behind. That has been at least my experience in my NRI. And so I think to ensure that if we want multi-stakeholderism to really work for the global majority, that there is a downstream effect along the way. We are very deliberate about, one, building that capacity, two, creating intentional spaces. And then three, are designing those spaces in a way where different voices have equal rights and equal say and are able to contribute to what they want on how the internet to be. And I think that lived experience that I think also, that Medha also mentioned is really critical. I think the last piece I’m gonna say is just in terms of ensuring a multilingual internet. I think that’s quite important in terms of that. And that’s a huge contribution of both the technical community as well as the private sector, that if the internet, and I think Medha also talked about the fact that 90% of the web is used, but if you see the websites on the world of the internet, it’s majority English. And that is also a huge problem in terms of access and the kind of content we’re designing and having the communities properly represented online. But at the same time, we also have to remember that now that with AI and other kinds of technologies, building a multilingual internet should not mean that we expect indigenous communities to contribute data for free. And so there’s also that power dynamic that we have to be quite cognizant of. So I hope that as we think about the implementation of the GDC and how the member states intentional about how we’re also thinking about the multi-stakeholder model, about inclusion, about space building, and about the inherent power asymmetries that are not unique to the multi-stakeholder model, that is structural asymmetries that exist. But I think we have a real opportunity as a community that to be able to build those spaces in a way so that everybody has an equal footing and an equal say and has an equal stake in these conversations. Because the internet, from where I come from, the internet is the world. And without its access, I think we fundamentally get cut off from the world. And so there is a very real stake here. And I hope as we are thinking about, as all these various stakeholders are thinking about it, that space building. Thank you.

Adeboye Adegoke: Hello, okay. Yeah, thanks. Excuse me. Thank you very much for the question and for the opportunity to contribute this conversation. My name is Adibwe Adigoke and I work for an organization called Paradigm Initiative. We work in Africa and we represent the global south community as well. I think the issue around stakeholderism within the context of global processes such as the WSIS and the GDC is a conversation that has been blocked, if not overflowed. And I think we are at the point where we need to come up with some tangible recommendations in terms of how to proceed in this conversation. I think one of the concerns that have been discussed is around the role of the IGF, for example, in implementation of the GDC, for example, whether the IGF represent a veritable platform to achieve that objective, or whether other options are to, I mean, the IGF has been that IGF is not known to be the platform that leads to actionable outcomes or tangible outcomes, which is a valid argument. But I would also argue that if it is not, if it doesn’t lead to actionable outcomes, who is to blame? Why is it so? It doesn’t lead to actionable outcome because it is not set up to lead to actionable outcome and we will make it to lead to actionable outcome if not the UN, if not the countries. We will decide to make it what it is right now. So I do think that if we do, if good reason, the reason why a lot of civil society organizations have bias for the IGF process is that it’s probably one of the few processes where civil society voices are at least visible. I mean, the point has been made about how invisible non-state actors were in the GDC negotiation, for example. So I do think that it is not enough to say the IGF doesn’t lead to actionable outcome. It’s about if we believe in multistakeholderism and if we think that IGF reflects multistakeholderism, then I think the question that should be on the table is how do we strengthen the IGF to be able to achieve or to lead to actionable outcomes? But I also think that one issue around multistakeholderism, especially from the global perspective, is that I do think that it’s about paying the deep service over the years and it has not helped us to really advance. My colleague was talking about a lot of dimensions of around marginalized voices, male, female, no dynamics and all of that. And I remember being in a room, in a panel where the moderator was introducing panelists and after he had introduced four men, he said, oh, we are gender conscious, so we also introduce a woman to join the panel. And I said, what happens a lot in a lot of processes whereby the issues that people complain about, multistakeholderism, gender balance, our response to it is tokenistic. We are not really interested in addressing the issue. And I think that is also the same thing with multistakeholderism. A lot of platform we set up to achieve multistakeholder objective are set up as a tokenistic response to the complaints. If we are more genuine about how to achieve it, I believe that we have what it takes to achieve it. And I’ll quickly, before I end, rather, some of the efforts or some of the initiatives that can help us to achieve multistakeholder outcomes. I do think that one of the challenges that multistakeholder process has is that it is not just enough that you don’t have diverse stakeholders in the room. It’s also because you don’t have equal capacity by diverse stakeholders. So even when you manage to get diverse stakeholders into the room, they cannot negotiate or discuss at the same level because they don’t have the capacity. I work for an organization that I think we are a bit privileged, coming from civil society, we’re a bit privileged to be part of organizations that do the kind of work that we do, don’t have. But I also think that what we also need to do at the multilateral level is that where we have opportunities to engage with organizations such as ours, it is not just about getting us in the room. It’s also about using us as a link between the government, between the multilateral processes and the diverse communities that we serve. So we don’t just want to be there and feel among. We want to be there knowing that we represent a whole lot of communities of people using our voice to make their opinions heard at the global stage. So I know I’ve been bashing multilateral, I’ve been bashing the UN. Now, this is also an advice to a few of us that get the chance to speak in rooms like this, to also recognize that we are not here to advance ourself. We are also here to represent the community. And we need to also create a process back home whereby we create engagement platforms where we can let the community know what kind of conversation is happening at the multilateral level, let them know how they can contribute to it. And so that when we show up here, we are not just discussing our opinion, we are discussing what our communities want us to talk about. Thank you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Boya, and thank you, Sabanas. Thank you very much for your remarks. I think they were especially very useful because you try to connect the local with the global level and try to especially also bring this input from the local level into the conversation, even though we have some conversations that are multilateral and maybe a bit more closed. While we are trying to open them up, we are also trying to create more opportunities and to create more momentum. Most are with a broad range of stakeholders at the IGF, but also outside of it. And I think that’s an example that many others could also follow. Without further ado, I will move to the last question to the panelists. It’s also a question for two of our speakers. So we’ll first introduce them and then mention the question. We have Olaf Kolkman, Executive Level Advisor and Spokesperson, and I think also Principal from the Internet Society and from the technical community. And we have Fiona Alexander here from the American University, who is also a member from the academia. And then to the question, building on what Boya and Shabana just mentioned also, how can we ensure that digital governance is not only inclusive, but also underpinned by the necessary technical expertise, leveraging the knowledge and expertise of the technical community and academia, and the lessons learned from previous processes, such as the WSIS Plus 10, but perhaps also the WSIS, the original WSIS process and the Tunis process that we had there. Olaf, I will give the floor for you.

Olaf Kolfman: I’m going to start with, I promised myself not to mention AI during this whole week, but I failed. If you train a large language model and you provide it with incomplete input, it will start to hallucinate. And I think that the multi-stakeholder mechanisms, if you do not provide all the inputs that you have at the table, the inputs that you have at the table, the output of the process will be a hallucination. Therefore, we need everybody at the table, including the technical community, which will help to produce an outcome that suits reality, so to speak, that is achievable. But also, of course, the other stakeholders, so that we’re not hallucinating about rights and about social justice issues. As a, I’m not going to call myself a representative of the technical community. I am somebody who has a technical community background. I’ve been contributing to the development of the internet for two and a half decades. I can only speak for my own organization, and there are many technical community organizations out there. First, I want to come back to, we heard how the GDC was developed, and we’ve heard that multi-stakeholderism is front and central as an output of it. However, the process itself was not a leading by example type of process with respect to multi-stakeholderism. And therefore, the question whether the GDC was a leading by example type of process with respect to multi-stakeholderism is not a leading by example type of process. And therefore, the question whether the GDC was a leading by example type of process is not a leading by example type of process. And therefore, the question whether the process or the outcome should be endorsed is one that we at least at the Internet Society answer is no, we will not endorse it. We were not part of this process. We were looking in through opaque windows and sort of guessing what was happening. At some point there was a consultation, but consultation is not multi-stakeholder engagement. It’s not a discussion. It’s not sharing what you’ve learned and improving on that outcome. And of course we understand that in a multilateral environment such as the U.N. at some points the doors close and decisions are being made, but those should be moment, not at draft one, two or whatever the draft number was. We like the outcome of the paper, the principle, the vision, and the objectives that the GDC defines and as the Internet Society again, I cannot talk for the whole community, we at least will be working towards some of these objectives, including making sure that the last people it is and probably more still are going to be connected to the Internet because that’s the basis of being able to reap the benefits of the Internet. And there again multi-stakeholderism is important because the initiatives that connect the people in the most difficult places are initiatives that are sort of local, local initiatives, community networks, innovative solutions that people build on the ground together with stakeholders that are technical and stakeholders that are interest groups, actual stakeholders. And I think that the role that the IGF structure from local to national to regional to global plays a role there. The IGF in that sense works as a norm and entrepreneur bubble up. They gain maybe formal, maybe informal consensus at the highest level and then trickle down again so that people can act locally while thinking globally. So I think that that is, for me, that is what multi-stakeholderism embodies. With respect to the role of the technical community, I have to say, and now I’m saying we, we speak a different language too. And we as technical community can, because we speak a different language, we use different acronyms than the people that are engaged with traditional governance issues. And that makes things difficult. You don’t land a technologist in this forum and accept them to be able to navigate it. NRI doesn’t mean anything to them. But if you take a policymaker and you dump them in a technical environment, TCP doesn’t mean anything to them. And I think it’s very important to be conscious about that. One of the things that I do in the Context Engineering Task Force is that we help policymakers understand that environment. We do policy programs. We expose policymakers to those groups. The ITF itself brings different communities into it to discuss issues that are relevant for society. We have a human rights and protocol research group in which we discuss those things. That doesn’t make the ITF from the global south and the global majority and doesn’t make it easy to contribute, but it is still an open forum in which people can contribute it should they have the capacity and resources, which that organization can unfortunately not offer. I know I am meandering around a few topics here, but I think that is sort of the gist of it. To get together, only then we can solve complex issues. And the technology is often an aspect of that complexity. So you need the technologists in the room. When we do that, we need to have a conscious and purposeful way of engaging. That goes two ways. And the IGF, I think, is a good forum where we exchange ideas and bring things back home so that we can implement them. Those were the three things. Thank you, Jaco.

Fiona Alexander: Apparently, I was clocked in earlier as being the fastest speaker at the IGF on Monday. So I will try to actually be much slower today. But who knows? I’m naturally a fast talker. So let me know if I get back up to that high speed again. Thanks for the invitation. It’s good. I’m happy to be here and talk about sort of this important topic. And I was sort of struck by not just the questions, but the interventions that everyone else has made. And it’s kind of the nice problem of being the last person. You get to kind of pull from what everyone else has said. So I’ll try to do that with what I’m doing as well. But the question is, how do you actually make sure that the conversations are underpinned by all the right expertise? And the only way you do that is by letting people in the room and giving them the capacity to be a meaningful peer. And as I reflect on the last year and all the work the FOC has done on things led by the ambassador and others, and what the AN has done, what I see from the New York processes this year is two processes that touched on digital issues that point to the limits and the inability of the New York UN processes to actually involve people. So not only do we have the experience of the Global Digital Compact, which several folks have talked about, we also had the experience of the UN Cybercrime Convention, where actually stakeholders were actually allowed, theoretically, to be in the room and give advice, and then were ignored for two years. So my takeaway from this past year’s experience is that the New York processes, by design and by structure, are limited in their way to involve stakeholders. And I don’t see a meaningful way to change that. I will keep saying it should change, and I will keep pushing for it to change. But the reality is those structures and systems are inherently set up not to allow that. So the way to address that going forward is to make sure FOC countries keep coordinating, make sure AN members are part of that process, FOC member states allowing other folks on their delegations, perhaps, kind of helps can address some of that. But the other, my takeaway, is that when I actually look at the final output of the GDC and I read it carefully, and I’ve been doing this work for 25 years. I was in the U.S. government for about 20 years before doing what I do now for the last five. They’re very new. Almost nothing, actually, as I read it and think about all the other things I’ve been involved in negotiating in the last 25 years. There’s a new conversation on data governance that the CSTD is doing, and luckily the CSTD actually has processes to involve people. So that’s actually a great win, I think, for us. And then there’s a new AI panel, which I’m still not sure what it’s for. But otherwise, there’s not much in the GDC that’s new. And when we talk about GDC implementation, I would offer, I think the GDC implementation is well underway, because the GDC is just reinforcing what we’re all already doing. And so while I think the conversations next year in New York are important, and clearly the resolution that will be adopted likely in December of next year about WSIS renewal and WSIS plus 20 will be pivotal, the conversation around that will inherently be intergovernmental. It will be the last quarter of next year, probably. So that means five months of next year. And I think the emphasis that we should collectively consider taking on is looking at our local and national processes. And I’m struck when Anya mentioned 178 national and regional IGFs now. And for those that weren’t involved in the beginning, the impetus for the national and regional IGFs happened because the UK stakeholders went home after the first IGF in Greece and said, oh, we should do one of these at home. There was nothing in the global IGF that said go forth and do this. There was nothing that anybody said you should do this. It was people from the UK, I don’t know, at some point. And they came back and they said, we should do this in our country. And that then spurred everybody else to take this on and do that around. And now 20 years later, you have 178 NRIs, local, national, regional, youth, whatever it may be. And that’s a pretty inspiring thing to think about. And 20 years later, we got to that. And, again, this gets back to my suggestion for going forward, which is, yes, we have to engage in New York and monitor in the way that we can. But GDC implementation is not something that needs to start. It’s already happened or is ongoing. And I think if we start thinking of it that way, then we can go back to focusing on what’s actually important, which is how do we actually involve and participate and solve these problems where we have structures to participate. When I think back to 20 years ago and even looking at the ITU or UNESCO, those groups were not particularly open and inclusive. And I’m not suggesting that they’re perfect now, but they’ve made great strides. So I think that the operating agencies of the UN, the executing agencies of the UN, whether it’s an IGF, which I would include in that, or whether it’s a WSIS forum, or whether it’s a UNESCO, or whether it’s an ITU, whether it’s these other IGFs that are outside the process, whether it’s an ICANN or an IETF, those processes all have mechanisms and those processes are making best efforts. So I think it’s time for us to go back and engaging in doing those things, not in a performative way, as you suggested in some cases, but actually undertaking that. And that’s where I think we need to shift our focus. Because I think the New York exercise and processes of this year have just reinforced for me that the New York processes aren’t going to ever solve our problems, because by design they’re going to be multilateral. We can keep pushing, we can keep demanding access, and we can keep working with FOC and other partner governments to make things better, but I think we’re going to hit a wall repeatedly over and over. And I really think that we need to focus on the other parts of the ecosystem and the WSIS ecosystem as we know it. That’s kind of my takeaway from this week, especially as I listen to the OSET Secretariat attempt to answer questions – I’m sorry, the flipper’s already gone – about how they’re going to go forward, and they don’t know still. And I think that just speaks to the lack of – even if they wanted to – the lack of opportunity in a meaningful way.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Piona, and thank you, Olaf, for your comments. And I’m very glad that both the national and regional initiatives and the transmission control protocol have been mentioned now, so that we can put in our pocket. And I’m also actually glad that you mentioned New York versus local versus national, and I think when we are engaging with the WSIS process, but also broader internet governance, that would speak to sort of double engagement, where we both try to meaningfully engage with these processes that are in New York or in Geneva and that are more multilateral-based, and trying to ensure that these are not too detailed, but that they are creating an enabling environment for those more locally-based and nationally-based initiatives. Because we don’t need to have all the details in New York. We can have general principles, we can have more general language, but that language has to be enabling for all those other initiatives. And I think on the other hand, we have to make sure that we have to engage with our stakeholders at home and within our own smaller or bigger circles of influence. So we have a few more minutes. We have, I think, about eight minutes for questions, and then we’ll have another round for all the speakers to give their last takeaway in about one or two sentences. So let me see, do we have any questions in the room or online? No? Okay. Because there are two comments online, but I don’t know if they are. Okay. If we don’t have any questions in the room or online, I think that just means that we have more time for our panel. Oh, we do. Yeah. More comments than questions, but very useful. Yeah. If we don’t have any questions online or in the room, I think we are going to go to our speakers for their final words. And I’m going to have the same order as we did before, except that, of course, Philippe was left. One second. So that means we will go to Rasmus for your final remarks.

Rasmus Lumi: Okay. So thank you. Is that 30 seconds now or a bit more? Okay. Yeah. So just to comment on a few, just to say that I very much agree that a lot is happening here and there and everywhere, except for one thing. And that is that there is a lot going on. And just to say that I very much agree that a lot is happening here and there and everywhere, except for New York in terms of multi-stakeholderism. So I think you’re quite right that the mindset in New York is very multilateral. It is very difficult to have a different type of access there. So I think the way we have been working in the FOC and in other fora is the right way to go in order to actually be able to get some input into the government’s thinking in order for them to carry it over then to the discussions in New York. I also think that it is important to work a lot on the national level, because, well, as it is said, all foreign policy is also domestic. So it means that a lot can be done and have to be done on the national level so that the governments will then appear on the international arena already with the necessary input into the civil society and so on in what they have gotten from their own country. It is obvious that it is not the same for every country and it is not even possible in every country, but at least this is the approach that should be tried everywhere by trying to show the governments that where their interest may lie in being inclusive in these processes. I also wanted to agree very much with the point that actually I just omitted in the beginning to make it later that we, even as a government, we also encourage our other government members in their delegations wherever possible in these discussions in order to make it more easy to have the multi-stakeholder approach working on the international level. So very much agreed with this point. And then maybe finally just to say that we very well recognize as a government that multilateral formats are not sufficient to handle all those questions and cannot everything alone with regard to discussions related to Internet governance and digital technologies and therefore we do need an inclusive approach. And the question is what is the best way of achieving it and one here in the IGF, we can say that this is exactly why we believe that IGF needs to be strengthened. It’s very important to pay attention to this when the mandate renewal for the IGF will come to discussion and we very much support the stronger Internet governance forum and its bottom up way. This is why I also mentioned in the beginning that we should put in more effort in making those existing multi-stakeholder formats work instead of trying to create new ones that might make things more complex. Thank you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you Rasmus and I think you almost stuck to the 30 seconds.

Anja Gengo: Thank you very much. I certainly would like to say that I do understand that sometimes maybe there is a concern or even frustration that we are slower in terms of our good action and policy with respect to the rapid development of digital technologies. But I also think that we should not underestimate everything that has been done in the past 20 years because it’s really remarkable. And that is this whole ecosystem that we established of various concept of local IGFs just because it’s the closest to us and I think it’s much easier to see the change on the ground through the national IGFs rather than through a global IGF because of the complexity. For instance, we are now working with more resources and more mechanisms at our disposal. So that’s I think an encouraging factor. Where we need to focus our attention more, I completely agree with Fiona and other colleagues who mentioned, is really the capacity development. We are not anymore in this narrative where we have four stakeholder groups represented by numbers. We have to look at that in a more nuanced way through maybe a multidisciplinary lens. We have been seeing that through the IGFs. Our statistics are always very nice in that sense. You are exactly seeing from which countries, for example, we have lower participation, especially looking, for example, in the past 10 years. We are also seeing which disciplines are missing in this discourse, especially as the technologies are becoming so integrated that it’s not anymore exclusive, for example, to the car industry or health sector to be part of these discussions. It’s not much needed in these areas. So that’s what I think, that now evolving from multistakeholder to multidisciplinary, having all disciplines involved with us is very important. That’s why this IGF, for example, legislators, parliamentarians, but also very much put emphasis on working more with the private sector of various backgrounds and with the judiciary as courts, prosecutors, the court system overall, is coming up with decisions that are reflecting all of us, one way or another, and that’s why it’s important to have them understand, first of all, what are they deciding against before any wrong decisions are made, which have long-term consequences on our human rights, first of all. Thank you very much.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Anja, and I will give it straight to Emilio.

Emilar Gandhi: I think, really, a good conversation. So, for me, just in terms of closing remarks, the IGF is an important space, but also, more importantly, the FOC, I think, is really, really an important space for us, this private sector, and I’m sure civil society. I was in civil society before I participated in FOC, and it was really important then, as it is important now. not only I think for pushing diplomacy or inter-goals, but it’s also an important space where we can all sit around the table, not only for change, but for relationship building, for trust building, particularly from an industry perspective, I also think it’s important not only as a space for, you know, like right now, creating statements or from a substance perspective, but it’s also important as an example of an inclusive process. It’s important and I… Second. Oh, it’s dead, sorry. It’s on, okay. Sorry, the mic, yeah. But, you know, but also the FOC is important, I think as a process, you know, is an exemplary process that we can all learn from, and I hope there will still be continued support for the Secretariat, who are also, you know, a lot of the work behind the scenes to support all the work that FOC and the AN is doing, and that cannot happen, and we cannot talk about inclusion and digital future without actually putting resources where our mouth is, so I thank you to everyone.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Indra, I’ll give it straight to Helen for your closing remarks.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thank you, Jakob. Thank you all for your insightful interventions. I think for us, for the majority, I think there were two main takeaways from the last year. And I see this being reflected also in this particular conversation, one is really the power of local networks, and whether that is national or governmental communities, and really, I think, while we cannot always influence all the purposes in New York, like Fiona said, we do have tremendous structures and networks built on at the local level and at the national level, and I think there’s a real opportunity to be able to engage with those networks to then be able to then influence international processes. And I completely agree with Rasmus and Fiona in terms of decentralizing these conversations as much as possible, and ensuring that stakeholders at that level, whether it’s governments, their private sector, civil society, authorities, are able to participate in a meaningful way, and then bring it up to the international level. And the second is, as we were participating in the last couple of years, but also particularly the last year, I think the issue of capacity really came up, and I think we also alluded to it, that even when we have access to these spaces, there’s a gap in capacity, so then we are unable to negotiate the way we would like to, and not all of us come from countries and have governments who are willing to engage with civil society, and so we also have to engage in very different ways and using very creative ways. And so that capacity piece is really critical, so I hope as we get into the future, the next few years, particularly next year, there’s serious consideration about how we’re building capacity of various stakeholders, including governments, in the global majority, to be able to come to these forums with a collective bargaining power, because I think that’s what’s gonna make all the difference when we think about the future of the internet.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, and we have three speakers left and a few minutes only, so I’ll ask you to keep it brief.

Adeboye Adegoke: All right, thank you. I think it’s helpful that the point about capacity has been made over and over again, but I’ll just use the opportunity of the last remark to, again, spotlight the work of the FOC, because I think the FOC has served as some sort of buffer for filling the gap around multi-stakeholder involvement. I personally consider the FOC as a very strategic coalition that has provided a platform for, especially through the advisory network, for a lot of expertise that exists outside of government to engage in global processes. I am a beneficiary of that, for example, so I think that’s very important. So this is commendation for the FOC, and I trust that with the leadership of the government of Estonia, that will continue to be the case as well. So I also just think that strategic initiatives such as the FOC’s like that, we should also to know that they complete in buffering some of the gaps that we have identified during this conversation. Thank you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Borja, and to Olaf.

Olaf Kolfman: Much has been said. I would underline the need for a bottom-up involvement, and I saw a good example this week, our Tanzania chapter, the ISOC chapter in Tanzania, and to organize a WSIS PrEP meeting. And I think that is the type of initiative that we should see basically everywhere, local communities self-organizing, going to their government and basically prepping this stuff.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Olaf. And then we have our final speaker. Of course, some of us know that the last remarks are best remembered, so I think we’re all getting pressure on each other. So I’m going to let you do that.

Fiona Alexander: Slow and conscious of time and not too much pressure. I think just agreeing with all the closing remarks everyone else has said, let’s make that slow. And I would just encourage us as we go forward as FOC and FOCAN, we really think strategically for next year about how best to leverage the collaborative nature that we have. And I think at least from my perspective, I think there’s two big priorities for next year for WSIS 20, and that’s obviously the renewal of the IGF. But I think it’s really time that we try to focus on getting some sustained funding for the IGF so that the IGF is not strangers to give them the money and actually give them some real money in the budget. So I think those would be my two big priority items for WSIS 20 next year.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you very much. Thank you to our speakers. Thank you to our audience. And I wish you a very nice day. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach

Ernst Noorman

Filippo Pierozzi

Rasmus Lumi

Anja Gengo

Emilar Gandhi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Olaf Kolfman

Fiona Alexander

Multi-stakeholder approach is crucial for addressing complex digital issues

GDC implementation should involve multi-stakeholder engagement

IGF serves as an inclusive space for dialogue on digital policy issues

Global majority voices need to be engaged in shaping governance frameworks

All speakers emphasized the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in addressing digital governance issues and implementing the Global Digital Compact.

Need for capacity building

Rasmus Lumi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Fiona Alexander

Capacity building is needed for stakeholders to engage effectively

FOC serves as a platform to build capacity and expertise

Sustained funding is needed to strengthen IGF’s capacity

Multiple speakers highlighted the importance of capacity building to enable effective participation in digital governance discussions, particularly for stakeholders from the global majority.

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers emphasized the importance of local and national processes in implementing digital governance principles and engaging stakeholders effectively.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Olaf Kolfman

Local and national processes are key for implementing GDC principles

Bottom-up involvement and local initiatives are important

These speakers highlighted the importance of aligning digital governance with human rights principles and ensuring diverse voices are included in shaping these frameworks.

Rasmus Lumi

Emilar Gandhi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

FOC can play a role in GDC implementation aligned with human rights

Private sector has a role in contributing to rights-respecting digital future

Global majority voices need to be engaged in shaping governance frameworks

Unexpected Consensus

Limitations of UN processes in New York

Fiona Alexander

Rasmus Lumi

New York UN processes have limited ability to involve stakeholders meaningfully

There was an unexpected consensus on the limitations of UN processes in New York to meaningfully involve stakeholders, with both government and academic representatives acknowledging this challenge.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches, the need for capacity building, the significance of local and national processes, and the alignment of digital governance with human rights principles.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among speakers on the importance of inclusive and rights-respecting digital governance. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for collaborative efforts in implementing the Global Digital Compact and strengthening multi-stakeholder processes in digital governance.

Different Viewpoints

Effectiveness of New York UN processes in involving stakeholders

Filippo Pierozzi

Fiona Alexander

GDC implementation should involve multi-stakeholder engagement

New York UN processes have limited ability to involve stakeholders meaningfully

While Pierozzi emphasizes the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in GDC implementation, Alexander argues that New York UN processes are inherently limited in their ability to meaningfully involve stakeholders.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the effectiveness of UN processes in New York for stakeholder engagement and the best approaches for implementing the Global Digital Compact.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement and the need for inclusive digital governance. The differences mainly lie in the specific approaches and emphasis on different aspects of implementation. This suggests a general consensus on the overall goals, which could facilitate collaborative efforts in addressing digital governance challenges.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of implementing the GDC, but differ on the approach. Lumi emphasizes the role of FOC in implementation, while Alexander suggests implementation is already happening through existing initiatives.

Rasmus Lumi

Fiona Alexander

FOC can play a role in GDC implementation aligned with human rights

GDC implementation is already underway through existing initiatives

Both speakers recognize the importance of the IGF, but while Gengo focuses on its role as an inclusive dialogue space, Alexander emphasizes the need for sustained funding to strengthen its capacity.

Anja Gengo

Fiona Alexander

IGF serves as an inclusive space for dialogue on digital policy issues

Sustained funding is needed to strengthen IGF’s capacity

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers emphasized the importance of local and national processes in implementing digital governance principles and engaging stakeholders effectively.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Olaf Kolfman

Local and national processes are key for implementing GDC principles

Bottom-up involvement and local initiatives are important

These speakers highlighted the importance of aligning digital governance with human rights principles and ensuring diverse voices are included in shaping these frameworks.

Rasmus Lumi

Emilar Gandhi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

FOC can play a role in GDC implementation aligned with human rights

Private sector has a role in contributing to rights-respecting digital future

Global majority voices need to be engaged in shaping governance frameworks

Key Takeaways

Multi-stakeholder engagement is crucial for effective and inclusive digital governance

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) implementation should involve diverse stakeholders

Local and national processes are key for implementing global digital governance principles

Capacity building is needed to enable meaningful participation from all stakeholders

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) serves as an important inclusive space for dialogue

New York-based UN processes have limitations in involving stakeholders meaningfully

Technical expertise is necessary to underpin digital governance discussions

Resolutions and Action Items

FOC to continue supporting multi-stakeholder engagement in digital governance

Stakeholders encouraged to engage in local and national digital governance processes

Focus on renewing and strengthening the IGF mandate in upcoming WSIS+20 review

Work towards securing sustained funding for the IGF

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively integrate multi-stakeholder input into New York-based UN processes

Balancing multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches in global digital governance

Addressing power asymmetries within multi-stakeholder processes

How to ensure meaningful participation from marginalized and underrepresented groups

Suggested Compromises

Using FOC and other platforms to channel multi-stakeholder input into intergovernmental processes

Focusing on general principles in global frameworks while allowing for local implementation

Governments including diverse stakeholders in their delegations to international forums

The GDC sets out a vision for digital cooperation built on principles ingrained in sustainable development and human rights, both mutually dependent and reinforcing, as well as for global internet and AI governance.

speaker

Ernst Noorman

reason

This comment frames the Global Digital Compact as integrating human rights, sustainable development, and technology governance in an interconnected way. It sets the tone for discussing digital governance as a holistic issue.

impact

It established key themes of human rights, sustainability, and inclusive governance that were echoed throughout the rest of the discussion by multiple speakers.

Even when we are in these kinds of spaces, and I think that’s where the technical community, the private sector, governments have a tremendous role to play in terms of how do we ensure that when groups have access to international spaces, are sitting on these tables, they’re active.

speaker

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

reason

This comment highlights the importance of not just nominal inclusion, but meaningful participation of diverse stakeholders in governance processes.

impact

It shifted the conversation to focus more on capacity building and empowerment of stakeholders, rather than just formal inclusion. Several subsequent speakers emphasized the need for capacity building.

If you train a large language model and you provide it with incomplete input, it will start to hallucinate. And I think that the multi-stakeholder mechanisms, if you do not provide all the inputs that you have at the table, the output of the process will be a hallucination.

speaker

Olaf Kolfman

reason

This analogy creatively illustrates the importance of diverse stakeholder input for effective governance.

impact

It reinforced the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches and technical expertise in a memorable way, influencing subsequent comments on inclusive processes.

My takeaway from this past year’s experience is that the New York processes, by design and by structure, are limited in their way to involve stakeholders. And I don’t see a meaningful way to change that.

speaker

Fiona Alexander

reason

This comment provides a critical perspective on the limitations of UN processes for multi-stakeholder engagement.

impact

It sparked discussion about alternative approaches and the importance of local and national initiatives, shifting focus away from solely UN-centered processes.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by emphasizing the interconnected nature of digital governance issues, the need for meaningful participation beyond formal inclusion, the critical importance of diverse stakeholder input, and the limitations of existing international processes. They collectively steered the conversation towards exploring more inclusive, bottom-up approaches to digital governance that leverage local and national initiatives alongside international efforts.

How can the implementation of the Global Digital Compact be made more multi-stakeholder in nature?

speaker

Filippo Pierozzi

explanation

This is important to ensure that the implementation process is inclusive and reflects diverse perspectives, despite the intergovernmental nature of the GDC.

How can we strengthen the IGF to make it more effective in producing actionable outcomes?

speaker

Adeboye Adegoke

explanation

This is crucial for enhancing the IGF’s role in shaping internet governance and ensuring it leads to concrete results.

How can we build capacity among diverse stakeholders, especially those from the global majority, to participate effectively in international digital governance processes?

speaker

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya and Adeboye Adegoke

explanation

This is essential for ensuring meaningful participation from all regions and stakeholder groups in shaping the future of the internet.

How can we ensure sustained funding for the IGF?

speaker

Fiona Alexander

explanation

This is important for the long-term stability and effectiveness of the IGF as a key platform for internet governance discussions.

How can we evolve from a multi-stakeholder to a multi-disciplinary approach in internet governance discussions?

speaker

Anja Gengo

explanation

This is important to ensure that all relevant disciplines are involved in shaping internet governance, given the increasing integration of digital technologies across various sectors.

How can we better leverage local and national initiatives to influence international internet governance processes?

speaker

Rasmus Lumi and Fiona Alexander

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring that global governance reflects diverse local and national perspectives and experiences.

Summary

This discussion focused on incorporating human rights considerations into technical standards for emerging technologies, particularly in the context of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital governance. Participants from various sectors, including government, civil society, and international organizations, emphasized the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in developing standards that respect human rights.

Key points included the need to break down silos between human rights experts and technical communities, and the challenges of involving diverse stakeholders in the standard-setting process. Speakers highlighted the importance of considering human rights from the inception of new technologies, rather than as an afterthought. The discussion touched on specific issues such as linguistic diversity in AI development, privacy concerns, and the potential for discrimination in AI systems.

Participants stressed the financial and resource challenges faced by civil society organizations and small enterprises in participating in standards development processes. They called for more accessible ways to contribute to these discussions, such as through workshops and targeted input opportunities. The role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in facilitating these conversations was emphasized.

The discussion also addressed the responsibilities of tech companies in respecting human rights, with mention of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Speakers noted the importance of human rights due diligence in both company operations and standard-setting organizations. The Global Digital Compact was highlighted as a key framework for advancing human rights in technical standards.

Overall, the discussion underscored the critical need for collaboration between technical experts, human rights advocates, governments, and industry to ensure that emerging technologies and their governing standards protect and promote human rights.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of incorporating human rights considerations into technical standards for emerging technologies

– Challenges in involving diverse stakeholders, especially civil society and marginalized groups, in standards development processes

– The need for a multi-stakeholder approach and breaking down silos between technical and human rights communities

– Balancing innovation with ethical considerations and human rights protections

– The role of governments, companies, and international organizations in promoting human rights-aligned standards

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to explore how human rights principles can be better integrated into technical standards for digital technologies, and to identify challenges and potential solutions for making standards development processes more inclusive and rights-respecting.

Tone:

The tone was largely collaborative and solution-oriented. Speakers approached the topic from different perspectives but shared a common interest in improving standards processes. The tone became more urgent when discussing the need for concrete actions and greater civil society involvement. Overall, there was a sense of cautious optimism about the potential for positive change if stakeholders work together effectively.

Speakers

– Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Consultant, OHCHR

– Olivier Alais: Program Coordinator, ITU

– Marek Janovský: First Secretary for Cyber Diplomacy at the Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic in Geneva

– Shirani De Clercq: Expertise France Economist, seconded at the Saudi Ministry of Digital Technology

– Yoo Jin Kim: Representative from OHCHR

– Gbenga Sesan: Executive Director of Paradigm Initiative

– Florian Ostmann: Director of Innovation at Alan Turing Institute

Additional speakers:

– Mizna Tregi: Representative for the Saudi Green Building Forum

Incorporating Human Rights into Technical Standards: A Multi-Stakeholder Approach

This discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Riyadh focused on the critical need to incorporate human rights considerations into technical standards for emerging technologies, particularly in the context of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital governance. Participants from various sectors, including government, civil society, and international organisations, emphasised the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in developing standards that respect human rights.

Key Themes and Arguments:

1. Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Breaking Silos

Participants stressed the necessity of involving diverse stakeholders in the development of technical standards. Dhevy Sivaprakasam, the moderator, highlighted the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to include diverse perspectives. Marek Janovský emphasized the importance of breaking silos between human rights experts and technical bodies, and stressed the government’s role in fostering dialogue and outreach, particularly in including youth and emerging tech companies.

Gbenga Sesan, Executive Director of Paradigm Initiative, emphasised civil society’s role in bringing user experiences to standards discussions. Olivier Alais, representing the ITU, underscored the need for collaboration between public, private, and civil society sectors, and mentioned the Freedom Online Coalition’s joint statement linking technical standards and human rights.

2. Balancing Innovation with Human Rights Considerations

The discussion explored the challenge of integrating human rights considerations into technical standards without impeding innovation. Shirani De Clercq, an economist from Expertise France, highlighted the tension between economic objectives and ethical principles in AI development. She also discussed Saudi Arabia’s context, mentioning the AI ethics principles issued by SADAYA and the AI Adoption Framework.

Gbenga Sesan argued that considering human rights and user experiences can actually promote innovation by improving services and experiences. He also raised the issue of internet shutdowns and their impact on human rights.

3. Challenges in Implementation

Several speakers highlighted practical challenges in implementing human rights-based standards. Financial and resource constraints for inclusive participation were noted by audience members and speakers alike. Florian Ostmann emphasised the need for lowering barriers to participation in standards development, particularly for civil society and small and medium enterprises (SMEs). He also stressed the importance of considering the use of technology, not just the properties of systems.

Yoo Jin Kim, representing OHCHR, stressed the importance of human rights due diligence by companies and standards bodies. Kim also highlighted the critical risks to human rights from emerging technologies, particularly noting the lack of transparency in AI development and use. She mentioned the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and its relevance to human rights in technical standards.

4. Specific Concerns and Examples

Shirani De Clercq raised an important point about linguistic diversity in AI development, noting that while 7% of internet users are native Arabic speakers, only 0.8% of internet content is in Arabic. She also mentioned the Gaia Accelerator project in Saudi Arabia and discussed the PDLP (Saudi Arabia’s equivalent to GDPR) and its implications for data privacy.

Marek Janovský highlighted the challenges of neuroscience and brain-related technologies. An audience member raised concerns about blockchain standards making.

Florian Ostmann provided specific examples of human rights implications of AI, such as bias in recruitment algorithms and the use of AI in law enforcement.

Conclusion and Future Directions:

The discussion underscored the critical need for collaboration between technical experts, human rights advocates, governments, and industry to ensure that emerging technologies and their governing standards protect and promote human rights. While there was general consensus on the importance of incorporating human rights into technical standards, the practical challenges of implementation remain significant.

Key takeaways included the need to lower barriers for participation in standards development processes, especially for civil society and SMEs, the importance of agile methodology in implementing standards, and the need to consider both the properties and use of technology in standards development.

Unresolved issues include creating scalable models for integrating human rights into technical standards without slowing innovation, addressing financial and resource constraints that limit participation, and effectively balancing economic objectives with ethical principles in standards development.

The discussion highlighted the complexity of the challenge but also demonstrated a growing recognition of the interconnectedness between technical standards and human rights. This suggests a potential shift towards more inclusive and rights-based approaches in technology development and governance, though significant work remains to be done to realise this vision.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Okay, so good afternoon in Riyadh and good morning, good night, wherever everyone is. We’re happy to introduce you all to the session today on building trust with technical standards and human rights. We all recognize in this IGF on the multi-stakeholder approach that there is a real need to have a rights-based approach to technical standards. And here we have today, and we’re very happy to introduce quite a number of good experts in the room from civil society, government, and corporate perspective as well. I will now just hand over to Olivier to give an initial introduction.

Olivier Alais: Thanks a lot and good afternoon and good morning to all colleagues and friends. So it’s a great honor to welcome you to this important session. So it’s co-organized by Czech Republic, ITU, and OHCHR. And today we come together to address critical questions and how can we include human rights in technical standards for emerging technologies to build trust in our digital future. At ITU, we understand that technical standards are the invisible foundation of our connected world and traditionally standards have been focused on two goals, technical accuracy and commercial success. And today we must add a third essential dimension, the human rights perspective. So this new approach requires us to ask important questions. It’s about how to protect privacy and data, how to ensure freedom of expression and access to information, how do we guarantee non-discrimination and inclusivity. So addressing this question, it’s vital to build a trust that ensures emerging technologies are widely adopted. and serve everyone. So what does this matter now? Technology like AI, Internet of Things, Metaverse, offer incredible opportunities, but they also create challenges. And without clear guidance, technology can unintentionally harm the very rights it aims to protect. That’s why collaboration is so important, and this type of panel is very important. For example, the Freedom Online Coalition delivered recently its first joint statement explicitly linking technical standards and human rights. The recent IT resolution on Metaverse is a milestone, it was two months ago. It is the first to explicitly reference human rights. Our partnership with OHCHR is also key, and with human rights specialists, and to the commitment to implement the Global Digital Compact by turning human rights principles into technical guidance. So thanks a lot

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: for your attention. I look forward to this conversation and to working together to ensure technology serves humanity’s best interests. So I’m giving you back the floor. Thank you. Thanks so much, Olivier. And to speak to these issues, we have five different speakers today, and I’m very happy to introduce them. Marek Janowski, First Secretary for Cyber Diplomacy at the Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic in Geneva, joining us online. Shirani de Klerk, Expertise France Economist, seconded at the Saudi Ministry of Digital Technology, on site next to me. Yujin Kim, my colleague from OHHR in Geneva, joining us online as well. Thanks, Yujin, for joining. And Benga Sasan, Executive Director of Paradigm Initiative on my right. And finally, but not last, Florian Osman, Director of Innovation at Alan Turing Institute, who’s also joining us online. So let’s kick off the discussion, starting off with Marek. So the first question we wanted to throw to you, just to hear your thoughts, is how can international cyber diplomacy efforts promote the inclusion of people with disabilities in the public sector? And we’ll start with you, Marek. Sure. So, of human rights in the development of technical standards for emerging technologies.

Marek Janovský: Hello everybody. I hope you can hear me. Greetings from Geneva from the Czech Permanent Mission. I’m glad to be here with you with the expert community. I will try to be brief. I hope not to exceed much time. So if I am too long, please don’t hesitate to stop me. I’ve got a few points and some questions. So to your question, actually the diplomatic cyber community, what we can do actually is to keep raising of our awareness to these matters. These matters of linking human rights and the development of the standards is not a self-standing issue. It’s actually linked to, let’s say, a broader international relations and how new and emerging technologies change these international relations. So we’re not talking about a vacuum. It’s a link. It’s a change of, let’s say, environment that we live in as humans and as societies. So that is one of the reasons why I think the diplomatic communities globally start to take interest and raising interest in these matters. So just by way of introduction, I wanted to just point on that. I think the first thing I would like to mention is the attention we need to pay to the whole cycle of new emerging technologies, of their development. What we’re working on here with ITU specifically and the UIC HR colleagues is one of the points in the cycle. It’s standard development, standardization, but there is also inception. There’s also, you know, the youth development. and also disposal of technologies that the other phases that need to be, let’s say, heated. And so we’re now talking to you, to the expert audience, I think that you have experience with the other ones as well. The third element I’d like to mention is that it’s important for us, for diplomatic cyber community, or let’s say new tech people working in diplomacy, is to try to break the silos between specifically the experts working on human rights, such as the High Commissioner’s office in Geneva or elsewhere as well, and specific bodies such as ITU or ISO or IEC, etc. or IEEE. It’s important that the ITU is not the only game in the town, and there are others that can join the efforts, and need to join the efforts in order for the tech and the digital transformation to be a success. Another point I would like to mention is the importance of youth. I’d like to actually just point out that young people, they’re actually even in Riyadh now, NGOs and others, they make a crucial part in this, so I’ll be actually quite happy to hear from them what they think about this important link. Maybe one of the other points is, and this is the question I wanted to basically raise, is how the IGF could help to actually advance this. Because the diplomatic community is one thing, but we need a wholesale approach to a change of paradigm in how we actually perceive the development and use of the new and emerging technologies. I think this is key that not only diplomatic communities, but others join in in this effort and, you know, each of us will play a role in making you know this a success because I don’t think that once we decided to follow this path of digital transformation. We don’t have much choice, but to try to make it safe and human rights based. Thank you very much.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Thank you very much. There was a really good overview actually of the multi stakeholder approach and maybe also zooming down now to the Saudi Arabia experience like to ask Shirani specifically on the work that you’ve been doing in Riyadh concerning non discrimination. What are the use cases illustrating the impact of technology biases in Saudi Arabia and what solutions have you seen being implemented here to address those challenges.

Shirani De Clercq: Thanks again for inviting me in this great panel. In our ministry, in the ministry where I work in, we have a technology foresight department. For their monthly meeting, someone in their team tests the latest apps on the market. And these days, mostly the AI, Gen AI, and presents its pros and cons during a meeting. One occurring theme that has been observed is the biases within these applications. A simple example, when you ask a Gen AI model to depict a traditional Saudi family, you sometimes end up having a Saudi woman with a men’s tube. We also have other stereotypes, but today just stick on to this image issue. Is it really a big deal to be represented, falsely misrepresented? In the digital world, an entire minority could be falsely represented or even erased. Erased from, for example, an AI assisted recruitment process. It could become a big issue in the long run. So bias in AI systems often stems from how data is collected and how models are trained. But improving the fairness of AI requires more than just diversifying the data sets. While ensuring the data reflects the full range of appearance and cultural practice in Saudi Arabia is crucial, we must also design AI systems that don’t automatically discard what they deem unusual. So equally important is the composition of the development team. Inclusive teams representing various backgrounds and experiences are more likely to recognize blind spots and feed algorithms with data that genuinely reflects their populations. For more UN videos visit www.un.org So, what do we do in these situations? In 2023, the Saudi Data and AI Authority, which is SADAYA, issued an AI ethics principle aimed at guiding organizations in the responsible use of their technologies. And recently, in September 2024, SADAYA issued the AI Adaption Framework designed in a use-case-driven methodology, a very flexible approach. There’s another issue on language. Have you ever heard of the principle of linguistic relativity? So it says that the way people think of the world is influenced directly by the language that people use to talk about it. While 7% of internet users are Arabic as its native speakers, only 0.8% of internet content is in Arabic. So a model trained on modern standard Arabic fails to understand regional dialects. So research shows that customizing models to local language variations significantly improves the accuracy. For example, ArabBERT, an Arabic-focused language model, boosts dialect identification accuracy from about 84% to 92% simply by incorporating more dialect-specific data. In doing so, we not only improve technology’s effectiveness but also ensure that the digital world genuinely represents Saudi linguistic and cultural richness. So it’s very important for us.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Yeah, now switching gears to also Yujin, maybe you could speak a bit more to what are the critical risks that OHHR sees emerging from these technologies on a broader level. We heard Shirani speak to the Saudi Arabian perspective and more maybe the global trends that we’ve been observing from the office. Thank you.

Yoo Jin Kim: Thanks so much and thank you. for this question. It’s great to see some familiar faces online and on site. So to start, I would mention again, our reports that we had published last year on the relationship between human rights and technical standards in relation to digital technologies. So to recap, you know, on one hand, the report showed that, you know, how technical standards are relevant to the enjoyment of human rights. For instance, stressing that many standards define processes and actions that directly respond to certain human rights related concerns. So to be more concrete, some examples include standards on privacy by design, privacy risk assessment, management, perhaps accessibility standards on the web, for example, which allow people with impaired vision to navigate and access the internet. So the ways in which these standards that I’ve mentioned, as an example, are the way they’re designed are important to protecting the right to privacy, for example, freedom of expression and association, the right to life, in essence, across the whole spectrum of human rights, although I’ve only listed just a few rights here. And let’s look at a few more recent examples. The Internet Engineering Task Force has done a great amount of work around this. And right now, they’re currently discussing an internet protocol related to air tags, and gender violence. So the working group on DULT, DULT stands for Detecting Unwanted Location Trackers Accessory Protocol. So this protocol is being discussed in ITF to protect people against being unknowingly tracked. And it’s discussing a real issue in a way, you know, that tackles gender domestic violence cases, to create a standard that allows the AirTags to communicate with Bluetooth devices, so that the person being tracked can detect and discover the hidden tag. So, and on the other side, I would say our report showed that the risks related to the standards development, for example, standards that define technical features that are necessary for digital infrastructures functioning, have particular relevance for human rights, as we have seen the transmission control protocol and HTTP. So in this case, the weakness or lack thereof, or lack of inscription in these protocols can facilitate mass surveillance programs that systematically undermine the right to privacy, and facilitate targeted surveillance both by the state and by non-state actors. So there have, of course, been some really important resolutions recently from the UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council, and our reports, of course, on human rights and technical standards. But other reports that we have issued, for example, on internet shutdowns, the rights of privacy in the digital age, stress the risks that relate to new and emerging technologies. And other reports, such as the use of AI in border management by law enforcement, which gets into the use of AI, for example, facial recognition technologies, real-time and disproportionate impacts that it has. And I think one important thing to note is the lack of transparency, which has really been the undertone in the development and design and the use of AI. And this really the lack of transparency and thus the lack of accountability has really led to some harm and increased risks to human rights. And let me just conclude now that while technical standards can have an important role in creating conditions that are conducive to exercising human rights, clearly there are cases and risks posed to human rights by the way human rights are, by the way standards are designed, but also the way they are deployed. So this is why we really need to put human rights at the center and front of digital technologies and the standards that underpin them. And we have to make sure that standard setting processes really rest on multi-stakeholder principles and become as transparent, inclusive, and open as possible.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Thank you. And yeah, so we heard from both Yujin and Shirani and also Marek on the importance of having voices from marginalized communities and minorities also involved in this process. And Marek mentioned also a change in paradigm, so it’s good to have someone from paradigm initiative. I’m sure you heard that many times. So Venga, how can civil society organizations influence the technical standard setting processes and include voices that traditionally excluded in

Gbenga Sesan: the room? Thank you. I definitely heard paradigm mentioned and I’ve been hearing that all week, so that’s great. It’s good to know that our brand is spreading. Just very quick things, and I’ve organized my response in under five P’s because then it makes it easier to remember. And the first is prioritization. It’s important for civil society to prioritize participation in conversations around technical standards. And I say that because for many years, even myself and a few colleagues had conversations around, is it worth it? Because it’s expensive to participate and you need to decide. And that is where you begin to ask yourself the question that what is the connection between human rights and these technical standards? And then thanks to the Office of the High Commission, your report and some of the conversations we’ve had have helped in terms of painting that picture that if you don’t have the conversations at the design stage and the standards are set, you will then end up with fighting the fires eventually. The second is participation, because it’s one thing to complain that there are issues, but it’s another thing to participate and to bring knowledge to the table. And I think this is really important because when you bring knowledge to the table, you may just be presenting a side of the conversation that people have not even considered at all. And we see that in our work when, for example, we have conversations with security agencies or with the judiciary, that what the knowledge we bring to the table about human rights, about digital rights, are obviously not what they discuss every day. So it’s helpful for them to see that. The third is partnership. I said earlier today in one of the sessions that we need to see the spirit of multi-stakeholderism in government delegations. It’s not just about governments being in the room and then civil society is in the room, but even the sense of government. So government is a representation of the people. So governments need to start going for technical standards conversations with civil society, with businesses that I believe they already go with, and with, of course, they don’t have a choice with the technical community, so that there’s a partnership that brings in all of these elements, which then brings me to my fourth point, which is people. Because at the end of the day, my suspicion and the reality is that the services that will use the standards are focused on markets. The market is made up of people. Markets are made up of people. So if the people are not at the center of the experience, it’s like the UX, you’re building a user experience. And I think that civil society has a unique opportunity to bring user lived experience to the table of these conversations. We were talking about internet fragmentation and we got all technical until we stepped back and said, wait a second, how does fragmentation affect the internet user? And that was very helpful. And of course, finally, is the process itself. I was glad to hear Eugene mentioned earlier, something about privacy by design. This is where we need to begin to have conversations about processes, such that anything, basically talking about human rights by design. So it’s not human rights consideration. It is a fact that human rights, because it is people focused, is at the center of the entire process. It’s at the center of the conversation that we’re having about technical standards.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Those are very important points. And I’m now going to turn to Florenta to speak about how to make that actually effective, to actually incorporate the human rights perspective into the technical. standard processes, and where you see the challenges in this. The tough question comes to you.

Florian Ostmann: Thank you very much, and thank you for the invitation. It’s great to be part of this discussion. So I’ll be speaking from the perspective of our work at the Alan Turing Institute, which is the UK’s national institute for AI, and an initiative that we set up a couple of years ago called the AI Standards Hub. I’ll say more about that later, if I get a chance. But just to say, our work is focused on AI rather than digital technologies more broadly, but I think a lot of the considerations apply more broadly as well. I think I won’t go into too much detail on why AI raises human rights implications. I think that’s already been eloquently set out by my previous colleagues on the panel. Just to illustrate, as we’ve heard, there are privacy implications. AI can have implications for physical safety, those important questions around non-discrimination, due process when AI is used in legal or administrative processes, and important questions around surveillance, just to name a few important human rights aspects. So it’s very clear that AI raises human rights questions. Now the question is, why is it important for human rights to be considered in the context of standardization for AI? I think one important thing to emphasize here is that standardization, we’ve seen over the last couple of years, is increasingly being looked at as a tool for AI governance, often through important links between regulation and standards. So in the EU context, for example, there’s a very important and direct link between the enforcement and implementation of the AI Act and the standards that are being developed at the European level. So standards aren’t just a standalone tool, but they do have important links to the broader landscape. and are considered increasingly an enabler for AI governance more broadly. And that’s why it’s important, I think, and absolutely critical, that human rights considerations are part of standardization. Otherwise, standards won’t be able to play that overall enabling role. One thing that I also want to briefly sort of emphasize or highlight is the importance to think about the use of technology rather than just properties of systems, because I think that’s an important shift to some extent if you think about traditional domains of standardization, where standards are primarily about properties and specifications for systems. That is very important in the AI context, as it is everywhere. But as we’ve heard already, some of the most critical human rights-related impacts in the AI context may be associated with the use of systems, regardless of whether their properties meet certain specifications. And so, again, that’s something where I think standardization needs to broaden its scope if standards are meant to play this broad role of governance enablers and think about the use rather than just properties of systems. Now, to the second part, what are the main challenges for including human rights expertise in standards development? I think at a high level, sort of two points. The first one is that we are dealing with two different cultures. You know, think about the standardization community and the human rights community. There are different conceptual frameworks at play, different languages and, you know, different cultures of collaborating. The second one is a simple point about simply being different communities. So the people involved in standardization traditionally aren’t, you know, are separate from the group of people who traditionally focused or have a professional focus on human rights and human rights due diligence. Now, the fact that there are these different communities means that stakeholders that have expertise in human rights and human rights due diligence are not particularly familiar in many cases with standardization as a field, and that creates obstacles for them to actively engage. It starts with the fact that the space is very complex, there’s a wide range of standards development organizations, they each have their own rules for participating, it’s difficult to understand, you know, what are the most important developments, what are the most important standards projects, and then how do I get involved in those, given that there are different rules. Secondly, obstacles around skills, so skills and knowledge about how does the standards development process work, knowledge about, you know, what are different types of standards, there’s a very common misconception, I think, around the notion of technical standards, we tend to avoid using the term technical standards, because it tends to imply, you know, the content of standards developed in organizations like the ITU ISO, by necessity is particularly technical. That is the case for some standards, it’s not the case for all standards. And that often creates misunderstandings. And then as a last point, of course, it has to be mentioned that there are important challenges around resourcing, as has already been mentioned by previous speakers as well, it’s important to recognize, I think, that think about the multi stakeholder approach to standards development, certain stakeholder groups, you know, have a business case for being involved in standard development industry, as the obvious example for that important pockets of human rights expertise, you know, are to be found outside of industries, especially in civil society space. And it’s much more difficult for civil society organizations to find resources and make the business case for being involved. That is changing. I mean, the awareness is changing, but the challenge of finding the resources remains remains the same, so far.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: So much, Florian, I think at this time, we’d like to open the discussion to the floor and check if anyone would have any questions you would like to post to our speakers here. Sorry, I think. Apologies. Um, I think yeah. maybe it’s the time of the day, but maybe we can then move on to also other questions that we had for the speakers and maybe putting Marek back online. What role do you envision that the Czech Republic plays for governments in ensuring standards align with the multi-stakeholder process and also include human rights perspective in development?

Marek Janovský: Yeah, many, many thanks again on this national perspective. I’d like to just maybe refer very quickly to what I have already mentioned at the beginning of the panel. It’s the silos breaking. If we are to succeed, we need to make sure that people actually communicate. So the experts on both sides find a way to respect one another and do not disregard one another in terms of some kind of a joint work. I think it sounds banal, but it proved to be a very difficult thing to do from a diplomatic perspective. So that’s maybe one point. Again, breaking the silos, that’s what the Czech Republic in the EU does. I mean, not alone, because we would not have been able to do it, but we try to foster the even cross-regional, let’s say, dialogue. So as we have heard before, we need to talk, for example, the EU needs to talk with African countries because we’re actually facing some of the joint or challenges in this ever-increasing digital world. Linguistically, for example, as we have heard before, it’s the same issue. And I have to subscribe to the previous speaker saying that once we’re exposed to a different language, we think about a different language. We, of course, are subconsciously changed the way we perceive the world, that’s for sure. But there are other things which are similar to that, which actually are influencing our brains and thoughts. I’ll probably come back to that. Another point maybe worth mentioning outside of the outreach, which we want to foster also here, actually, through you guys. Again, the IGF would need to play a bigger role in this. And seriously, the Czech Republic would like to actually, not to task, but to ask the IGF to be of a help in this specific area of work. Because we think that we need more opinions, more, let’s say, recommendations from you, because you’re the experts that can actually help. Be it the governments, be it the civil society organizations, be it researchers, be it the private companies who are there. That brings me to the point of private companies. I think this is also one of the ways or elements that the Czech Republic is trying to foster. That’s why we’re extremely grateful for the OICHR’s project, BTEC, that is being at least run in Geneva. I think it would benefit from a worldwide coverage as well. Just trying to talk to not only the big tech, but trying to talk to the emerging and the SMEs. Again, to the young people who are actually driving companies who are at the, let’s say, frontier development of these applications. Because basically the world is going to be theirs and they need to step up and tell us how to do it as well. Not only to develop, but develop in a responsible way. So, I would end. there. And maybe just to say a few remarks, if I made to the previous conversation, it’s interesting to focus on standardization and on the use. I agree. But maybe a question to the audience or the other colleagues. When we talk about new technologies, such as sign neuroscience, and other things, other applications, which are going to be directly, which are you know, directly focusing on our brain activities on our thoughts, how can we improve the user’s capacities and skills? In my view, there’s no way it needs to be it needs to be already, let’s say, clean and responsible from the inception part, you know, the systemic proprieties need to be done in a in a in a good way in a responsible way. I don’t think that the user who is being swarmed by countless of applications and like, you know, internal things, connectivity, etc, is going to be able to focus on responsible usage and skills only, I think, just from a daily usage perspective, there’s no way. So again, the inception and the first phases of the development cycle are extremely key to get it right. Thank you.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Thanks so much, Mark. We have a lady in the room who would love to ask a question at this point. So we’ll just pass the mic.

Audience: First of all, thank you so much for this insightful discussion. And let me allow me to introduce myself. My name is Mizna Tregi. And I am the representative for the Saudi Green Building Forum, which is an organization committed to sustainable development and, and also fostering innovative principles. Now, the discussion highlighted a critical critical gaps in how human rights are considered in technical standards for emerging innovations. Despite the rapid advancement, overlooking these principles exposes marginalized groups to risks such as discrimination, privacy violations, and lack of transparency. Now, this challenge is further compounded by limited involvement of diverse stakeholders, which threatens to create unsafe and uninclusive technological environment. Now, to address these issues, there is a pressing need to ensure active participations from all sectors in the development of these technical standards. By integrating a human rights based approach, we can design the systems that prioritize transparency, fairness and accountability. Also, strengthening collaborations between public and private sector, and civil society is equally crucial to ensure these standards reflect the needs of all communities. Now moving forward, actionable steps include creating a human rights guide to align technical standards with principles like equality, equity and justice. Also, we can establish a robust multi stakeholder platform that can foster the exchange of experiences and expertise, and also best best practices, while regular human rights impact assessments will ensure alignment with sustainable development goals. Now, my question is, how can we create a scalable models for for integrating human rights into technical standards without slowing the pace of innovation, as well as how can we involve as, as His Excellency said, the private sector to implement these standards? Thank you.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Thank you so much. That was a really good question. I would just invite anyone in the room to come in on that because I think you raised multiple points that actually spoke to all of what all of the speeches of the panelists today. So anyone who wants to respond?

Gbenga Sesan: Thanks, that’s that’s a fantastic question, actually, because one of one of the reasons this is fantastic is because it actually takes us to the center of innovation. You know, question is how, how do we ensure standards are human rights compliant, without slowing down the pace of innovation. And I think it’s important to say this. Innovation is about providing improving experiences, right? Improving experiences, making services better, and doing things in different ways. And at the center of innovation are the people who interact with these experiences. And the whole sense of human rights is basically saying we want to make sure that the rights of those who engage with these platforms, who interact with these experiences is respected. A very simple example that I love to give is internet shutdowns. If we build if we bake the fact that shutdowns are not allowed, which is now part of the GDC, all countries have now agreed 29, 29 D that there, you know, no shutdowns, that itself doesn’t slow down the improvement of the internet, but it accelerates it. It means that people can use it, people can give feedback, people can have an experience of the entire and not fragmented internet. So thanks for asking that, because it actually, you know, takes us to the point of, you know, why human rights conversations are also helpful with technical standards, because they actually promote the sense of innovation. It’s not about the people. It’s not about the person creating the tool, but about a user, like, you know, user experience, and how their rights are respected.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Can you hear us? Okay, because I’m just seeing from the chat that the audio from the room apparently is a bit low for participants online. Please do continue to type in the Yeah, do continue to type in the chat and we will try to get this sorted. Thanks. Yeah, I wanted to see if anyone else was interested in responding to the question that was posed. But if not, then I might actually move on because two questions both to Eugene and to Shirani that were directly linked to what you actually raised, which was for Shirani, in Saudi Arabia, you spoke about the challenges that of the inclusion of minorities and marginalized communities. What are the financial and social challenges that you see in Saudi Arabia? And what are the challenges that you see in Saudi Arabia? And you mentioned, you know, the inclusion of minorities and marginalized communities. What are the financial and social implications you think that needs to be tackled to tackle this issue?

Shirani De Clercq: Really response to something you approached one of your questions, the dilemma between financial revenue and ethical, social values, traditional values. So it’s always a dilemma and both of them. So that’s why I just took two or three examples. And there’s no answer, of course, because we don’t know. So so one of the projects of like, in the race for the AI leader, you have projected to contribute to 5.1 the AI is projected to contribute to $5.1 billion to GDP by 2030. So there are many projects, and one of them that I identified is the Gaia Accelerator, so pushed by, supported by Saddaia and NTDP. So it has invested $160 million to fund 120 AI startups in Saudi. So while these startups from its economic returns, in the implementation of Saddaia’s AI ethic principle that has been deployed in 2093 and the framework last year, it’s going to slow down the whole process. We have an objective with KPIs where the companies have to become future unicorns. So that’s our main objective. But on the other side, there are principles that comes in and we say that this has to be, by design, you have to include ethical values in it. Why do you do it, and how do you do it? The others are like unbiased data sets with financial constraints. So you know about the ALM, the Arabic language model, which has been developed by Saddaia. It addresses often found in global LLMs like GDP4 that poorly represents Arabic dialects. So while ALM bridges this gap, expanding such initiatives, it costs enormously. So what do you fund? These kind of languages are future unicorn that makes you proud. And something else which is more difficult to discuss, it’s like Nata platform. It has 1.8 million daily digital verification users. Or Tavak Kalam, you say it like that, right? Tavak Kalam? Kalam, yeah, Kalam. It’s just developed during the COVID period. Kalam, sorry for the pronunciation. There’s 19.9 million users. No, 17.9 million users, which is enormous. So on one side, you need data to reduce biases. Sorry, on one side, you need data to reduce biases. And on the other side, there’s the privacy law. Saudi Arabia has published, I think, in 2023 the PDLP, which is the equivalent to the GDPR to protect data privacy in Saudi Arabia. So the real question is the same as yours. How do you classify and prioritize what is the most important thing for a country? I suppose it depends on the time period of your economic situation, because not all countries will face the same problematic at the same time. And I’m really for the agile method. No standardization can be deployed on one shot. I think you have to try, adjust. And I have the feeling that the Sadeas AI framework, ethical framework, has this methodology, very agile, that means you test with a use case methodology. And if it works, you improve and improve and implement it one by one. Thank you.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Thanks, Yorani. Actually, just building on that point and also the fact that our kind speaker, I mean, participant raised earlier about principles and standards that are already there on human rights principles. Oh, sorry. Okay, so we have another question. So I’ll pause and please feel free to speak. Thank you.

Audience: Yeah, I think I’m sitting on the wrong side of the room. So I have a question about blockchain standards making and multilateralism in that. So we did a project. I’m from India. I worked on a project. It was an Indo-Australian project. We started working on blockchain standards. And it was a three-year project. And by the end of it, we were just looking at what the involvement in standardization processes for multilateral forums was. So we worked with BIS and then Standards Australia, but then we also worked in like an international level. And the problem that we found was that most people just didn’t participate in standardization processes, not because they didn’t know that it was important, but because it’s not practically feasible. So I think that it’s important to get like a civil society approach and then like from small and medium enterprises, but contributing to standards conversations, which is something that we’ve also attempted to do, is an extremely resource and time-intensive process. It’s something that requires significant upselling. You have to upskill yourself. You have to spend a lot of time working on these things. It’s also something that you don’t actually get paid for. So most of us do it in addition to the work that we do. So in that context, unless, like even when we did conclude our project, we came up with like a roadmap of how potentially standards organizations could get people more invested in the standards-making process. But I think unless there’s like significant incentives being offered, which some governments are doing, but a majority of them can’t really do, that’s not something that’s very likely to change. A large organization could potentially devote some people to participate in standards conversation. Small and medium enterprises just can’t afford it. Civil societies can’t really afford it. It requires a lot of expertise. It requires a lot of time. In that kind of, unless like standards-making conversation drastically changes in the next two years where it becomes possible to contribute without that much investment, I’m not sure how a multilateral conversation on standards would really work out.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: That’s a really important point. And I do recognize Florian spoke a bit to this before. So yeah, Florian, please come in to respond.

Florian Ostmann: Yeah, thank you. I’ll just briefly come in also because I need to drop out in five minutes, I’m afraid. I think it’s a really important point. So we don’t work on blockchain, but I think the point applies more generally really, when it comes to civil society involvement in standards development for emerging technologies. I just thought I’d briefly give some examples of what we’ve done. I think that the problem really needs to be addressed at different layers. So one thing we’ve done in the AI space with the AI Standards Hub is to build a database of standards projects that are under development. That’s something that didn’t exist before. And so there’s a real challenge at a very foundational level for organizations that aren’t familiar with the space of understanding, tracking what is going on across the large number of SDOs that are active in the space, and then to be able to decide what is the standards project that’s with my limited resources is the one that I should be focused on and engaging. So that’s an example for how we try to contribute to solving that in the AI space through that kind of database that tracks those developments. Secondly, to your point on skills and upskilling, so we’ve developed a range of e-learning materials and we also have occasional in-person events. Some of those are not AI specific, so it might be useful if you’re interested to take a look. We have several e-learning modules on how the standardization process works and the role of different SDOs, for example. Then lastly, and I think that’s probably the most important point and where the most value lies, the biggest difference can be made, is thinking about ways for lowering the barrier to participating and contributing to standards development. Traditionally, of course, the way to contribute is to join a committee, whatever committee that is. In some organizations, if it’s ISO or… IEC or SenSenelec, it’s through the MIRO committee at the national level, in other cases it’s the study group directly like in the ITU, but it’s a formal process and it’s quite a time commitment that can be quite daunting and many organizations may feel they’re unable to commit to joining a committee. So we’ve been trying to experiment with ways of lowering that barrier in collaboration with SDOs, for example with SenSenelec and working group chairs, to create spaces through workshops, for example, that sort of on a one-off basis provide an opportunity for interested organizations, especially those that struggle. So we have a dedicated workstream to civil society or civil society organizations, you know, look at a project that’s under development and give targeted input on certain questions that the committee can then consider, you know, in the committee’s work. And I think that’s something we’ve had a lot of positive feedback on and we’ll try to do more. We’ll actually probably have a workshop for civil society organizations to feed into European standards for risk management for AI in February. So anyone who’s interested, please take a look at our website. We’ve been very, you know, pleased and proud of our partnership with Eugene and colleagues from OHCHR, have having done a couple of events together, and we’ll also be working together on a summit that the AI Standards Hub will be hosting in March. You’ll find more information on that global summit on AI standardization, where sort of civil society inclusion will be a really important focus.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Thanks very much, Florian. I just want to also share with the room a comment in the chat from Gopal. In my humble opinion, it’s best to have responsibilities before rights, making responsible citizens. Now netizens is crucial to building trust. using technology standards, we need a trust layer lower than the network layer in the ISO-OSI reference model. So thanks, Gopal. I think it’s also related to the question we asked to Eugene as you speak about responsibilities before rights. Eugene, could you speak a bit more on the project, the BTEC project that encourages companies to actually meet the responsibilities

Yoo Jin Kim: that they have to protect the rights of individuals as well? Sure, and I’m really glad to hear from my other colleagues on the panel here on the challenges non-technical community, the CSO, for example, face, which is, I think, really important to tackle. And just to note that we understand standard development takes time. It’s a complex and challenging environment. So really, we need all stakeholders involved in a continued effort in a collaborative manner to make sure that human rights are front and center to tech standards development. So it’s not something that we can flick on a switch or flick it off to make things happen. So I think also it really highlights the importance of a panel that we have here today with diverse participants on this panel. So I think I will focus a bit more, like you said, on the BTEC project and the role of companies and perhaps outline some of our next steps in the coming year. So the role of the tech companies is something in the standard setting space is something we would really like to stress and emphasize a bit more next year. We already engage with them with tech companies through our BTEC project, which was mentioned, which focuses on the role of tech companies and how they can operationalize the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. So within this BTEC project, our office has been able to provide or has been able to discuss how to foster business conduct responsibly when it comes to AI, provided practical guidance to tech companies. So operationalizing the UNGPs, for example. And recently we have a, we published a foundational paper on generative AI and also a taxonomy of human rights risks connected to generative AI. So this is really some of the examples and our more recent outputs we have in order to provide guidance to tech companies. And I’m happy to share a link where you can access these resources and the work that we have done so far. But the challenge now is really looking at how to engage meaningfully with companies on technical standards, human rights, because tech companies are a stakeholder group that is really crucial to be, to stay engaged because they take a part in standard setting processes. And sometimes in various fora, they’re the one driving some of this tech standards development. And so human rights to diligence is a key element. I think that should be highlighted. So human rights to diligence for both companies and for standard setting organizations. And in order for us to raise awareness vis-a-vis tech companies and also for standard development organizations, we will be conducting some consultations next year to better understand their view and how to better engage with them and better meaning more effectively. And this really, again, brings us to the importance of participation and multi-stakeholderism. It’s already been noted, but the challenge really is on getting non-technical communities involved. When I say that it’s civil society organizations, it’s academia, but also noting the disparity in participation for various reasons. between the global north and the global majority, and also the, you know, I think our, I heard from the floor as well, from other panelists, that we need to have more SMEs. I think Mark had mentioned this, the importance is also not just engaging with big tech, but looking at the ecosystem, right? We also need to be engaging with young entrepreneurs who are really at the frontiers of tech development, and also small and medium-sized enterprises. So, I think, I hope this is clear. I mean, there is enormous benefit to multi-stakeholder participation. Gbenga mentioned this, but, you know, it’s really important to bring in a perspective, you know, side of conversation that maybe no one in the room has heard before. And that’s really the value add of multi-stakeholder participation in developing tech technologies and standards that serve everybody. And in this sense, I would like to emphasize that IGF, you know, the Internet Governance Forum has been an important venue to discuss in a multi-stakeholder setting, you know, human rights and technical standards, but a host of other issues in this space. And that said, I think we’re now arriving at such critical juncture, right, with the steps to implementing the Global Digital Compact, the review of the multi-stakeholder model at the WSIS plus 20 next year. So, let me finish on a note by saying that in the GDC, if you look at line 58 in the adopted text, it places a great importance on human rights in relation to tech standards. It explicitly refers to AI standards that must respect human rights. So, we must also emphasize the importance of this forum to continue to discuss how to develop and deploy the technical standards that can be human rights respecting, and that will foster more public trust in different technologies. So thank you so much.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: And that was a really good summary of the whole thing. And also at the end of the day, we are here at IGF and we hope to discuss this conversation at the next IGF in Norway. So it’s been great to have all of you online. I would like to maybe call upon Olivia if you had final words. I’ve been told that we have two minutes left and so we might get kicked out of the room. But Olivia, please do come in.

Olivier Alais: Thanks a lot. It was a very interesting conversation and thanks a lot for all being here. So of course, technical standard has to be human rights enablers. We need to be more collaborative and to have a multi-stakeholder effort. And we need also, and as we said, to come with actionable solution for technical community and really to be in line with a global digital compact. So thanks a lot for being here. And I heard that we are still all working together to move on standardization and human rights.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Yeah, Marek, Eugene, Lauren, Benga, and Charani. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Bye-bye. Thank you. Bye everyone. Thank you. Thanks a lot to all. Thanks a lot to Jean-Claude also for being our reporter. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Need for multi-stakeholder approach in technical standards development

Dhevy Sivaprakasam

Marek Janovský

Gbenga Sesan

Olivier Alais

Need for multi-stakeholder approach to include diverse perspectives

Government’s role in fostering dialogue and outreach

Civil society’s need to prioritize and participate in standards discussions

Need for collaboration between public, private and civil society sectors

Speakers agreed on the importance of involving various stakeholders, including governments, civil society, and private sector, in the process of developing technical standards to ensure diverse perspectives are considered.

Importance of integrating human rights considerations into technical standards

Dhevy Sivaprakasam

Marek Janovský

Yoo Jin Kim

Gbenga Sesan

Need for multi-stakeholder approach to include diverse perspectives

Importance of breaking silos between human rights experts and technical bodies

Critical risks to human rights from emerging technologies

Civil society’s role in bringing user experiences to standards discussions

Speakers emphasized the need to incorporate human rights considerations into technical standards development, highlighting the importance of collaboration between human rights experts and technical bodies.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the potential risks and challenges posed by emerging technologies, particularly AI, to human rights and fair representation.

Shirani De Clercq

Yoo Jin Kim

Challenges of bias and misrepresentation in AI systems

Critical risks to human rights from emerging technologies

Both Ostmann and the audience member emphasized the practical challenges faced by non-technical stakeholders, particularly civil society and small organizations, in participating in standards development processes due to resource constraints and complexity.

Florian Ostmann

Audience

Difficulties for non-technical stakeholders to engage in standards processes

Need for lowering barriers to participation in standards development

Financial and resource constraints for inclusive participation

Unexpected Consensus

Balancing innovation with human rights considerations

Audience

Gbenga Sesan

Balancing innovation pace with human rights considerations

Civil society’s role in bringing user experiences to standards discussions

While the audience member raised concerns about slowing innovation by integrating human rights considerations, Sesan unexpectedly argued that considering human rights and user experiences can actually promote innovation by improving services and experiences.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the need for a multi-stakeholder approach in technical standards development, the importance of integrating human rights considerations into these standards, and the challenges faced by non-technical stakeholders in participating in the process.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the importance of incorporating human rights into technical standards and the need for diverse stakeholder participation. This consensus implies a growing recognition of the interconnectedness between technical standards and human rights, suggesting a potential shift towards more inclusive and rights-based approaches in technology development and governance.

Different Viewpoints

Balancing innovation and human rights considerations

Shirani De Clercq

Audience

Tension between economic objectives and ethical principles

Balancing innovation pace with human rights considerations

De Clercq highlighted the dilemma between pursuing financial revenue and adhering to ethical principles in AI development, while an audience member questioned how to integrate human rights into technical standards without slowing innovation. This reflects a tension between rapid technological advancement and ensuring human rights protections.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement centered around balancing innovation with human rights considerations and the practical challenges of involving diverse stakeholders in technical standards development.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers was relatively low. Most speakers agreed on the importance of incorporating human rights into technical standards and involving diverse stakeholders. The differences were mainly in the approaches to achieve these goals and the challenges faced in implementation. This suggests a general consensus on the overall direction, but highlights the complexity of practically integrating human rights considerations into technical standards development.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agreed on the importance of involving diverse stakeholders in technical standards development. However, they differed in their approaches: Janovský emphasized breaking silos, Sesan stressed civil society’s need to prioritize participation, while Ostmann highlighted the difficulties faced by non-technical stakeholders in engaging with these processes.

Marek Janovský

Gbenga Sesan

Florian Ostmann

Importance of breaking silos between human rights experts and technical bodies

Civil society’s need to prioritize and participate in standards discussions

Difficulties for non-technical stakeholders to engage in standards processes

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the potential risks and challenges posed by emerging technologies, particularly AI, to human rights and fair representation.

Shirani De Clercq

Yoo Jin Kim

Challenges of bias and misrepresentation in AI systems

Critical risks to human rights from emerging technologies

Both Ostmann and the audience member emphasized the practical challenges faced by non-technical stakeholders, particularly civil society and small organizations, in participating in standards development processes due to resource constraints and complexity.

Florian Ostmann

Audience

Difficulties for non-technical stakeholders to engage in standards processes

Need for lowering barriers to participation in standards development

Financial and resource constraints for inclusive participation

Key Takeaways

There is a critical need to incorporate human rights considerations into technical standards for emerging technologies

A multi-stakeholder approach involving diverse perspectives is essential for developing inclusive and rights-respecting standards

Significant challenges exist in implementing human rights-based standards, including balancing innovation with rights protection and resource constraints for inclusive participation

Different stakeholders (government, private sector, civil society) have important roles to play in standards development

Breaking silos between human rights experts and technical bodies is necessary for effective collaboration

Resolutions and Action Items

Explore ways to lower barriers for participation in standards development processes, especially for civil society and SMEs

Conduct consultations with tech companies and standards organizations to better understand their views on human rights integration

Continue discussions on human rights and technical standards at future Internet Governance Forum meetings

Unresolved Issues

How to create scalable models for integrating human rights into technical standards without slowing innovation

How to address the financial and resource constraints that limit participation of civil society and SMEs in standards processes

How to effectively balance economic objectives with ethical principles in standards development

Suggested Compromises

Adopt an agile, use-case driven methodology for implementing ethical frameworks in standards, allowing for iterative improvements

Create spaces for targeted, one-off input from civil society organizations on specific standards projects, rather than requiring full committee membership

Technology like AI, Internet of Things, Metaverse, offer incredible opportunities, but they also create challenges. And without clear guidance, technology can unintentionally harm the very rights it aims to protect.

speaker

Olivier Alais

reason

This comment succinctly captures the core tension at the heart of the discussion – the promise and peril of new technologies in relation to human rights.

impact

It framed the entire conversation that followed, establishing the need to proactively consider human rights in technical standards.

Have you ever heard of the principle of linguistic relativity? So it says that the way people think of the world is influenced directly by the language that people use to talk about it. While 7% of internet users are Arabic as its native speakers, only 0.8% of internet content is in Arabic.

speaker

Shirani De Clercq

reason

This comment introduced a concrete example of how technical standards can have real-world impacts on human rights and cultural representation.

impact

It shifted the discussion from abstract principles to specific challenges, prompting others to consider more tangible examples of bias and exclusion in technology.

I think one important thing to note is the lack of transparency, which has really been the undertone in the development and design and the use of AI. And this really the lack of transparency and thus the lack of accountability has really led to some harm and increased risks to human rights.

speaker

Yoo Jin Kim

reason

This comment highlighted a critical issue in AI development that directly impacts human rights considerations.

impact

It deepened the conversation by introducing the concepts of transparency and accountability, which became recurring themes in subsequent comments.

I think at a high level, sort of two points. The first one is that we are dealing with two different cultures. You know, think about the standardization community and the human rights community. There are different conceptual frameworks at play, different languages and, you know, different cultures of collaborating.

speaker

Florian Ostmann

reason

This insight gets to the heart of why integrating human rights into technical standards is so challenging.

impact

It reframed the discussion from being solely about technical challenges to also considering cultural and communication barriers between different expert communities.

Innovation is about providing improving experiences, right? Improving experiences, making services better, and doing things in different ways. And at the center of innovation are the people who interact with these experiences. And the whole sense of human rights is basically saying we want to make sure that the rights of those who engage with these platforms, who interact with these experiences is respected.

speaker

Gbenga Sesan

reason

This comment reframes the potential conflict between innovation and human rights as a false dichotomy, arguing that respecting human rights is central to true innovation.

impact

It challenged the assumption that considering human rights might slow innovation, offering a new perspective on how they can be mutually reinforcing.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from abstract principles to concrete challenges, highlighting the complexity of integrating human rights into technical standards. They introduced important concepts like transparency, accountability, and cultural differences between expert communities. The discussion evolved to consider not just technical solutions, but also cultural, linguistic, and collaborative challenges in ensuring human rights are respected in technological development. Overall, the comments deepened the conversation and broadened its scope, emphasizing the need for a multi-stakeholder, culturally sensitive approach to addressing these challenges.

How can the IGF help to advance the inclusion of human rights in technical standards?

speaker

Marek Janovský

explanation

This is important to explore how the multi-stakeholder IGF forum can contribute to addressing this challenge beyond just diplomatic efforts.

How to improve users’ capacities and skills to engage responsibly with emerging technologies that directly interface with brain activities and thoughts?

speaker

Marek Janovský

explanation

This is crucial to consider as technologies like neuroscience applications become more prevalent and potentially impact human cognition and decision-making.

How can we create scalable models for integrating human rights into technical standards without slowing the pace of innovation?

speaker

Audience member (Mizna Tregi)

explanation

This addresses the challenge of balancing human rights considerations with technological progress and innovation.

How can we involve the private sector to implement human rights-aligned technical standards?

speaker

Audience member (Mizna Tregi)

explanation

This is important to ensure buy-in and practical implementation from key stakeholders developing and deploying technologies.

How can standards-making conversations be changed to allow for more inclusive participation without requiring extensive time and resource investments?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

This addresses the practical challenges faced by civil society and small/medium enterprises in contributing to standards development processes.

Summary

This transcript captures the closing session of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2024 held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Participants provided feedback and reflections on the event, as well as suggestions for future IGFs. Many speakers expressed gratitude to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting and praised the organization of the forum. Key points of discussion included the importance of youth participation, with several young delegates highlighting their experiences and calling for greater youth involvement in future IGFs.

Accessibility and inclusion were emphasized, with suggestions to better accommodate people with disabilities and ensure broader representation from developing countries. Visa processes were generally praised for being swift, though some noted challenges for certain participants. Several speakers stressed the need for the IGF to have a permanent mandate and stronger institutional capacity to address emerging digital challenges effectively.

Technical issues, particularly related to hybrid participation, were noted as areas for improvement. The importance of Internet governance schools and regional initiatives was highlighted. Many participants called for greater focus on emerging technologies like AI, emphasizing the need for ethical considerations and international cooperation in governance.

The discussion also touched on the significance of child rights, cybersecurity, and data privacy. Some speakers suggested enhancing collaboration with UN agencies and other stakeholders to increase the IGF’s impact. Overall, the session reflected a strong commitment to the IGF’s multi-stakeholder approach and its role in shaping global internet governance, with participants looking forward to the next IGF in Norway.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Appreciation for Saudi Arabia’s hosting and organization of IGF 2024

– Suggestions for improving future IGFs, including visa processes, accessibility, youth involvement, and technical aspects

– Calls to renew and strengthen the IGF mandate

– Importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration and inclusivity

– Need to address emerging technologies like AI and cybersecurity

The overall purpose of this discussion was to gather feedback and suggestions from participants about IGF 2024 and ideas for improving future IGFs. It served as a “listening session” for organizers to hear directly from attendees.

The tone was largely positive and appreciative, with many speakers thanking the hosts and expressing enthusiasm for the event. There was also a sense of constructive criticism, with participants offering specific suggestions for improvement. The tone remained consistent throughout, balancing gratitude with a forward-looking focus on enhancing future IGFs.

Speakers

Speakers from provided list:

– Chengetai Masango: Head of the IGF Secretariat

– Carol Roach: Chair of the 2024 MAG

– Ole-Martin Martinsen: 2025 host country chair

– Vint Cerf: Chair of the leadership panel

Additional speakers:

– Jordan Carter: Technical community participant, outgoing MAG member, from Australian Domain Administration

– Adam Peake: ICANN

– Dr. Huseyfi (name may be misspelled): Chad IGF coordinator

– Daa (surname missing): Host country Youth Track representative

– Rui Ferreira: Brazilian Youth Delegation from CGI

– Joao Moreno: Vice chair of the youth standing group

– Itzel: Fellow from the Dynamic Coalition of Accessibility and Disability

– Ghayr Bawari: Coordinator of Afghanistan IGF and affiliate initiatives

– Yusuf Abdel-Qadir: From Syracuse University and Africa Community Internet Program

– Ananda Gautam: Representative of Youth IGF Nepal, Internet Society Youth Standing Group and Youth Coalition on Internet Governance

– Jasmine Ko: Participant from Hong Kong

– Josephine Miliza: Association for Progressive Communication

– Dr. Andrise Bass: Executive Director for Institute of Public Policy and Diplomacy Research, hub for IGF in Dominican Republic

Expanded Summary of IGF 2024 Closing Session

The closing session of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2024, held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, served as a platform for participants to reflect on the event and offer suggestions for future IGFs. The discussion encompassed a wide range of topics, from logistical considerations to strategic visions for the forum’s future.

Organisation and Logistics

Many speakers expressed gratitude to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting and praised the overall organisation of the forum. However, several areas for improvement were identified. Vint Cerf, Chair of the leadership panel, highlighted audio and technical issues that needed addressing, suggesting a post-meeting analysis to resolve these problems. Jordan Carter, from the technical community, emphasised the importance of practising the hybrid format in advance to ensure smoother execution.

The visa process received mixed feedback. While some praised its swiftness, others noted challenges for certain participants, particularly those from developing countries. There were calls for faster approval letters and a more streamlined application process to facilitate broader participation. Specific examples included delays in receiving invitation letters and difficulties for participants from certain regions.

Inclusivity and Representation

A significant portion of the discussion centred on enhancing inclusivity and representation at future IGFs. Itzel, a fellow from the Dynamic Coalition of Accessibility and Disability, made a compelling case for involving people with disabilities in the IGF planning process to ensure compliance with accessibility guidelines. Vint Cerf supported this notion, suggesting the formation of an accommodation expert team to visit future IGF sites well in advance. He also proposed using colored badges for people with accommodation needs to facilitate easier assistance.

Youth participation emerged as a key theme, with several young delegates highlighting their experiences and calling for greater involvement in future IGFs. Daa, the host country Youth Track representative, emphasized the importance of the Youth Track and its role in engaging young people in internet governance discussions. Representatives from various youth initiatives, including the Nepal Youth IGF and the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance, stressed the need for increased youth representation and engagement.

The importance of ensuring participation from developing countries was repeatedly emphasised, with speakers noting the need for improved regional representation, particularly from Latin America. This point underscored the broader goal of making the IGF truly global and inclusive.

IGF Mandate and Future Direction

There was strong support for extending and strengthening the IGF mandate. Jordan Carter voiced the need for a permanent IGF mandate, a sentiment echoed by other participants who called for increased institutional capacity to address emerging digital challenges effectively. The integration of the Global Digital Compact into the next phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was proposed as a crucial step in this direction.

Speakers emphasised the need for a clear, unified strategy for the IGF to maximise its collective impact. The APC representative stressed the importance of a strategic vision for IGF evolution rather than relying on ad hoc partnerships or initiatives. This strategic focus was seen as essential for addressing the dynamic challenges and opportunities in the rapidly evolving digital landscape.

Key Topics for Future IGFs

Participants highlighted several critical areas for future IGF discussions:

1. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance: There was a strong emphasis on the need to address AI governance and ethics, with calls for responsible development and use of AI technologies.

2. Cybersecurity and Privacy: Speakers stressed the importance of safeguarding data privacy, security, and integrity in an increasingly interconnected world.

3. Emerging Technologies: Discussions on the impact of emerging technologies, including the Internet of Things (IoT), were deemed crucial for promoting economic growth and sustainable development. The need for consistent standards and regulations across national borders was also highlighted.

4. Child Online Safety: Continued focus on protecting children in the digital space was advocated by several participants.

5. Beneficiaries: A Saudi participant suggested focusing on specific beneficiaries such as children and women in future discussions.

IGF Impact and Outreach

A recurring theme was the need to enhance the IGF’s impact and outreach. Ananda Gautam, representing various youth initiatives, pointed out that even UN agencies often fail to recognise the importance of the IGF. He emphasized the need for broader collaboration to enhance the impact of IGF when participants return to their communities. This led to calls for improved collaboration with international initiatives and UN agencies to increase the IGF’s visibility and effectiveness.

Suggestions were made to increase engagement with universities and support Internet Governance Schools, which were seen as vital for bringing holistic and engaging stakeholders into the IGF ecosystem. The importance of regional initiatives and their role in broadening the IGF’s reach was also highlighted. Nnena suggested engaging more with non-government stakeholders for the sustainability of IGF.

Technical Considerations and Program Structure

The challenges of managing hybrid events were discussed, with Joao Moreno, Vice Chair of the youth standing group, suggesting the need to unify the queue for online and on-site participants. This highlighted the ongoing challenges of ensuring equal participation opportunities for both in-person and remote attendees.

Moreno also raised concerns about the limited space given to Dynamic Coalitions to present their year-long discussions, emphasizing the need for better integration of these important groups into the main program.

Cultural Exchange and Networking

Jasmine Ko highlighted the importance of social occasions, such as the music night, for cultural exchange and networking. These events were seen as valuable opportunities for participants to connect informally and build relationships beyond the formal sessions.

Conclusion

The closing session reflected a strong commitment to the IGF’s multi-stakeholder approach and its role in shaping global internet governance. While participants expressed overall satisfaction with IGF 2024, they also provided constructive criticism and forward-looking suggestions. The discussion underscored the need for continuous improvement in organisation, inclusivity, and strategic focus to ensure the IGF remains relevant and effective in addressing the complex challenges of the digital age.

Chengetai Masango mentioned the post-IGF “taking stock” process, encouraging participants to continue providing feedback. The session concluded with brief closing remarks by Carol Roach and Ole-Martin Martinsen, followed by applause for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and all participants. As the forum looks ahead to its next iteration in Norway, there is a clear mandate to build upon these insights and work towards an even more impactful and inclusive IGF.

Chengetai Masango: I’d like first of all to thank you all very much for sticking it out and for being here, and I hope you all had a very good meeting, and I’d also like to thank our gracious hosts of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting us in this fabulous place. Just a few points is that we’re here in a listening mode on what worked well, what you think we want to keep, and what we should take into consideration for next year as well. So what we’ll do is that we’ll just have one line on this podium over here, and we ask people to line up and speak. We will only have two minutes for each person, and we’ll also be taking online interventions as well. I’d like to remind everybody please to keep to the subject at hand, and only about logistical, room arrangements, issues that we’ve discussed here, and also keep in mind the code of conduct, which is also very important. And with that, I would also introduce myself. So my name is Chengetai Masango, and I am head of the IGF Secretariat, and on my right is Miss Carol Roach. She is the chair of the 2024 MAG, which helped, of course, organize this meeting. And on my left, we have Mr. Ole-Martin Martisen, who is the 2025 host country chair. and is going to be listening intently because he’ll be the host country representative on the MAG and also leading the organizational team for IGF 2025. I would like to ask our current chair if she would like to say a few words, please.

Carol Roach: Thank you, Shengetai. I just want to add my welcome and thank you to Shengetai’s opening. It’s been really a pleasure meeting many of you, and I really hope that you got a lot of takeaways. You had an opportunity to share your views and to also give us some kind of input on the way forward. We look forward to you helping us to organize a 2025 IGF, and so I won’t go on much longer so we could hear from you. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, Carol. And please, Olli.

Ole-Martin Martisen: Thank you. Hello. Well, thank you, everybody. I want to thank the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting this year’s IGF. The organization and the hospitality here have been truly exceptional, and we’re grateful for that. And I also want to thank everyone here for being here. It’s not much time until the next IGF, and we need every one of you to participate and help us in arranging that. And we are here to listen now. And Norway has a strong commitment to ensure that the 20th IGF also will become a success as this one has been, so thank you.

Chengetai Masango: And I would also like to introduce Vint Cerf, who is the chair of the leadership panel. He’s online and he’s right behind me, yes. And he’ll also be listening from the leadership panel. Vint, would you like to say a few words before we start?

Vint Cerf: Well, that’s very kind of you to let me do that. I realize that the way this is set up, I look like Banquo’s ghost sort of hovering on the stage. I actually have a concrete suggestion to make, if I could make it now, if that’s all right with you.

Chengetai Masango: Go ahead.

Vint Cerf: This is specifically with regard to the operation of the IGF here in Saudi. First, huge thanks to our Saudi hosts for putting this together. This is by no means an easy process, and I know our Norwegian hosts must be increasingly aware of that. I do want to suggest two specific things that we might do. First of all, we should have a post-meeting analysis of the audio problems that have popped up from time to time. Facing online and in-person audio and translation, captioning, and signing services is really hard. Any insights that the Saudi team can provide would be helpful to our Norwegian colleagues, so I would recommend a kind of a post-meeting analysis. The second thing is that I believe an accommodation expert team should visit the Norwegian site as early as possible in the planning in order to assure that support for people who need accommodation is taken into consideration. It was even suggested that people with bona fide accommodation needs might even have a different colored badge so that we know that they might require additional assistance. So those are two just very concrete things that might be considered. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, Vince. So let us start, and could you please, when you make an intervention, please just say your name quickly for the audience. I would like to invite you to come up and talk about your role in the IGF, your role in the IGF, your position for the record and your stakeholder group. Unfortunately, my eyesight is not that great, so will the first one please come up? And two minutes, and the clock starts as soon as you start speaking.

Chad IGF: Good afternoon, my name is Dr. Huseyfi, I coordinate the IGF. Yesterday was the international Arabic language day, so kindly allow me to share my closing remarks in Arabic. I say that was Sada. Ladies and gentlemen, today we convene at IGF, hosted by Saudi Arabia, in 2020-2021. I seize this opportunity to underscore that this forum should serve as a platform to resolve any issue, and for the governance of the youth, we need integration of AI and Internet of Things and technology to ensure our connectivity to the world. We also need to promote the development of the Internet of Things and technology in a sustainable manner, and to promote the economic growth and sustainable development. However, we, this forum faces a lot of challenges related to the conflict of interests between the U.N. agencies regarding the new look the U.N., and to mobilize efforts to promote IGF. So we should have this forum to be a permanent forum. and to have a budget and financial resources to ensure the sustainability of such efforts. We should work together to ensure that this forum will be an effective tool for development and peace. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. Can we have the next speaker please?

Audience: Peace be upon you all. It’s great to be here at the IJF 2024 in Riyadh. I had the pleasure to attend the last version in Japan and I’m happy to be part of it. Allow me to speak in Arabic. At the outset, I would like to express my deep thanks and appreciation to you and the leadership for the sound organization of IJF for 2020. This forum is a strategic platform to unify efforts and sharing experience and expertise and enhance international cooperation in digital challenges, bringing experts and decision-making can contribute to road mapping for sustainable digital worlds in the framework of the computing. We cannot ignore the computing technology in enhancing the services to our citizens and to provide innovative solutions to face the challenges. Computing technologies is instrumental in enhancing the responsiveness of governments to meet the needs of the society, especially at the time of crisis, health and the natural crisis. However, depending on the computing… ways, a lot of opportunities that the development countries can leverage to enhance its digital capabilities, including reducing the cost and enhancing the capabilities.

Chengetai Masango: One microphone. So I do see people lining up for the other one, which we are not using. So will the first one, please. You can move over to the next one. Yes. But the first person who’s there, please just walk over to the other microphone, please. Or let’s say, for now, why don’t the people in the front there, in that line, can you please just make another line there, and then we can go one by one, back and forth. Those few people who are there now. Thank you. It’s really a pleasure to be here in IGF 2024, and I would like just to highlight a really

Audience: important subject, which was in a… of the subject in Riyadh declaration that has been announced recently in the beginning ceremony. And it was about the digital idea. And allow me just to speak in Arabic in this subject. So today, establishing reliable digital identity, which can be operationalized, it’s very important for equitable access for economic development in the light of the digital economy. And the heavy relay on the methodology anchored on digital technologies, the digital identities internationally recognized a must for individuals and businesses and governments for the inclusivity of the economy. And to response to such challenges, the international community should focus on such pressing issues. And today, it’s not a secret designing international digital identity is of paramount importance for the benefits that can be generated in closing the gaps for the inequality and to enriching or the access to resources. Access identity ensure… Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Daa. Bluey, and it is an absolute honor to stand before you today as the host country Youth Track representative. I would like to start by saying that we have had an incredible time over the past week. This week showcased the immense efforts that all Youth Track representatives have put over the past few months. And I’m lucky to say that our participation across the IGF sessions has been nothing short of incredible. Our host country colleagues at the Digital Government Authority have worked relentlessly day and night to ensure that our encouragement and support is in place. It has also allowed us to shed some light on Saudi Arabia’s trajectory in the digital space. And I can only hope that in Norway next year, the Youth Track continues to receive the compelling level of support that it has, ensuring that youth have the opportunity to participate in high-level and parliamentary track sessions to truly embody our objective of building our multi-stakeholder future.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you so much. Thank you. Next. We can actually just do it automatically. Thank you. Okay.

Audience: Hello, everyone. I am Rui Ferreira, and I’m here with the Brazilian Youth Delegation from the CGI. I also research, focusing on protecting children and young people online. And it’s my first time at the IGF, so I just want to say that I’m very happy to be here. All the Brazilian delegation I have to participate in this year’s IGF, and to the Saudi Q3, and to attend the sessions related to my research topic. So thank you to the IGF organizers and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for this incredible opportunity. And if I can say anything… the youths are not the future, we are the present and we are building a beautiful internet for everyone. So thank you. Hello my name is John Moreno, I’m here as the vice chair of the youth standing group. I would like to first start thanking the host country for his hospitality and so I have a couple of things here. I believe the visa issues that we had last year were almost all solved, even though for some people it arrived dangerously close to the date of the event, so they almost didn’t manage it to get here, but it was a great improvement. I also recognize that the dynamic coalitions didn’t have much space to present their year-long discussions and outcomes, so we had several sessions intended to present outcomes that were not accepted and I believe this takes a huge and important well an important part of the event. Putting the workshops around the village was a great idea, we really could integrate them to the event that didn’t happen in past events. We need to find a way to unify the queue for online and on-site participants because it’s difficult to manage both ends while you’re organizing your session and yeah that’s it, thank you. Thank you very much

Chengetai Masango: for those insights, we will keep them in touch. After this speaker we’ll also have an online speaker, Nena, but please go ahead.

Audience: Hi everyone. l, this is my first IGF, you for the opportunity, but I wish the countries, there should be, like where all countries should be able to to have a stable flow of the growth in technology, so that some countries, like especially some countries in Africa, are not completely behind, while others are going ahead too fast. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. Nnena?

Online audience: Thank you very much, Shengetai. Hello, everyone. I have five points. I want to start with the first one. The first point is that we need to put more emphasis, more engagement, and more financing into the Internet Governance Schools. Because they bring us the most holistic and the most open and engaging stakeholders. The second is that for the sustainability of the IGF, we really need to engage more with the non-government stakeholders. So, we need to engage more with the non-government stakeholders, and we need to engage more with the international and regional initiatives. I believe these give us the best opportunity for sustainability in the Internet governance system. I want to congratulate Saudi Arabia for hosting us, and for kicking off the international IGF, but I would like to acknowledge Saudi Arabia as one of the main contributors for IGF. Just so we understand, the IGF has raised the audio issues. I would like to recognize those expansion and you raised those issues for the future. Because I want to recognize those expansion and you raised those I’d also like to join my voice to say that the visa processes were very fast, and I want to thank you all for it. We will be back in exactly 10 years in Saudi Arabia to join the FIFA World Cup. Thank you very much. My name is Nenna. I come from the internet. I have done 15 sessions online, and it’s been wonderful.

Chengetai Masango: Next slide, please.

Audience: Well hello, everyone. My name is Itzel from Mexico. I’m a fellow from the Dynamic Coalition of Accessibility and Disability. It was a great opportunity for me to be here, and I want to invite you and make a suggestion to involve people with disabilities and our organizations on the planning of the IFG in order to ensure that all necessities are covered, comply with the accessibility guidelines, and leave no one behind. Thank you. First of all, I would like to congratulate Saudi Arabia for organizing this amazing event. I’m so happy to share that for the first time we were having a session on judges on human rights, and one of the judges from the High Court, Tanzania, was present. So this is something very happy for me, being from the legal side, and I’m hopeful that the next year we might be having some other judges from the other part of the globe. So because judiciary is one of the important parts of the society, and I believe that technology can help. them to give a speedy justice. Along with that, I would like to raise my concern regarding the young voices. Although this year Pakistan was having a lot of participants, but still some of my friends, young guys, didn’t make it to the IGF because of the visa issues. So I believe that for the next IGF, the IGF secretariat would really work hard because for a country like us, especially from Asia, there will be a lot of issues in terms of the visa for Norway. So I believe that the young guys will be here, will be participating. I hope we do not have visa issues for the next year. Thank you. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening. My name is Ghayr Bawari. I am from Afghanistan and I live in Kabul, Afghanistan. I volunteer as the coordinator of Afghanistan IGF and its affiliate initiatives like the Youth IGF Afghanistan, the Afghanistan Network Operators Group, and as well as Afghanistan School of Internet Governance. I’m so happy to be here, not alone, but I have Afghan delegates with me as well. As in IGF 2022 in Addis Ababa, I was the only Afghan in the whole IGF event, and I was kind of feeling very alone, but I’m happy this year I have a few Afghans and Afghan delegates with me. Thank you very much. And today I’m here to, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt gratitude to several key supporters. who have made our presence at the IJF 2024 possible. First and foremost, a special thank you to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for graciously granting us visas. Your support has been instrumental in enabling our participation here. Thank you. I would like also to express our sincere appreciation to the APNIC Foundation for their gracious sponsorship of Afghan delegates. Your commitment to fostering inclusion and representation is truly commendable. And thank you for your strengthening Afghan community through your Digital Leap Project. When most of the international organizations turned their back to Afghan people after the political changes, you were the one who stepped in and supported them. Thank you. I want to first thank the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting this year’s convening of the UNIJF. Having been coming here for the last several years on a quarterly basis, I’ve seen the tremendous transformation going on in the Kingdom and wish that more of the world can see just how committed, how invested, and how impactful this new era for Saudi Arabia is and will be for the world. I’d like to thank the IJF Secretariat, the leaders here on the floor, the organizers, and most importantly, the staff who cleaned the bathrooms, cooked the food, and served us across this past week. These folks are often underappreciated, often unrecognized, and often unthanked. So I would be remiss if we didn’t take a moment here to thank them. My name is Yusuf Abdel-Qadir. I’m from Syracuse University, and I’m a part of a joint initiative between Syracuse and the Africa Open Data Internet Research Foundation wherein we created an organization called the Africa Community Internet Program. I won’t talk about us. You can find out about us at AGCIP. My intervention here today is focused on how might the Norwegian IGF build off the momentum of this convening. The multi-stakeholder framework that IGF is rooted in is more important now than ever. Efforts at fragmenting the internet present challenges to empowering and advancing access to the 2.5 billion that lack internet. And while IGF is rooted in multi-stakeholder engagements across private sector, the public sector and civil society, more formal avenues for accelerating access to internet connectivity for sustainable development and ensuring that innovation and creativity, language and cultural preservation and history and the visions of those often overlooked are more fully needed now to be integrated in our development of emerging technologies, particularly as we see what’s happening with the development and advancement of artificial intelligence. By this, I specifically mean that we need to move beyond a more multi-stakeholder, voluntary engagement to more concerted effort at identifying …

Chengetai Masango: Sorry. Thank you very much. And I heard you came from a great university, so thanks. Next we have online Thomas Olsen-Ahem.

Audience: First of all, I would like to say to welcome everyone here in Saudi Arabia. I hope you enjoyed your time at staying in Riyadh. So my name … My name is Athina Rachevi. I’m a computer engineer and hold a master’s degree in cybersecurity. So I’m so glad to host this great internet governance forum and this great event to knowledge transfer and to share our idea and our thoughts and focus on our future, digital future, which addressing many, many various topics such as AI governance, data governance, cybersecurity regulations. and how to put the regulating and unify our efforts to increase the efficiency in technology usage and ethical usage. So let me please use the other minutes to speak in Arabic. So I was honored that the Kingdom has hosted the IGF for 2024. And I would like to address the most prominent topics discussed here on the forum, which is the AI governance, which is the topic of the hour. I would like also to focus, say that we must have concerted efforts on having regulations, policies and processes for the use policies on two main themes. The first of which is the ethical consideration and the ethical aspect of AI. And the second is how do we how do you prevent biases and algorithms of AI and the issues that are that were where misuse take place. Generally speaking, we would like to have concerted efforts for the IGF to come. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Let’s just hear one person from online. Thomas Olsen, IHEM, if I’m saying your name correctly, please. Let’s get the next person.

Nepal Youth IGF: Hello, everyone. My name is Ananda Gautam. I’m from Nepal. I represent Youth IGF Nepal, Internet Society Youth Standing Group and Youth Coalition on Internet Governance here. So I’m very proud to be here. And I’m I’m raising the issues of young people who couldn’t be here. I’m sorry for the young people and teen guys who were working so hard to be here, but due to constraints, they couldn’t be here. I came here on my own expenses, but Riyadh was very expensive for me. I’m sorry. I’m thankful to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the visa issues. It was very swift for me. So we are working very collaboratively to enhance the IGF ecosystem with 170 NRIs. But when we go back to our communities, even the UN agencies don’t recognize what IGF is. I think we need a serious kind of collaboration so that they know the essence of IGF. When we go back to the community, it is about not only about the NRIs, but I think it is a broader collaboration that will enhance our impact. Another thing is many youth coordinators are putting their hands and hands to bring the Global Youth Summit, and this year we have started a youth mentorship program, which I am very thankful for. But to bring them here, I think we need a very broad collaboration so that it is not always equal that when people participate online and be on site, because they will be missing so many things that we have when we participate on site. So I would request for a broader collaboration that could bring the people who are really contributing to these processes, without whom the essence of IGF would be lost. So thank you for the young people who have made it out to here and have collaborated on a lot of sessions. And looking forward for the Norway IGF, I hope visa issues…

Audience: Thank you. Good afternoon. It’s truly a great pleasure to be here at the IGF Riyadh Forum, surrounded by such an esteemed group. of leaders, innovators, and collaborators. I have a few suggestions for the next iteration of the IGF forum. So as we look ahead to the future of technology, particularly with the rapid advancements in AI, automation, and data sciences, it’s clear that these technologies hold significant potential to revolutionize industries and improve efficiencies. It is crucial for the future IGF sessions to explore how they can be developed, implemented, and regulated to ensure they deliver their benefits responsibly and effectively across all borders. Another key area for future discussions, as well, is how we can ensure that emerging technologies, particularly in AI, are designed and implemented to achieve the best possible outcomes. As AI systems become more widely adopted across industries, such as healthcare, transportation, finance, how can we ensure that they are integrated in ways that maximize the positive impact while minimizing unintended consequences? What strategies can be employed to ensure these systems are robust, reliable, and aligned with broader and economic goals? Also, additionally, as data plays an essential role in driving technological progress, future IGF sessions should consider how data privacy, security, and integrity can be safeguarded in this rapidly evolving landscape. Also, as the development of emerging technologies across national borders, international cooperation and regulatory frameworks will be increasingly vital. Moving forward, how can countries, corporations, and international organizations collaborate to establish consistent standards and regulations that govern these technologies? Finally, as we continue to push the boundaries of technological progress, it will be important to strike a balance…

Chengetai Masango: Yes, sorry, it cuts off at two minutes. Next please.

Audience: Hello, everyone. As a Saudi, please allow me to start by warmly welcoming all attendees from different countries around the world. Allow me, please, to share my feedback and input in Arabic. It was IGF. It was a valuable opportunity to understand the challenges and the benefits of using the Internet. One of the key experience for me is the international experience which have been shared at the sessions and workshops. This was for me a golden chance for me to be equipped and familiar with the best practices and to understand the trends. What I have noticed, the key challenges revolving around the cyber security and the privacy protection and the keenness to have a digital infrastructure despite the disparity among countries in this regard. What I have concluded and the ways of such experiences, the importance of focusing on the beneficiaries, children, women, and to build and to have people-centered approach and to enhance the multi-stakeholder approach for the future. I hope the discussion will include emerging technologies which can be leveraged to provide optimal services and how can the organization build the foundations for safe benefits.

Chengetai Masango: So I’m going to turn it over to Jordan Carter, who is going to give you a brief overview of what we’re seeing in the region from such technologies. Thank you.

Jordan Carter: Good afternoon, my name is Jordan Carter, I’m a technical community participant, outgoing MAG member, and here from the Australian Domain Administration. On the logistics, first of all, thank you to the Kingdom of Australia for allowing me to be a part of this event. I’d like to start by saying, as I said in the past, please have your Zoom crews practice this hybrid thing. The Zoom experience has gotten better as the week has gone on. Practice more in advance, please, so it’s smoother from the beginning. That would be really good. One observation, I want to note the broad support for the Internet Governance Forum and its continuance, as the world’s premier Internet Governance and Digital Policy Forum, as many of you know, is the world’s largest Internet Governance and Digital Policy Forum, the IGF. Not just for principled reasons, but for practical ones. The collaboration and sharing of ideas at the IGF is the best way to make Internet Governance and Digital Policy as workable, as inclusive, as supportive of human rights, human development, and human potential as it can be. There’s broad support for extension from countries, the central to Canada, for an existing regulations, currently being expanded to a new setup and made available in a new spirit of policy, but it’s a cliff, so in 2025, let’s renew the mandate. Let’s make it permanent. Thank you.

Audience: the Digital Opportunities Foundation based in Germany. I would like to share three thoughts with you. First, last Tuesday was like a dream come true. We’ve discussed child rights here at the main stage in a high-level session in the plenary hall. It was a really great experience and we’ve come a long way to reach this and I hope that it was not a once-in-a-lifetime moment. Second, as a member of DC, it first felt like a duty when we were asked to merge our proposals to create joint workshops. While doing so, it becomes a pleasure and joy. It was meaningful and it has a lot of sense. Thanks for Martin Botterman from DCIOT and Jutta Kroll from DCCRITE for support and contribution. Third, I would like to thank the United Nations and Saudi Arabia for hosting this IGF here. It was incredible and a special thanks I would like to direct to all the population and inhabitants of Riyadh. Everyone we’ve met in the last days was so kind, so friendly, so open-minded, so polite. It was a pleasure to meet you, to be here, and thanks everyone. Dear all, thank you for having me. This is Jasmine Imanko from Hong Kong. I am very excited to be, this is my second IGF and despite of a lot of privilege and gratitude to the host and everything that is happening here, I want to share a little bit of my personal disappointment. One thing that I observe is it’s my second IGF but I already seen that we are missing something in this IGF. So one thing is the music night. I’m talking about this because it is a shared tradition, the tradition that IGF has been having for years and we are missing this tradition. You know, social, official social occasion is not just things for fun, but it’s also creating more scenario and platform for people to meet and have dialogues besides just the formal session we are having now and the others. It’s a very important occasion people treasure and it’s an important platform that we exchange our culture and celebrate our diversity in other means. So I hope that in next year we could have this in Norway and my worries come because even as a small tradition like this is missing here, I really hope that and I really emphasize that we are able to keep the entire IGF as a whole. So from small thing that we keep and then to extending to the whole IGF mandate that we are able to renew, it’s very critical and I really appreciate the effort of people here, the different stakeholders and everyone, thank you very much. Thank you. Good afternoon, it’s our privilege to address you. My name is Jocelyn Melissa from the Association for Progressive Communication, and these are our insights when it comes to the reflections for this year’s IGF. Clear messages. have emerged from the multiple sessions and discussions in Riyadh during the IGF is that the Global Digital Compact must be integrated into the next phase of the WSIS, and that the IGF has to continue and to be strengthened. The burden on countries from the global south to comply with and support global processes is already immense. Increasing it through duplication of efforts might serve the interests of international digital bureaucrats, but it might not help to bridge the digital, social, and economic divides. In relation to the IGF, it is essential that, in our view, to grant the IGF a long-term or permanent mandate and strengthen its institutional capacity, build on its achievement, and continue its evolution to respond to the multiple imperatives of the current, emerging, and future digital societies. The IGF evolution needs to be shaped by a strategic vision rather than by ad hoc partnerships or initiatives to establish new tracks or themes. These are valuable, but unless the IGF has the institutional capacity to interact effectively and consistently with governments and key institutions from non-state actors, expanding its range will dilute its impact. This includes

Chengetai Masango: And sorry, just to note. If you don’t finish your intervention and if there isn’t enough time to go through it. through everybody’s intervention, please send them to the IGF Secretariat and we’ll take note of them. So you can just email IGF at un.org. Thank you.

Audience: Hello, everyone. I am from the Minister of Finance and Economy from Benin. I would like to actually benefit from this opportunity to thank you all, to thank the International Organization for ensuring access to Internet. It should be affordable and accessible to developing countries. During this IGF, two important points actually, I saw one, positive one, negative one. The access to this country was very easy thanks to the visa issuing and the visa also should be available to everyone. The negative point is that I was not able to share my number. I invite, sorry, our personal information should not be collected. I called the hosting country next year not to collect our personal information. Thank you.

ICANN: Good afternoon. Adam Peake from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN. On behalf of the ICANN, I would like to thank the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as our host for this week. Thank you, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, Excellency Abdullah Amir Azwar and your team and all who have made the 19th IGF such an exceptional success. ICANN will continue our support for the IGF, continue our participant and absolute support for the multi-stakeholder approach for Internet governance. Thank you so much to you. to you, your team, who are skillful, dedicated and extremely supportive and patient, thank you. To the MAG, Carol, thank you. Without you, there’s no program and many of the excellent sessions we’ve enjoyed this week. Thank you for all of your work throughout the year. Thank you to the Kingdom of Norway. Thank you for – we’re looking forward to visiting you in – well, it’s only June, and as someone who lives in Northern Europe, midsummer seems a very long way away. It is not. It is about six months, and we have much work to do. Thank you, and look forward to seeing you in about six months’ time. Safe travels home. Thank you.

Audience: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Dr. Andrews Bass. I’m the Executive Director for Institute of Public Policy and Diplomacy Research and also the hub for the IGF in the Dominican Republic. IGF is one of the best multilateral forums out there, and I feel like we have missed a presentation, especially the one from South America and Latin America. The CSW, we are a led company. They want me to address some questions. They say they want the visa approval and the letter of approval to be faster, like the CSW, within 48 hours, they have the letters. The reason why, because some countries take up to six months for them to have an appointment. That will help them to come faster, and also, when you got the letter close to the date, the ticket becomes twice as expensive. Also, they want the regional representative to do a better job to reach the universities. I’m in the US. If you talk a lot of universities, one or two understand about IGF. IGF is inside the UN. A lot of people inside the UN don’t even know about IGF. The youth also want to have more representation on the planning. They say when they plan, if they have the future of tomorrow, they don’t want to hear about that. They want to know the future of tomorrow is today. And I’m giving IGF accountability for the one IGF I was in Germany, we say one planet, one Internet, or one people. For us to be one planet, one Internet, we have to be inclusivity. That means all of us have to be here. And thank you for the surpassing marvelous Saudi Arabia for their hospitality. Everything was like that. And thank you so much.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you. I’m sorry. I have to call the last speaker. So you’re the last speaker. And then we have to prepare for the closing session because there’s a schedule they have to keep in this venue as well. And also people have planes, et cetera, to catch. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you for the opportunity. Good evening, everyone. First, I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the organizer of this very insightful forum. Everyone’s dedication and effort has made this gathering truly impactful. It’s an honor to stand here in this open mic session today. This moment represents a power of connection and collaboration across borders with all. In a world that grows more interconnected every day, it’s inspiring to share ideas and perspective that contributes to building a better, more inclusive future for all. As we gather here in the final day of IGF 2024, I would like to propose that we take a significant step forward by developing a clear and unified strategy of the IGF to maximize our collective impact by establishing a shared vision and well-defined objectives that address the dynamic challenges and opportunities. So, thank you very much for your attention, and I look forward to the IGF 2025. Thank you very much, and now, to end the session, and thank you very much for all your interventions, we have taken good notes, and I can attest for both the Chair and the Co-Chair, they have taken good notes, and we will continue to do so. So, thank you very much, and I look forward to the IGF 2025.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, and I look forward to the IGF 2025. Thank you very much, and I look forward to the IGF 2025. Thank you very much, and we will continue to take good notes. And we will also be launching a taking stock, so you will be able to send us your comments, and we’ll compile them into a report, and that will be given to next year’s MAG to look at as well, so that they keep in mind your thoughts and your ideas. So, thank you very much, and I look forward to the IGF 2025.

Carol Roach: Thank you very much. And now, I would like to invite the Chair and the Co-Chair to say a few quick words. Well, I actually want you to do something. I want everybody to stand and just give yourselves and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia a rousing hand applause. Thank you very much.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, and I look forward to the next year’s MAG. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And our final, I’ll ask our Co-Chair for next year, if you

Ole-Martin Martisen: have to say a few quick words. I noted judging by the applause, the most important are visas and music night, so we’ll take that with us. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Improve IGF organization and logistics

Audience

Vint Cerf

Jordan Carter

Audio and technical issues should be addressed

Practice hybrid format in advance

Visa process improvements needed

Multiple speakers emphasized the need to improve various aspects of IGF organization, including addressing technical issues, practicing hybrid formats, and streamlining visa processes.

Enhance inclusivity and representation

Audience

Nepal Youth IGF

Involve people with disabilities in IGF planning

Increase youth participation and representation

Improve regional representation, especially from Latin America

Ensure participation from developing countries

Several speakers stressed the importance of improving inclusivity and representation at IGF, particularly for people with disabilities, youth, developing countries, and underrepresented regions.

Focus on emerging technologies and their impacts

Audience

Focus on AI governance and ethics

Address cybersecurity and privacy protection

Discuss emerging technologies and their impacts

Multiple speakers highlighted the need to address emerging technologies, particularly AI, cybersecurity, and privacy issues in future IGF discussions.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of strengthening the IGF’s role and expanding its engagement with various stakeholders and initiatives.

Jordan Carter

Online audience

Support for extending and strengthening IGF mandate

More engagement with non-government stakeholders needed

Enhance collaboration with international initiatives

Both speakers highlighted the need to improve IGF’s outreach and recognition, particularly in underrepresented regions and within the UN system.

Audience

Nepal Youth IGF

Improve regional representation, especially from Latin America

Improve recognition of IGF among UN agencies

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of social events at IGF

Audience

Visa process improvements needed

While discussing logistical improvements, there was an unexpected emphasis on the importance of social events like the ‘music night’ at IGF, highlighting the value placed on informal networking opportunities.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around improving IGF organization and logistics, enhancing inclusivity and representation, focusing on emerging technologies, and strengthening the IGF’s mandate and outreach.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among speakers on these key issues. This suggests a shared vision for improving and expanding the IGF’s impact, which could lead to more focused efforts in addressing these areas in future events.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to improving IGF participation

Audience

Nepal Youth IGF

Visa process improvements needed

Improve recognition of IGF among UN agencies

While both speakers aim to improve IGF participation, they focus on different aspects. One emphasizes streamlining the visa process, while the other suggests improving recognition of IGF among UN agencies.

Unexpected Differences

Focus on social aspects vs. technical improvements

Audience

Vint Cerf

Jordan Carter

Ensure participation from developing countries

Audio and technical issues should be addressed

Practice hybrid format in advance

While most speakers focused on technical improvements or representation issues, one audience member unexpectedly emphasized the need to ensure participation from developing countries, highlighting a potential gap in priorities.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around prioritizing technical improvements, enhancing participation and representation, and focusing on specific policy areas for future IGFs.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers appears to be moderate. While there are differing opinions on how to improve the IGF, most speakers share the common goal of enhancing the forum’s effectiveness and inclusivity. These differences in approach could lead to productive discussions on how to best evolve the IGF, but may also result in challenges in determining which improvements to prioritize.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need to improve technical aspects of the IGF, but they suggest different approaches. Vint Cerf proposes a post-meeting analysis, while Jordan Carter recommends more practice before the event.

Vint Cerf

Jordan Carter

Audio and technical issues should be addressed

Practice hybrid format in advance

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of strengthening the IGF’s role and expanding its engagement with various stakeholders and initiatives.

Jordan Carter

Online audience

Support for extending and strengthening IGF mandate

More engagement with non-government stakeholders needed

Enhance collaboration with international initiatives

Both speakers highlighted the need to improve IGF’s outreach and recognition, particularly in underrepresented regions and within the UN system.

Audience

Nepal Youth IGF

Improve regional representation, especially from Latin America

Improve recognition of IGF among UN agencies

Key Takeaways

Resolutions and Action Items

Unresolved Issues

Suggested Compromises

I believe an accommodation expert team should visit the Norwegian site as early as possible in the planning in order to assure that support for people who need accommodation is taken into consideration. It was even suggested that people with bona fide accommodation needs might even have a different colored badge so that we know that they might require additional assistance.

speaker

Vint Cerf

reason

This comment highlights the importance of accessibility and inclusion at future IGF events, introducing a concrete suggestion for improvement.

impact

It set the tone for subsequent comments about accessibility and inclusion, prompting others to consider these issues throughout the discussion.

We need to find a way to unify the queue for online and on-site participants because it’s difficult to manage both ends while you’re organizing your session

speaker

Joao Moreno

reason

This comment addresses a practical challenge in hybrid events and suggests a need for improvement in managing online and in-person participation.

impact

It sparked further discussion about the logistics and challenges of hybrid events, with subsequent speakers touching on online participation issues.

I would like to invite you and make a suggestion to involve people with disabilities and our organizations on the planning of the IFG in order to ensure that all necessities are covered, comply with the accessibility guidelines, and leave no one behind.

speaker

Itzel from Mexico

reason

This comment directly addresses the need for inclusivity in the planning process, not just in accommodation during the event.

impact

It reinforced the earlier point about accessibility and expanded the conversation to include the planning stages of the IGF.

When we go back to our communities, even the UN agencies don’t recognize what IGF is. I think we need a serious kind of collaboration so that they know the essence of IGF.

speaker

Ananda Gautam

reason

This comment highlights a significant challenge in the broader recognition and impact of the IGF, even within the UN system.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the need for better communication and collaboration to increase the IGF’s visibility and effectiveness.

Clear messages have emerged from the multiple sessions and discussions in Riyadh during the IGF is that the Global Digital Compact must be integrated into the next phase of the WSIS, and that the IGF has to continue and to be strengthened.

speaker

Josephine Miliza

reason

This comment synthesizes key outcomes from the IGF and connects them to broader global initiatives.

impact

It provided a higher-level perspective on the IGF’s role and future, influencing subsequent comments about the IGF’s mandate and evolution.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting critical areas for improvement in the IGF, including accessibility, hybrid event management, inclusivity in planning, broader recognition of the IGF’s importance, and the need for a clear strategy and mandate. The discussion evolved from specific logistical concerns to broader strategic considerations about the IGF’s future and its role in global internet governance. This progression demonstrated the interconnectedness of practical improvements and long-term vision in enhancing the IGF’s effectiveness and impact.

How can we improve audio issues and hybrid participation for future IGFs?

speaker

Vint Cerf

explanation

Audio problems were noted during the event, and improving hybrid participation is crucial for inclusivity

How can we better accommodate participants with disabilities at future IGFs?

speaker

Vint Cerf

explanation

Ensuring accessibility for all participants is important for an inclusive event

How can we enhance the integration of AI and Internet of Things technologies in a sustainable manner?

speaker

Chad IGF representative

explanation

This is crucial for promoting economic growth and sustainable development

How can we resolve conflicts of interest between UN agencies regarding the future of the IGF?

speaker

Chad IGF representative

explanation

Resolving these conflicts is necessary for the sustainability and effectiveness of the IGF

How can we increase financing and engagement for Internet Governance Schools?

speaker

Nnena

explanation

These schools bring holistic and engaging stakeholders to the IGF ecosystem

How can we better engage non-government stakeholders and international/regional initiatives for IGF sustainability?

speaker

Nnena

explanation

This engagement is crucial for the long-term sustainability of the Internet governance system

How can we improve visa processes for participants, especially youth and those from developing countries?

speaker

Multiple participants

explanation

Visa issues were a recurring concern, impacting participation from various regions

How can we ensure ethical considerations and prevent biases in AI algorithms?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This is crucial for responsible development and use of AI technologies

How can we improve recognition of IGF’s importance among UN agencies and in local communities?

speaker

Ananda Gautam

explanation

Better recognition could enhance the impact and relevance of IGF’s work

How can we develop, implement, and regulate emerging technologies like AI responsibly across borders?

speaker

Unnamed participant

explanation

This is important for maximizing benefits while minimizing unintended consequences

How can we safeguard data privacy, security, and integrity in the rapidly evolving technological landscape?

speaker

Unnamed participant

explanation

This is crucial as data plays an essential role in driving technological progress

How can we establish consistent international standards and regulations for emerging technologies?

speaker

Unnamed participant

explanation

International cooperation is vital as technologies develop across national borders

How can we renew and potentially make permanent the IGF mandate?

speaker

Jordan Carter

explanation

There is broad support for the continuation and strengthening of the IGF

How can we develop a clear and unified strategy for the IGF to maximize collective impact?

speaker

Unnamed final speaker

explanation

A shared vision and well-defined objectives are needed to address dynamic challenges and opportunities

Summary

This panel discussion focused on building parliamentary capacity to effectively shape the digital realm, particularly in relation to artificial intelligence (AI) and data governance. Experts from various organizations, including ICANN, GIZ, Google, and UNESCO, shared insights on how parliamentarians can engage with digital policymaking and capacity building initiatives.

The discussion highlighted the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in addressing the challenges of regulating AI and managing data in the digital age. Panelists emphasized the need for parliamentarians to receive specialized training and resources to understand complex technological issues. They also stressed the importance of balancing innovation with responsible regulation, particularly in emerging markets and the Global South.

Key topics included the harmonization of digital policies across countries, the role of international organizations in providing capacity building, and the challenges of data colonialism. The panelists discussed various approaches to AI regulation, from risk-based frameworks to more flexible, principles-based guidelines. They also addressed the tension between the need for regulation and the risk of stifling innovation.

Participants raised concerns about the lack of technical knowledge among many parliamentarians and the need for more targeted capacity building efforts. The discussion touched on the importance of considering cultural and regional contexts in digital policymaking, particularly in the Middle East and Africa.

Overall, the panel concluded that effective digital governance requires a collaborative approach involving governments, international organizations, the private sector, and civil society. The experts agreed that while AI regulation is necessary, it must be done thoughtfully and with a deep understanding of the technology’s potential benefits and risks.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The need for capacity building and education for parliamentarians on digital/AI issues

– Balancing regulation of AI with fostering innovation

– Data governance, data sharing, and concerns about “data colonialism”

– The role of international organizations and private companies in shaping digital policies

– Approaches to AI regulation, including risk-based and principles-based frameworks

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore how parliamentarians and parliaments can build capacity to effectively shape digital policies and navigate the challenges and opportunities of digital transformation.

The tone of the discussion was collaborative and solution-oriented. Panelists acknowledged the complexity of the issues but focused on practical ways to increase parliamentary engagement and knowledge. There was a sense of urgency about the need for parliamentarians to become more involved in digital policymaking, balanced with caution about over-regulating too quickly. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end as panelists offered specific resources and opportunities for parliamentarians to engage further on these topics.

Speakers

– Rima Al-Yahya: Moderator, Member of the Shura Council

– Franz von Weizsäcker: Head of Program Citizens’ Engagement and Innovation Data Use for Africa’s Development, GIZ

– Beckwith Burr: ICANN board member, Partner at Harris, Wiltshire & Granus LLP

– Olga Skorokhodova: Government Affairs and Public Policy Emerging Markets, Head of CACASIS, Central Asia, and Russia, Google

– Cedric Wachholz: Chief Section for Digital Policy and Digital Transformation in UNESCO

– Audience: Various parliamentarians and attendees who asked questions

Additional speakers:

– Maha Abdel Nasser: Egyptian parliamentarian

– Catherine Mumma: Senator from Kenya

– Al-Hajji: Member of Parliament from Gambia and the Pan-African Parliament

– Jamal Fakhro: From Bahrain

– Dr. Abadi: Unspecified role/country

– Dr. Saleh: Unspecified role, likely from Saudi Arabia

Parliamentary Capacity Building for Digital Governance: A Multi-Stakeholder Approach

This panel discussion, moderated by Rima Al-Yahya of the Shura Council, explored the critical issue of building parliamentary capacity to effectively shape the digital realm, with a particular focus on artificial intelligence (AI) and data governance. Experts from various organisations, including ICANN, GIZ, Google, and UNESCO, shared insights on how parliamentarians can engage with digital policymaking and capacity building initiatives.

Key Themes and Discussions

1. ICANN’s Role in Internet Governance

Beckwith Burr, ICANN board member, outlined ICANN’s crucial role in coordinating the global Internet’s unique identifier systems, including domain names and IP addresses. She emphasized ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model, which brings together governments, civil society, and industry to develop policies. Burr highlighted ICANN’s capacity building programs, stating, “We have training programs, we have a lot of resources available for parliamentarians who want to understand how the Internet works.”

2. Capacity Building for Parliamentarians

A central theme was the urgent need for capacity building among parliamentarians to address the knowledge gap in digital technologies and AI. Honourable Al-Hajji, a Member of Parliament from Gambia and the Pan-African Parliament, highlighted this issue: “We have very, very, very few members of parliament that actually understand technology. I am an exception because I’m a software developer and I’ve been in the field for 25 years now, but I’m one in maybe hundreds or 200 members of parliament.”

To address this gap, panelists offered various solutions:

– Cedric Wachholz of UNESCO highlighted their capacity building workshops and online courses for parliamentarians, including a comprehensive AI curriculum.

– Olga Skorokhodova from Google discussed AI academies and online courses for policymakers in emerging markets, emphasizing the importance of “getting AI right requires a team effort across stakeholders.”

– Franz von Weizsäcker of GIZ mentioned their support for regional parliamentary networks and capacity building initiatives.

3. Approaches to AI Regulation

The discussion on AI regulation revealed a nuanced debate about balancing innovation with risk management. Von Weizsäcker advocated for a risk-based and tiered regulatory approach, citing the European model: “The European approach on AI is putting things into different risk categories. And when you’re dealing with biometric data of the entire population and very private information and so on, that’s a high-risk environment.”

Skorokhodova emphasized Google’s commitment to responsible AI development, stating, “AI is too important not to regulate, but it’s also too important not to regulate well.” She outlined Google’s AI principles and their practical application in product development.

Wachholz discussed UNESCO’s work on AI ethics and governance, including the development of a global standard-setting instrument on AI ethics. He stressed the importance of using existing laws to limit AI risks while developing more comprehensive frameworks.

4. Data Governance and Economic Development

The discussion touched on the crucial role of data governance in economic development, particularly in emerging markets. Von Weizsäcker emphasized the importance of data sharing across borders for economic development in Africa, while Skorokhodova highlighted the necessity of local data availability for developing AI applications.

The concept of “data colonialism” was raised, with concerns about fair benefits from data for countries in the Global South. Von Weizsäcker suggested, “We need to harmonize our data policies in order to be able to negotiate with global tech companies.” This led to discussions about regional approaches to data governance, such as the African Union’s efforts to develop a unified framework.

5. Saudi Arabian Approach to AI and Data Governance

Dr. Saleh shared insights on Saudi Arabia’s approach to AI and data governance, highlighting the country’s efforts to balance innovation with ethical considerations. He mentioned the establishment of the Saudi Data and Artificial Intelligence Authority (SDAIA) and the development of a national data strategy.

6. Multi-stakeholder Collaboration

A recurring theme was the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in digital policymaking. Burr highlighted ICANN’s role in facilitating collaboration between governments, civil society, and industry. Wachholz emphasized UNESCO’s position as a neutral broker bringing a multi-stakeholder approach to digital governance issues.

Audience Engagement

The audience, comprising various parliamentarians and attendees, raised questions about specific challenges in their countries and regions. Concerns were expressed about the digital divide, the need for localized AI solutions, and the challenges of regulating global tech companies at a national level.

Conclusion

The moderator, Rima Al-Yahya, concluded by emphasizing the critical importance of building parliamentary capacity to shape the digital realm. She stressed that informed decision-making by parliamentarians is crucial for developing effective and balanced digital policies that serve the interests of all stakeholders.

As von Weizsäcker aptly noted, “The internet is global and legislation is national. That creates an inherent tension in all of our efforts and it creates the need to put efforts into harmonisation.” This observation encapsulates the ongoing challenge in digital governance: balancing national interests with the global nature of technology and data flows.

The discussion pointed towards a need for continued dialogue, targeted capacity building initiatives, and collaborative efforts to develop flexible, effective frameworks for governing the digital realm. The engagement of parliamentarians in this process was deemed crucial for ensuring that digital policies are shaped by informed, democratically elected representatives who understand both the potential and the risks of emerging technologies.

Rima Al-Yahya: Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to welcome you all once again to Saudi Arabia. It is a country where visions become concrete and dreams become reality. My name is Dr. Reema Al Yahya, and I am a member of the Shura Council, and I will be moderating today’s session on building parliamentary capacity to effectively shape the digital realm. So, wow, what an amazing two days it has been so far, and there’s still so much to come. But what I noticed while attending the previous sessions, whether the discussion was on navigating an era of digital transformation or global digital cooperation and priorities or developing large-scale AI systems and digital innovations, is that the ultimate core of the talk will always stress the importance of building capacity. Yesterday, Senator Shuaib, and I’m going to quote you, Salisa stated, what you don’t know you can’t give. And that is totally true. This session will discuss what parliaments and parliamentarians need in order to play a full role in shaping digital policies and how to build capacity in parliaments, as well as navigating the challenges and the opportunities of the digital transformation era. I would like to introduce my experts today. On my left, I have Mr. Franz von Weizsaecker, Head of Program Citizens’ Engagement and Innovation Data Use for Africa’s Development, GIZ. Mr. Wesiker is heading the Digital and Economic Portfolio of GIZ Office to the African Union based in Addis Ababa. This includes the data governance in Africa and initiative, a multi-donor action funded by the European Union and five European Member States. On my right, Ms. Beckwith Burr, ICAN board member. Ms. Burr is a partner of Harris, Wiltshire & Granus LLP. Her practice focuses on data protection, data governance, and cybersecurity. Prior to joining the firm, Burr was Nostar’s Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer and has been involved in internet governance issues for more than 25 years. She was also the Director of the Office of the International Affairs of ITIA during the creation of ICAN. Also on my left is Ms. Olga Skorokhodova, Government Affairs and Public Policy Emerging Markets, Head of CACASIS, Central Asia, and Russia, Google. Ms. Olga is responsible for government affairs and public policy in a number of countries of Central Asia and the CACASIS. She also leads strategic AI policy engagement projects within the Emerging Markets team covering 100 plus countries at Google. Also on my right, Mr. Cedric Wachholz, Chief Section for Digital Policy and Digital Transformation in UNESCO, which includes multiple artificial intelligence workstreams and the use of frontier technologies for attaining the UN Sustainability Development Goals through advocacy, capacity, and public policy developments, as well as other workstreams. So, with that said, let’s start with Ms. Burr. Ms. Burr, what is exactly ICANN’s role in the internet ecosystem and how can members of Parliament collaborate with this global organization?

Beckwith Burr: Thank you for the question and thank you for asking me. participate. It’s a great honor to be here and to be in Saudi Arabia for my first time. ICANN has a limited but very critical role in the internet ecosystem. Its fundamental mission is to ensure the secure and stable operation of the internet’s unique identifier systems, the building blocks of DNS, including names, numbers, and protocols. If names, numbers, and protocols don’t work, your internet content messages will not get where they need to be. So the security and stability and operational resilience of the DNS is critical. ICANN accomplishes its mission in several ways. First, it coordinates the allocation and assignment of top-level domains, both the so-called generic TLDs like com, net, and org, as well as the two-digit country code TLDs such as .sa, .jp, or .fr. Second, ICANN coordinates the development of policies concerning the registration of second-level domains, so the beckyburr.com, but in this case, only in the generic, not in the country code domain namespace because country code domain namespace policy is established in-country. Third, ICANN facilitates the coordination of the DNS root name server system. Fourth, working with regional address registries such as RIPE, NCC, and LACNIC, ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of internet protocol numbers and autonomous system numbers used to route internet traffic. And finally, in coordination with the Internet Engineering Task Force, ICANN provides registries for the authoritative record of many of the codes and numbers contained in a variety of internet protocols, also often referred to as ICANN. to as RFCs. ICANN does not have regulatory authority. Rather, its role involves convening, coordinating, and facilitating the collaborative work of stakeholders, including the technical community, civil society, business, users, and governments. National governments, distinct economies, and international intergovernmental organizations participate in ICANN’s multi-stakeholder policy development processes and provide advice on public policy matters, primarily through the Government Advisory Committee, or the GAC. The GAC has 183 governments as members and 39 intergovernmental organizations as observers. GAC delegations may include lawmakers, and ICANN welcomes this, and we have often seen parliamentarians participating in the GAC delegations. There are many other ways that parliamentarians can participate in ICANN’s multi-stakeholder process. Parliamentarians are always welcome at ICANN meetings, which occur three times per year and rotate through ICANN’s five regions. Meetings are accessible. Everything is translated into the six UN languages plus Portuguese. ICANN also operates a robust capacity building program designed to lower barriers to participation while increasing diversity and effective participation of GAC members, including from underserved regions. Capacity building events have been held online, as well as in Nairobi, Johannesburg, Dakar, Nandi, Kathmandu, Abu Dhabi, Manama, San Juan, Panama City, Cancun, and many other places. Parliamentarians are welcome to participate in programming sponsored by ICANN and its partners, such as our annual Universal Acceptance Day, where we promote acceptance of non-ASCII scripts, so internationalized domain names, and other initiatives such as the Coalition for Digital Africa. While ICANN is headquartered in Los Angeles, it has a global presence with offices in Brussels, Montevideo, Singapore, and Istanbul, and smaller engagement centers in Beijing, Nairobi, and Geneva. The ICANN’s global engagement team welcome outreach from parliamentarians and would be very pleased to assist you in answering questions, connecting you with resources, and helping you participate. In addition to resources and engagement opportunities offered by ICANN and its programming partners, parliamentarians may want to engage directly with local ICANN stakeholders who are very knowledgeable about the ICANN process, who are very anxious to work with their government representatives and their legislators. And these include country code domain name operators, regional associations of country code operators, and regional at-large organizations and regional address registries. I’m happy to answer any questions you have or provide further information on how you can collaborate with ICANN in furtherance of a secure, resilient, and globally interoperable Internet. Thank you.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. That’s amazing. So, your job is really full because participating in meetings and attending ICANN events will expose parliamentarians to the best practices, as well as networking with others, so they will definitely benefit wherever they attend. All right. Thank you so much. All right. So, the second question is directed to Mr. Weizsäcker. Sir, the GIZ… is a strong partner of the African Union and supporting capacity building activities of members of parliaments. How can parliamentarians effectively contribute to a harmonized digital landscape? And it would be great if you could give us some tangible concrete examples.

Franz von Weizsaecker: Thank you so much, Rima. And thanks also for welcoming me in Saudi Arabia. Coming back after 15 years being abroad and coming back to Saudi, I came back to a different, very different country. It’s really a much more modern place. Much appreciated. And I’m very excited to be here. Thank you. So I work for the GIZ office to the African Union. And GIZ is a part of the German government for international development. And so, yes, we do support the parliamentarian track of IGF and parliamentarian capacity development as part of the Data Governance in Africa initiative. And that is the EU project that has been funded by EU and five different European member states. And I do believe that Germany, since you might remember the IGF in Berlin, Germany was actively promoting the participation of parliamentarians in IGFs to be part of the dialogue, because in the end, it is the lawmakers that have to bring the governmental role and have to have to promote a well-informed governmental role into digital policymaking. And our support to the African Union and its 55 member states and the regional economic communities is around harmonizing the digital policies, in particular, the data policies, as well as supporting a number of other initiatives such as the African Digital Compact, and the African Union AI strategy, I believe Olga also was part of that. So the African Union Data Policy Framework is the effort to harmonize how data can be shared by government, by private sector, how it can be transferred across the border. And that is very important in Africa’s ambition to form a digital single market to allow also companies to work across borders and this is to encourage the investments in the startup ecosystem because in many cases these businesses need the opportunity to scale across borders as well in order to really reap the value of the data economy and the AI economy built on that of course. We do face a lot of the debates, and that might be an interesting discussion with Google, of data colonialism and of extractive business models taking data from African citizens and maybe generating profits elsewhere in the world. And we do take that very seriously so it is these national debates on economic policies that are going on of how can the value of the data economy be maximized, the value that is created locally and that the local economy and the tax collection and so on are benefiting from. So that is a very important debate to have and the right answer to that is in many cases to not limit the cross-border data transfer but rather to encourage it because more economic value can be generated by connecting and by sharing data across borders. So that is the policy of the African Union Data Policy Framework and we have now reached a stage where we have received from the 55 countries of the African Union, we have received 22 requests by 22 members. States that want to adopt the African Union Data Policy Framework at national level, as well as the regional economic communities of EAC, East Africa, SADEC for Southern Africa, and ECOWAS for Eastern Africa, who all want to be part of this harmonization effort. And I believe that’s a very important initiative to really reap the benefits of the data economy at national level and at regional level in Africa. And that’s what the German government, with its European partners, is happy to support. Along with that policy support, there is an infrastructure investment facility on data centers and investments in data centers, as well as a promotion facility for data use cases in various sectors. So agricultural data, climate data, financial systems data. And this is all about sharing models that work across the border and between different stakeholders, private sector, public sector, and so on. So this is what we are doing, and I believe it’s very important that parliamentarians be part of this debate in order to really fully support the role of the government, of lawmakers, to pass the necessary harmonization efforts at national level. Thank you.

Rima Al-Yahya: Amazing. Amazing. Can I ask, how far have you gone in harmonizing the digital landscape? I mean, from your experience, 55 African countries of the African Union is a large-scale project. So I know you mentioned 22 countries being interested in the policy framework, but have you seen any tangible harmonization so far?

Franz von Weizsaecker: Of course, the passing of legislation is nothing that happens from one day to another. So for example, there is policy drafting going on in Nagula for the new data protection law, in Zambia, and the Gambia. So those are one of the most advanced countries in those efforts currently of adopting the AU framework, as well as efforts on… region of ECOWAS in Western Africa, the regional framework is being updated to comply with the principles of the African Union framework. And there is from those 22 countries that have requested, it’s a long list, too long to read here, but nine of those countries have done an assessment to see how far advanced are they in the various aspects of data governance. And we have done several capacity development measures in the Gambia, in Nigeria and Zambia, as well as on regional level. So it is advancing very fast, but you’re right, it’s very ambitious. 55 countries, I think we will not get there to implement in all 55, but we follow the first come, first serve approach to provide support where it’s requested.

Rima Al-Yahya: Amazing. I raise my hat to you. All right. So moving on to Mr. Waschholz. Mr. Cedric, UNESCO is actively contributing to digital policymaking, capacities and inclusion, and has worked with members of parliaments on AI regulations and emerging approaches across the world. What regulatory approaches to AI can you recommend, especially to parliaments with less capabilities?

Cedric Wachholz: Thank you, Madam Chair. And the answer to your question is, there is no one-fits-it-all approach. But let me first thank you for giving us the floor and thanking Saudi Arabia for its hospitality, for hosting the IGF, but also for the parliamentary track to invite UNESCO to join. This is a really much appreciated cooperation. So we are talking about a very hot topic, which is rapidly evolving over the last years. There are more than 30 countries which have adopted AI regulation by parliaments. And just if you look at the Stanford AI Index from 2024, they saw that the the number of citations and proceedings across the globe where AI was mentioned in legislative proceedings doubled just in one year from 2022 to 2023. So it is really something which is gaining in importance. And we have worked together with the IGF, Parliamentary Track, but also the IPU on different capacity development activities for parliamentarians. But also we have looked at existing regulation and looked them at different approaches because that was your question. And so there are a number one can distinguish. There’s a paper we developed and we had actually inputs from more than a hundred parliamentarians from legal experts, but also from AI experts on that. And it is online available. And there we distinguish actually nine different approaches. And of course one needs to, I will rapidly map them, but of course it is all a question of context and to see what are really the best regulatory approaches. So one we would distinguish is, and probably all, there is not one approach most countries will adopt, but they will mix different approaches. So there’s that dimension. So the principle-based approach focuses really on the broad ethical principles to guide AI development. And some of you might be aware that UNESCO, UNESCO’s member states, but through a long multi-stakeholder process over three years has developed an ethics recommendation adopted by all member states. And that was a long process, but these ethical principles are for us the foundation and guiding principles. They’re also human rights-based, but this would be a principle-based approach as well. Then, there is of course a standards-based approach, which involves really creating specific technical standards for AI systems to ensure a certain safety and compliance. One can certainly also mention agile and experimentalist approaches, encouraging some flexibility and

Rima Al-Yahya: experimentation in AI regulation, also to adopt and be ready for a number of technological

Cedric Wachholz: rapid technological changes. The AI recommendation of UNESCO, for example, was launched, actually the process in 2017-18, it took three years, was adopted in 2021 before CETCPT. So you need to actually also have some flexibility in adopting. It is absolutely relevant also in CETCPT-H, it hasn’t changed, but we had some foresight in doing this work. But another approach would be the one of adapting existing laws and modifying actually already existing current legal frameworks. Then comes the one which we would call the access to information and transparency mandates approach, which ensures that AI systems really operate transparently and that information is really accessible to all stakeholders, which isn’t an easy exercise, but some of the regulations aim that. The risk-based approach is one, I mean, many of you are familiar with, because the European AI Act is very much based on that approach. Some might have heard about that. And it is about assessing and mitigating the risks associated to AI applications. Now, the rights-based approach is prioritised with really the human rights in the deployment of AI technologies, and the liability approach is the one. assessing or assigning responsibilities and also sanctions to problematic users of AI. Now, as I mentioned, these nine approaches represent different pieces of a puzzle, and I don’t know if I have a little bit more time to say why, when, and how to regulate, or if we should keep that for a later discussion. Yes? Okay. So, of course, there are more or less three reasons I would name to regulate, so the why. One is, of course, to address a public problem, and secondly is to really promote, respect, protect fundamental and also collective rights. And then the third one is really to create an enabling environment, but also shape a digital future which is safe and which corresponds to the desired, you know, also digital future. So, when you regulate, you need to, and this is a process probably some of you have gone through in different other contexts, but of course you need to have one of these justifications or several ones to go forward. But then also ask if there are any irregularities. Also, is it feasible from a legal and political and administrative point of view? And if you answer all these questions, you can say yes, then you probably should regulate. And then there’s, of course, the how-to, keeping human rights at the forefront and as a basis, and the core of it all is an important foundation. But then also considering agile methodologies as sandboxes and testbeds. There are some examples for that too. And then for us, it has very clearly shown that multi-stakeholder approaches are key in this domain. So, to consider multiple perspective, so that it is representative, but also inclusive and also realistic. So we have partnered, well, I will not go too much more now into details, I think, but just to say that we were very happy to have a few also capacity development workshops with the IPU and the IGF parliamentary track, just to recognize that.

Rima Al-Yahya: Great, remarkable. You were just saying that one hat does not fit all. So do you customize your regulatory approaches to AI, depending on the parliaments and those with less capabilities? Do you engage non-profit organizations or companies with corporate responsibility to help you out with the capacity building training for parliamentarians, I mean, especially with those with the countries with less capabilities?

Cedric Wachholz: Yes, we do. And I like this multi-stakeholder approach of this panel, too. I think it is very helpful. Now, there are different approaches. And for example, I mentioned the AI ethics recommendation and we have different tools developed, for example, to do first and country assessment, to have some facts as a background. And this has been rolled out in more than 60 countries to really assess the AI landscape, which is a helpful tool to then have some evidence to guide the way forward. We have a comparable tool also for companies where some companies have bought into adapting the AI ethics recommendation. So assessing first the country situation, the needs, the landscape, and then adapting different tools makes the most sense to me. Thank you so much.

Rima Al-Yahya: All right. So now, last but not least, Ms. Skorokhodova, how can members of parliament engage with Google?

Olga Skorokhodova: Thank you so much for the opportunity to be part of this panel. This has been an enormous. enriching and insightful conversation. So thank you so much, co-panelists. I actually quite like being the last one at the panel because you can enrich yourself with all that knowledge that has been shared before. And then it’s just really inspiring to hear all your perspectives. I wanted to start by expressing my gratitude on behalf of Google to the organizers of IGF and to Saudi Arabia as a host country for the hospitality and for having us at this parliamentary track. This is very special, and it’s a big privilege for our company. At Google, we believe that collaboration is the key to address today’s complex challenges from climate change to health care delivery. And we also believe, of course, it’s no secret that digital technologies and AI can play a crucial role in addressing these challenges. And in doing so, we are also deeply committed to working with the governments and parliamentarians around the world in two, I would say, roughly two very important areas. One is really shape the policies that will define digital age. And more and more, we are talking about AI policies. The African Union AI framework has been just mentioned as one of the examples. And I love citing this example in some other regions when I visit because I think that is remarkable what the African Union achieved. And this is something where we as a company are involved in really discussing the frameworks, national strategies, and regulation that shapes digital realm. And secondly, in terms of our work with parliamentarians and public. officials, we are committed to deliver impactful upskilling and capacity building programs for public officials. And we have to be honest, I would say, this AI ascent that happened very rapidly, it was a surprise, and it is still a surprise to many public officials. And they must not have all the capacity that you need to have to address these issues, to regulate them in a smart way. That’s why capacity building, specifically targeting public officials and parliamentarians, policymakers, regulators, is a very, very important aspect. And if we talk about AI, we now have already some figures of what is the price in hand. And one of those figures is McKinsey estimates. It’s $26 trillion. That’s an upside of full AI adoption in terms of potential economic impact. That’s higher, actually, this figure is higher than current GDP of the United States. And so to really leverage this potential and convert this potential into economic reality, especially in the emerging markets, we really believe that strategic approach is important. And to help governments of emerging markets, specifically, to charter the path forward, this spring we came up with a roadmap or policy recommendation set that we called AI Sprinters. We use this term to nickname countries that lead or leapfrog in terms of AI, in terms of economic opportunity by using AI and digital tools. And so our recommendation is that governments and specifically parliamentarians, as they think about how do we use AI for economic development. development, they should consider focusing on four main pillars. One is really infrastructure, and it’s about securing access to reliable internet and to cloud computing, because there is no AI without cloud computing. Second, it’s about innovation. And we talked briefly mentioned data colonialism, and what we think is important while we should be thinking and talking about how do we extrapolate the value of data to the local economies. What is also crucially important, and we really see it with our products, is that there is enough data locally available to power locally developed tools and AI applications, or adopting the global tools that already exist, but to the local reality. I will give you just one simple example. We have a special AI model that can actually help you predict flooding nine days in advance before it occurs. And the flooding is a big deal, and a big economic factor in Africa, in Central Asia, et cetera. But we were not able to launch this model and scale it in some countries of my region that I cover, Central Asia, just because there was not enough data publicly available for it, because the government sits on that data. They do have historical data of how rivers behave, but it’s not disclosed. So we can’t offer our model that can help you mitigate potential risks, potential human impact, economic impact, but you can’t do it without data. So really making sure the data is available for development locally is very important. And then policies and skills. And I want to touch upon what we are doing in terms of public official subscaling. Really three initiatives that I want to mention, because we do recognize and realize the responsibility as a global player to prepare public officials and parliamentarians to the AI-driven age. So what we are doing is that through google.org, it’s our company philanthropy branch, we gave a grant of more than 5 million US dollars to a political government AI campus. That’s a special program created to bring AI education specifically to public officials. Beyond global programming, the government AI campus has engaged with leaders across the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia, our host countries, South Africa and other countries to bring tailor-made education to the civil servants at scale. We also recognize that to ensure that these upscaling programs are truly inclusive, you need to have proper language coverage. So all the curriculum of AI campus is translated into 10 languages including Arabic, Spanish and others to make sure that actually countries that need this capacity building support have access in terms of language offering to our programs. We also recognize that policymakers and parliamentarians in emerging markets may need more tailored approach and we run as a company our internal bespoke AI academies, we call them, which is basically a crash course on AI applications but also on AI regulation that we offer internally to the policymakers across the world. In this year only we ran seven AI academies in practically in all of the emerging markets, Latin America, Brazil, the Middle East, North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and Turkey. Again, recognizing the need for more robust support specifically in Sub-Saharan Africa, we launched an AI Sprinters online course which is developed based on our recommendation and roadmap that we offer for emerging markets on how to drive AI adoption. This online course we launched at the UN General Assembly just this September and we already trained more than 300 African officials at the UN General Assembly but also with the support of UN Economic Commission for Africa and the World Trade Organization. So I think my… time is up already, but I just wanted to conclude by saying that we at Google also look at capacity building for public officials and also at really policy making once it comes to AI as a collective multi-stakeholder project, I would say. And here, definitely companies like ours have also a role to play and we are happy to be part of that ecosystem. Thank you so much.

Rima Al-Yahya: Amazing. That’s amazing. What you’re saying just reminded me of something that’s really similar that’s being implemented in Saudi Arabia. It’s not with parliamentarians, but it’s with our graduates. We have exceptional graduates who graduate and then when they apply for their jobs, they don’t get accepted because they don’t have the proper capacity building skills that they needed. So we felt that we needed to bridge the gap between academia and the industry sector. And so a collaboration of different academies, such as the Saudi Digital Academy by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, and we have like the Wake Academy and the Academy of Cybersecurity by the National Commission for Cybersecurity, as well as Sadae Academy, MISC Academy, and it’s a lot what Google is also doing. And they started boot camps for graduates between the age of 22 to 28, and this enabled them to be equipped with the proper skills required by employers when they lack hands-on experience. So certified degrees by Google, by Red Hat, by IBM are procured easily for these graduates and these graduates will become parliamentarians with time, some of them will. And so that’s really amazing what you’re doing. All right, so let’s open the floor to a discussion. We’ll start by four questions. And if we have time, we can have another round of four questions. So we’ll We can start. Ms. Maryam? Maryam?

Audience: Hi, thank you very much for this session. My name is Maha Abdel Nasser. I’m Egyptian parliamentarian. Actually, I know a lot of programs you are all running, but with the government. I’ve never heard about anything with the parliament or for parliamentarians. So I would love to have all what you’ve said. I don’t know if we can ask the IGF secretariat to write all these initiatives that can be used for parliamentarians and gather them in a document and send it to us, so we can actually benefit from it. I am from the ICT industry, so maybe I don’t need that very much. We all need to learn, of course. But the other parliamentarians, they know nothing about what we are talking about. And at the end of the day, they will be the people who will vote for any legislation regarding AI or any act regarding anything related to technology. So we need badly to have capacity building from them. I’m very happy that you raised the data colonization subject, but I don’t think that we still have an answer. We need to work together to, I don’t know, have some ethics regarding the data flow, regarding the data colonization, regarding not to benefit from our data because we have more people than the West. Again, the global South and the global North. And we need more for global South. Please, we actually need this.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. Any other questions? Yes.

Audience: Thank you very much. My name is Catherine Muma, I’m a senator from Kenya. And just to overemphasize that government is not just the executive. And parliaments play a critical role in shaping policy. And my colleague is right that over 95% of us do not understand this is a technical sector and we need deliberate greater investment in getting the competencies of parliamentarians across board, not just a few, to be able to contribute from an informed position when we are doing regulation on digital technology issues. And this is going to be cross board. It will be in the financial sector, it will be in the health sector, it will be in the water sector. So we can’t just say the ICT committees of parliament are the only ones which need competence. If we are going to do telemedicine and I’m sitting on the committee on health, exactly how should I shape that law in order to make it facilitative, not obstructive? So I think those working on this need to deliberately invest in this because there is a potential of parliament actually harming rather than assisting in the entire process. Coming to AI, don’t you think it’s too, it might be too early to say that we can define a particular law in a particular way? Might we want to focus on the possible harms that would come with AI and focus on strengthening legislation against those harms, whether it is a criminal activity, how do we bring, how do we improve child protection law, for instance, to deal with pedophile behavior, criminal behavior? Might we? be doing better strengthening the laws on offenses and criminals rather than coming up with a law we call an AI legislation that is not seriously informed that may very well stifle innovation. I don’t know what you think about that.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you, thank you. Very good question. Yes. Sorry.

Audience: Yes, good afternoon and thank you very much for the wonderful presentations across. First, I just want to thank. Can I have your name? My name is Honorable Al-Hajji, more from the Gambia and the Pan-African Parliament, which is an AU Parliament. I just want to thank you generally for this wonderful, wonderful information that we are hearing from across the presenters. Particularly ICANN, I must be grateful because they provided some training to about almost 30 members of Parliament in Rwanda this past July. And it was great, great initiative by the ICANN. We are really very thankful. Now, I agree with my colleagues because oftentimes when you deal with government, you are only dealing with the executive. The Parliament is actually exempted. And the book ends with us. At the end of the day, with laws, with regulations, Parliament has a big role to play in it. And that’s the reason why sometimes you bring a bill in Parliament and it takes ages. Why? Because Parliament do not understand. They need to make a lot of consultations and in and out of the country. And because of the fact that there is a gap, a knowledge gap, and that would make that bill stay there for a very long time. So this capacity building, particularly in the era of technology, I think is important if we can partner with various institutions to help bridge that gap. Because the government, the executive, they will not do that because of, again, we have our own budget. But again, at the end of the day, it’s the same country. So anything that we can do, we can collaborate to ensure that we bridge this gap. which is the knowledge gap in most members of parliament. We have very, very, very few members of parliament that actually understand technology. I am an exception because I’m a software developer and I’ve been in the field for 25 years now, but I’m one in maybe hundreds or 200 members of parliament, like my colleague from Egypt actually has said. So if we are able to do needs-based assessment, you will see some very interesting data on technology and anything we can do together to help close that gap in terms of capacity development, I think it’s gonna help a lot. In the long run, to ensure that at least we are all on the same terrain in this digital ecosystem. Thank you.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you, thank you.

Audience: Thank you, Jamal Fakhr Al-Bahrain. Today, this morning, we started with a session with the representative of the private sector. And those were focusing a lot on saying that we don’t need to have any regulations at this stage. This afternoon, we are listening to UNESCO representative who have kindly been so kind to share with us what UNESCO have been doing over the years and putting regulations. So the question is really, is there a timeframe for us to start to think of putting regulations to regulate the AI? Are we on hurry if we say we are going to regulate? Are we supposed to really go back to say, okay, we will, since we have got the data protection law, since we have got the privacy law, since we have got the consumer protection law, then we don’t need to have an AI law. But again, as the other says, AI is something new. Many of all the members of parliament are not aware of. Unfortunately, none of them attend all the sessions organized by IPU from time to time to learn out of that. So really, I’m in a bit of a dilemma today. this morning. I have a different idea when I’m closing my day today. I have a different idea. It would be nice to hear from the four speakers there. How do they see? Are we ready to put a regulation, a law, exactly as something like what the EU did a few months back? Or we are saying, no, leave everything as it is today and focus on the various laws you have? Data protection, privacy law, and consumer law.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. Thank you. All right. So let’s start with the first question by Dr. Meha. That has to do with what capacity building initiatives are directed to parliamentarians specifically and also discussing the data colonization issue and concerning the focus on maybe more focusing on the global south. So we can start with Ms. Olga.

Olga Skorokhodova: Thank you so much for your question. In terms of specific trainings that are available or not available to parliamentarians, all the initiatives that I listed, what we are doing at Google, they are open to parliamentarians. But definitely for me, the key takeaway, my colleagues and my company would be to really start thinking more strategically around how we engage parliamentarians. And here, definitely our colleague from Kenya also made an intervention on this topic. And we are happy to share with the IJF Secretariat all the information about the programs that we are running. And definitely, I’m not sure about Egypt, but we definitely had some parliamentarians from the African continent that took part in some of our initiatives and programs that we ran this year. Also, in terms of data colonialism and how we should approach this issue, I think there are two aspects that I wanted to highlight. First of all, when we think about specific… there could be some specific ways we can approach the taxation issue. And here, my colleague also brought this up. And I think that from the Google perspective, and I believe that’s also shared by the industry players, for us, it’s important that the approach towards the taxation would be synchronised or would be, you know, the one that would be universally applicable. And we definitely work very closely with OECD on digital taxation matters. What is difficult for us is to have 198 approaches to really taxing, you know, companies like Google. So we are definitely supporting the international, you know, internationally synchronised approach. And in terms of making, in terms of really making sure that Global South benefits from AI solutions, I think that at Google, we specifically focus a lot on making sure that our AI solutions, they are for social good. And I’m happy to see that many, many solutions that we actually develop, they are coming from the countries in the Global South. We have, for example, an AI office, an AI centre of excellence in Ghana. And from that centre, many solutions that we then apply, you know, in many different countries around the world, they are coming from that centre where we employ people locally, where we also leverage data locally. One of the solutions that I mentioned, our flood prediction solution is actually coming from the Global South in terms of where we developed it. And we have a bunch of solutions like that. So I think that’s also an important question of how big companies, big players approach that aspect, AI for social good. And I think that we may have so many use cases. that could drive real-life impact in the global South. And that’s something that we should definitely prioritize.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rezeker.

Franz von Weizsaecker: Okay, I will try. I mean, if four people answer four questions, we will have 16 answers. So I’ll try to summarize a little bit, if you allow me. Combining the questions related to data colonization, as well as AI laws. I mean, one of the key questions is, so who reaps the benefits? And usually, data is a resource that is very different from oil. In the sense that when you cannot burn it and it’s gone, but rather it develops its value by sharing and by transferring and by adopting, by updating and so on, by connecting the data. And that’s why it is a different type of good. Also to see in the context of the post-colonial debates is that a resource that shall be kept in one place. For a physical resource, that makes a lot of sense. And for this virtual resource, it makes less sense because it creates less value. And for that purpose, I have something in the pipeline. I hope to soon be able to launch a call for papers for, in this case, African researchers, economic researchers, to guide policymakers as to which policies are best to maximize the value creation happening in Africa, in the country. The value creation, as well as the related tax collection. Because I believe in many cases, the answer is not to shut down the borders for data transfers, but rather to enable local innovation, to enable ecosystems that harvest and generate value that can create benefit locally. So that is part of the answer. And what I’ve seen in many of the national debates in Africa, and the Kenyan debate is very advanced in that regard, is shall we put a focus on risks, like the… Europeans do, or is the focus more on economic growth and innovation? And I do see that the bias is in Africa much more towards innovation, whereas in Europe the focus of the legislation, the AI Act, is much a risk management system. And that is part of the answer to the colleague from Bahrain, is do we need the law at this stage? The European approach on AI is putting things into different risk categories. And when you’re dealing with biometric data of the entire population and very private information and so on, that’s a high-risk environment. So yes, you might want to regulate that, but you don’t want to regulate all the innovators and start-ups to death, essentially. So having a tiered approach makes a lot of sense in that way, and that’s maybe part of the answer. Maybe the Europeans are focusing a lot of attention on the risks, and I see that is not so much the priority. In another context, I don’t say it’s not important to look at the risk, but having also an agile way of regulating, because as you mentioned, there’s a lot of new developments happening all the time, and the legal, the lawmaking cycle is in many cases much slower than the innovation cycle of start-ups and entrepreneurs. So that’s why a flexible approach focusing on economic benefits that are happening locally with tiered risk management is maybe my recommendation.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you, thank you. Then let’s go on to Dr. Catherine’s question. She was asking about harmonizing capacity-building throughout the countries through different sectors, whether it’s health or economy. We as parliamentarians usually have these specialized committees, and we would need to need this expertise. So do you think you can answer that, Ms. Burr?

Beckwith Burr: Yes, and thank you for the question. I feel keenly the pain that you describe in the sort of tension between executive branch decision-making and legislation. I have been in an executive branch agency and worked in the legislature in the United States. And let me just say, at ICANN, we don’t advocate sort of particular policies or laws or legislation, but we care very much that when legislatures act, they understand what they’re doing and how the internet works and whether what they’re proposing to do will break the internet or how it will impact it. So ICANN is very actively engaged whenever it hears about legislation. If it can be helpful in providing information and providing training, you know, sort of non-partisan, not advocating one way or another, but educating, ICANN is there to do it. If your government agencies won’t include you in a delegation to ICANN, ICANN has a fellows program. You can apply. They will provide funding to bring you to an ICANN meeting, financial support, train you, introduce you to people so then you know who to reach out to. So I’m not sure exactly who put on the capacity building in Rwanda, but I know they care very much about doing that. You have some wonderful women in both of your countries who are very much involved in ICANN, and I’ll give you their names afterwards, but I bet you know them. And so I do think it’s absolutely important. Some parliamentarians have technical backgrounds and understand. Other parliamentarians see problems and concerns and they want to respond to it, but they need the tools and information. and to do that in a way that does no harm and that actually solves the problem. And that, if I can just respond to your question because this is, this feels like a deja vu moment. You may all recall in the mid 90s when privacy on the internet became a big thing and this debate about, do we regulate now? Do we wait until we understand it? It was a very big deal. And some countries took the, don’t regulate, let’s see what it does, let’s focus on the invasion. Some countries took the focus, took the, let’s focus on harms. I think there’s a balance that you need to apply, which is, if you can identify the risk there, can you identify principles that will guide your thinking and your regulation and your governance and the way that you enforce laws that are on the books? So I think it’s critical for every legislature to be thinking about the principles that affect AI. I’m not sure that it’s, there’s a very big risk that you develop technology specific legislation that locks you into a particular way of thinking about technology, which changes so rapidly so that you pass a law and it is outdated the moment it’s signed into law. There’s a lot of risk about that, but having sound grounding and principles and the work that UNESCO is doing on principles for AI, for example, is very important work. So I do think that in some of the most risky areas, doing something like a serious principles-based review makes sense. sense. But in other areas, you might want to let a thousand flowers bloom. So, but this tension, the tension of sort of when do you act, when is it too early to act, and when is it too late to act? If we study what’s happened in data protection, I think it gives us a very important lesson in how complicated it is to get that exactly right.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. Thank you. So, I guess when you speak about ICANN having that facilitating role as facilitators, that would probably answer Dr. Hadji’s question about how capacity building should be a collaborative effort between different entities.

Beckwith Burr: Yeah, and I am happy to provide information on our fellows program because, you know, get one parliamentarian to come and that provides a way for us to get to know you, you to get to know us, and we can provide the resources. Thank you.

Rima Al-Yahya: Mr. Cedric, could you also elaborate on Dr. Jamal’s question about regulations of AI, as well as Dr. Catherine when she spoke about how can we deal with harms, how can we strengthen the laws?

Cedric Wachholz: Thank you so much. So, I’m astonished to hear that the private sector in the morning said that there’s no need for regulation, because I think what we hear also from the private sector is really a strong need for clarity. It is not always lost necessarily, but there are many, many examples, and just an easy one from the UNESCO perspective. We work on education. We have an example of a European country which was working on educational management and information systems in the education system and invited companies to provide solutions. We used AI, which then became challenging. in terms of privacy, in terms of their modalities of return on investment, and so on. And then they wanted to regulate, and then the private sector said, well, you can’t change the rules of the game during the game. So sometimes the challenges arise, and one fully understands really only why things are evolving, and this is not about lawmaking here, but just to point out some of the concrete challenges. So I think what the private sector would like, if I may say that, but which you have sometimes stated also from the highest level, is just clarity for them to be able to move forward. Now, in terms of the judiciary also, and it responds also partly to the question or to the points from Kenya, but not only. UNESCO has developed a network of 36,000 judicial operators, meaning judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and so on, who we are training. And 8,500 we trained on AI and digital transformation, and I think the last workshop was actually about two weeks ago in Kenya with 35 judges, and so there are existing laws which can be used to also limit some of the risks and the harms, and we have many toolkits. We have MOOCs, so online learning platforms, but also many webinars and so on for judges, and face-to-face training and regional trainings to see, for example, how with human rights law you can actually already make decisions, and there are a lot of case studies which have been published in the global toolkit. So this is on the judiciary, because you asked that question too. But in terms of capacity development, also for Kenya, again, we are having a big project with other UN agencies too, which will, where we will… We have also a MOOC for parliamentarians in the mid of 2025. This is the aim. So this is an online training. It will just be 12 hours. So it’s not too comprehensive, but six modules which give a good base, I think, on also the legislation.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you very much for your answer. I think, Miss Olga, you want to just add something?

Olga Skorokhodova: Yeah, I just wanted to also kind of provide the private industry perspective on the regulation, whether this is the time or not the time to regulate. And again, I’m speaking on behalf of a public private sector, right? But it’s really the Google’s position. And it’s very short. AI is too important not to regulate, but it’s also too important not to regulate well. That’s our motto, the motto of Google. And then also the approach towards regulation that we suggest to consider is really responsible, bold and together. That’s basically responsible means putting responsibility really at the front and center and then bold meaning really thinking strategically about where we can use AI for economic development as well. And then together meaning the dialogue. And in terms of whether this is the right time to go after hard regulation or not, I think this is really eventually down to the countries to decide. We were very actively involved in the discussion around European AI Act that has been just adopted and we generally support the risk based approach. However, we also see that many countries and I just had today in the morning a meeting with the SADAR, which is a Saudi data and AI authority. They definitely don’t want to go after hard regulation. But rather, that’s very interesting, by the way, approach. They are very, very involved in discussions around standards and several. representatives of the authority of actually chairing the groups that are developing standards for AI certification that are really just coming up, you know, being released now. That’s also an approach. So we as a company definitely want to share our expertise. We see different models across the world, but really striking this balance between responsible, bold, you know, and together. This is difficult, but it’s something that we really need to, I guess, you know, do together. Yeah. Thank you.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. All right. I think we have time to wrap up with just two more questions and then we can have our final. Yeah. Your name, please.

Audience: I would like to thank the Kingdom for the leadership and the people for the program. Sorry, just a minute. We’ll just give you a minute to… I swear to God, your problem is that you left it in English. No, we don’t… All languages are available. With all respect. Anyhow, of course, I’m putting the subject in points, and it’s not a problem. As some of the other parliaments have said, the parliaments don’t have that much backing. So, I mean, if there is cooperation between the parliaments and the EU, for example, and UNESCO, whatever, all the interested parties. That’s the first thing. Second, We are not only talking about the security in terms of preserving private information, but we as the Middle East region, and especially in the Gulf, we have a heritage, and we are preserving this heritage, and not only preserving data, preserving data is a part of it. But we belong to other things that may not mean that much to some organizations, but we even belong to the owners of other religions, like the Jews are preserved, and in Christianity there are people who are preserved, and we also have something that we belong to and preserve. This is one of the points that should be taken into account in studies and projects, especially in the private sector. The private sector, as they said in the last session, META. META was a scandal, there were many things, no one talked about it, it was a scandal in the past. Telegram has problems in France, and it was put in prison by an order from the French authorities. These points should be put, not only on the preservation of privacy, but I suggest that there should be cooperation between the parliaments of the Gulf countries, by the way, all the parliaments of the Gulf countries, without exception, have put a lot of effort in preserving AR and security, but not only for this, we do not refuse to enter technology. and the people’s culture, so that it doesn’t become an economy. It’s okay. But there, the private sector always has other goals. I don’t want to get into their goals. So the private sector should be aware of these points, and the proposed situation should be between the EU and the UNESCO, or the United Nations, with the Arab parliaments, especially the Gulf parliaments, because they, with respect to the other parliaments, are taking very fast and strong steps in this area. Thank you.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you, Dr. Abadi. Please, Dr. Saleh, and then we’ll just answer the questions and wrap up.

Audience: Inshallah. Thank you very much. Since we are in Saudi Arabia again, welcome again to Saudi Arabia, since we are almost finishing. I just want to let you know, since we are in Saudi again, we have the agency that’s called SADAIA, which is Saudi Data and AI, or Artificial Intelligence Authority, and we have many laws already in place. One is data classification policy and regulations regarding AI, personal data protection law, and the implementation regulation. It was already last year approved in our parliament, all of these. Rules of procedures on commitments for reviewing violations of the provisions of personal data protection laws and implementing regulations. Also, we have rules for appointing personal data protection officer, data sharing policy and regulations, and so on and on. So my point, we have almost all the infrastructure, and maybe you know in SADAIA, they have what’s so-called readiness report, and they are working with UNESCO or with UN. So we already have some drafts with AI, but in the same time, we have a lot of discussions regarding to approve or not to approve. You know, there are two schools in the whole world, and we are trying to work together. to be in the middle for now to see what will happen but we have almost all these regulations and policies we have ethical you know policies and instructions and so on so just want to show you know to show you what what we have in Saudi Arabia and also again the problem not only the data as you know we mentioned this before it’s the processing of data which is the brain which is the algorithms so in Google or Meta or Twitter or X or whatever this is the most important that maybe next we will see what these joint companies or big companies will do to read to be more transparent with the parliaments of different you know countries and also with the governments and with the people first of all thank you very much thank you thank you very much

Rima Al-Yahya: so if I think I will direct the the question for Dr. Baddy to Mr. Cedric because he spoke about how parliaments need more capacity building skills and he wants more collaborations with the the European Union or the United Nations or UNESCO and between parliaments themselves and he specified having more collaborations between the GCC parliaments as because their their objectives are usually very similar and their needs are so could you answer that Mr. Cedric?

Cedric Wachholz: We are of course delighted to work with Qatar and and I think we do have a comparative advantage as a neutral broker we have no vested interest that we are civil servants and try to bring a multi-stakeholder approach to the table but in the end we we have no vested interest in that for Qatar we had already four trainings of judges of 60-70 people of judges so we’re very popular it’s a different domain but just to say we are involved in in some capacity development and we’ll be happy to extend to broader parliamentarian group and work, and we really are delighted about this cooperation and to strengthen that further, including with Qatar.

Rima Al-Yahya: Yes. We’ll do that. All right. So, and the last question from Dr. Saleh is the problem of the processing of data and whether these companies can do more to be more transparent. Ms. Olga?

Olga Skorokhodova: Thank you so much for this question and for really describing that well, the Saudi Arabia approach so far towards regulation. In terms of transparency and algorithmic transparency, right, I think that’s the question is around it. I think there are two aspects that are important. Algorithms at the end of the day is also commercial information, right? And this is a very competitive space, right? Google and other companies, we are competing with each other. And so, yes, of course, there is this aspect that needs to be taken into account that full disclosure of algorithm is a commercial secrecy. That’s one question. That’s one aspect. On the other side, we do see that there is more requirements. And I think we are moving towards really disclosing more information about how we are working and what goes into the algorithm. But also, and I think this is really underappreciated, how much users who use our products can actually be part of it. Can you raise your hand if you checked your, if you use YouTube, if you checked your YouTube settings recently, last quarter? Oh, we have at least one person. But actually, actually, inside the products such as YouTube, you have a lot of, as a user, a lot of tools. how you can minimize algorithm, let’s say, interference in your user experience. And in fact, if you don’t want to see any algorithm recommendations on YouTube, you can now just turn it off. And I think this is something that sometimes is not maybe on the spotlight. But actually, users are also part of that story. But definitely, as an industry, we hear and we see there is more push towards the transparency. And I think that we are making good progress towards disclosing more as much as we can while staying still competitive in this very much competitive space.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. So I hope our experts gave the proper answers that everybody was looking for. We have a couple of minutes. And I would, if it is possible for each panelist, to give any final messages in two minutes or less. We’ll start with Cedric.

Cedric Wachholz: There are many ways forward. And I would just like to warmly invite you to join us in Paris on 4th and 5th June, where we have a capacity development event on AI and digital transformation in the public sector, including parliamentarians. And also, the end of June, last week of June in Thailand, our global forum on the ethics of AI for those who want to continue building their capacities. And I just wanted to thank all of you on behalf of UNESCO for this great panel, but also for all the interest. And we are very happy to work with all of you closely.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. Becky?

Beckwith Burr: Yeah, there are enormous amounts of resources out there. It can be very difficult to find them. But I think if you identify trusted sources, UNESCO has done some, as I said, some wonderful work in this area. You know, AI is the hot topic, the flavor of the month, but it’s very closely connected to all of the other kinds of regulatory concerns that we have. So I think looking at it simply in a vacuum could lead us into trouble, and it’s important to look at it in context, understand what laws you have on the books right now. So Saudi Arabia does have a new data protection law that has benefited from years of development of data protection law and reflects best practices up to the moment. It’s very new. And so you can learn also from the work of other parliaments what’s worked, what hasn’t worked. And I think I just want to say, to the extent that I’m here representing ICANN, with respect to the DNS and internet technology work, he’ll appear to help, but also there are lots of resources out there. And I know how important it is to get those resources in a digestible way so that you are not wading through oceans. So I think it behooves all of us to provide some information on where to look and be responsive when you need it.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. Thank you, Franz.

Franz von Weizsaecker: So the internet is global and legislation is national. That creates an inherent tension in all of our efforts and it creates the need to put efforts into harmonization. It will never be a 100% harmonized world, for sure, legislatively, but a certain degree of harmonization, a rough consensus, a dialogue between different stakeholder groups, informed policymaking, coordinated policymaking. has a huge benefit to economic development, to the development of the Internet, to the Internet not falling apart, as our colleagues from ICANN know very well. And so that is why we very much support the international coordination efforts at the level of the African Union and its regional economic communities and member states. And we do believe that only when there is a coordinated effort, also the negotiating power of individual countries, vice versa, global companies, global platforms is improving. If one small company makes a difficult regulation, the big tech titans might just switch off the service in that country and end of story, and nobody is benefiting from it. But if there is a coordinated approach, roughly aligned regulatory frameworks for platforms, for data, for AI, that is hugely beneficial to the overall economic benefit as well as to the negotiating power that individual countries have, vice versa, the tech industry.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you, thank you. Olga, last but not least.

Olga Skorokhodova: Thank you so much. I think I would vote for, you know, team sports. Innovation has always been a team sport and AI is a team sport too. So getting AI right will take a team effort. And I think we are on the right track, well, at least within this, you know, panel. And definitely just to kind of piggyback on the comment of my honourable co-panellist, for us, the more harmonised approaches are out there, the easier it is to deploy our solutions. And this is something that we really want you parliamentarians to ask us, you know, to support with. Thank you.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. Thank you very much. So in conclusion, what we have dealt from this session is that building parliamentary capacity. to effectively shape the digital realm involves equipping lawmakers and parliamentary institutions, as well as the private sector with the proper knowledge, the tools and frameworks necessary to govern and oversee the rapidly evolving digital space. This will ultimately ensure that digital policies promote inclusivity, innovation, privacy, security and accountability, and by this the desired outcomes will surely be a more enhanced digital sovereignty and informed decision-making by lawmakers, as well as inclusive growth that benefits all sectors of society, while protecting everyone against misuse and harm. That said, I would like to thank all my panellists on their extremely informative contributions, so please join me in giving a round of applause to our speakers. Thank you. Thank you for attending.

Agreement Points

Importance of capacity building for parliamentarians

Beckwith Burr

Cedric Wachholz

Olga Skorokhodova

ICANN offers training programs and resources for parliamentarians

UNESCO provides capacity building workshops and online courses for parliamentarians

Google runs AI academies and online courses for policymakers in emerging markets

All speakers emphasized the need for and importance of capacity building initiatives for parliamentarians to enhance their understanding of digital policies and AI.

Need for balanced AI regulation

Beckwith Burr

Olga Skorokhodova

Franz von Weizsäcker

Principle-based review is important for high-risk AI areas

AI is too important not to regulate, but regulation must be done well

Risk-based and tiered regulatory approaches can balance innovation and risk management

Speakers agreed on the need for AI regulation, but emphasized the importance of a balanced approach that considers both innovation and risk management.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of data availability and sharing for economic development and the effective deployment of AI solutions.

Franz von Weizsäcker

Olga Skorokhodova

Data sharing across borders is important for economic development in Africa

Local data availability is crucial for developing AI applications

Unexpected Consensus

Multi-stakeholder collaboration in digital policymaking

Olga Skorokhodova

Audience

Getting AI right requires a team effort across stakeholders

Collaboration between parliaments, international organizations, and industry is needed

Despite representing different perspectives (industry and civil society), both speakers emphasized the importance of collaboration between various stakeholders in shaping digital policies.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the importance of capacity building for parliamentarians, the need for balanced AI regulation, and the significance of data availability and sharing for economic development.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on key issues. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the challenges and potential solutions in digital policymaking, which could facilitate more effective collaboration and policy development in this area.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to AI regulation

Olga Skorokhodova

Franz von Weizsäcker

Cedric Wachholz

AI is too important not to regulate, but regulation must be done well

Risk-based and tiered regulatory approaches can balance innovation and risk management

Existing laws can be used to limit AI risks and harms

Speakers had different perspectives on how to approach AI regulation. Skorokhodova emphasized the need for balanced regulation, von Weizsaecker advocated for a risk-based tiered approach, while Wachholz suggested using existing laws to address AI risks.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement centered around approaches to AI regulation and the balance between innovation and risk management in the digital realm.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers was relatively low. Most speakers agreed on the importance of capacity building for parliamentarians and the need for some form of AI regulation. The differences were mainly in the specific approaches and emphases, rather than fundamental disagreements. This suggests a general consensus on the importance of addressing digital policy issues, with room for collaborative efforts in developing effective strategies.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agreed on the importance of data availability and sharing for economic development and AI applications. However, they differed in their focus, with Skorokhodova emphasizing local data availability and von Weizsäcker stressing cross-border data sharing in the African context.

Olga Skorokhodova

Franz von Weizsäcker

Local data availability is crucial for developing AI applications

Data sharing across borders is important for economic development in Africa

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of data availability and sharing for economic development and the effective deployment of AI solutions.

Franz von Weizsäcker

Olga Skorokhodova

Data sharing across borders is important for economic development in Africa

Local data availability is crucial for developing AI applications

Key Takeaways

There is a significant need for capacity building and technical knowledge among parliamentarians to effectively shape digital policies.

A balanced approach to AI regulation is needed, considering both innovation and risk management.

Data governance and cross-border data sharing are crucial for economic development, especially in emerging markets.

Multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments, industry, civil society, and international organizations is essential for effective digital policymaking.

Existing laws and principles-based approaches can be used to address some AI risks and harms while more comprehensive regulations are developed.

Resolutions and Action Items

ICANN, UNESCO, and Google offered to share information about their training programs and resources for parliamentarians with the IGF Secretariat.

UNESCO invited participants to join capacity development events on AI and digital transformation in June in Paris and Thailand.

Unresolved Issues

How to balance the need for algorithmic transparency with protection of commercial secrets in AI systems

Specific approaches for preserving cultural heritage in data governance frameworks

The appropriate timing and scope of AI-specific legislation across different countries and regions

Suggested Compromises

Adopting a tiered or risk-based approach to AI regulation that focuses on high-risk applications while allowing more flexibility for low-risk innovations

Pursuing harmonized data policies and AI frameworks at regional levels (e.g. African Union) to increase negotiating power with global tech companies while still enabling cross-border data flows

Leveraging existing laws and regulatory frameworks to address AI risks in the short-term while developing more comprehensive AI-specific legislation

AI is too important not to regulate, but it’s also too important not to regulate well.

speaker

Olga Skorokhodova

reason

This concise statement captures the delicate balance needed in AI regulation, acknowledging both the necessity and the challenges of effective regulation.

impact

It shifted the discussion from whether to regulate AI to how to regulate it effectively, encouraging a more nuanced approach to the topic.

The European approach on AI is putting things into different risk categories. And when you’re dealing with biometric data of the entire population and very private information and so on, that’s a high-risk environment. So yes, you might want to regulate that, but you don’t want to regulate all the innovators and start-ups to death, essentially.

speaker

Franz von Weizsäcker

reason

This comment introduces the concept of risk-based regulation, offering a practical approach to balancing innovation and protection.

impact

It deepened the conversation by providing a concrete example of how regulation can be tailored to different levels of risk, influencing subsequent discussions on regulatory approaches.

Parliament do not understand. They need to make a lot of consultations and in and out of the country. And because of the fact that there is a gap, a knowledge gap, and that would make that bill stay there for a very long time.

speaker

Honorable Al-Hajji

reason

This comment highlights the critical issue of knowledge gaps among parliamentarians when it comes to technology and AI.

impact

It shifted the focus of the discussion towards the importance of capacity building for parliamentarians, leading to further exploration of how to address this gap.

We have very, very, very few members of parliament that actually understand technology. I am an exception because I’m a software developer and I’ve been in the field for 25 years now, but I’m one in maybe hundreds or 200 members of parliament.

speaker

Honorable Al-Hajji

reason

This personal insight provides a stark illustration of the technological knowledge gap in parliaments.

impact

It reinforced the urgency of addressing the knowledge gap and led to discussions about specific capacity-building initiatives for parliamentarians.

The internet is global and legislation is national. That creates an inherent tension in all of our efforts and it creates the need to put efforts into harmonization.

speaker

Franz von Weizsäcker

reason

This comment succinctly captures a fundamental challenge in regulating the digital realm.

impact

It broadened the discussion to consider the need for international cooperation and harmonization in digital regulation, influencing subsequent comments about coordinated approaches.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting the complexities of AI regulation, the importance of risk-based approaches, the critical need for capacity building among parliamentarians, and the necessity of international harmonization in digital regulation. They moved the conversation from general concerns about AI to more specific, actionable discussions about how to effectively govern the digital realm while balancing innovation, protection, and global cooperation. The comments also underscored the urgent need for parliamentarians to gain technological expertise to effectively shape digital policies.

How can capacity building initiatives for parliamentarians be improved and made more accessible?

speaker

Maha Abdel Nasser (Egyptian parliamentarian)

explanation

Many parliamentarians lack knowledge about digital technologies and AI, yet they are responsible for voting on related legislation. Improved capacity building is crucial for informed decision-making.

How can we address data colonization and ensure fair benefits from data for countries in the Global South?

speaker

Maha Abdel Nasser (Egyptian parliamentarian)

explanation

There are concerns about data from Global South countries being exploited without fair compensation or local benefit. This issue requires further exploration to ensure equitable data practices.

How can we ensure capacity building reaches parliamentarians across all relevant sectors, not just ICT committees?

speaker

Catherine Mumma (Senator from Kenya)

explanation

AI and digital technologies impact various sectors. Comprehensive capacity building across parliamentary committees is necessary for effective governance.

Should the focus be on strengthening existing laws to address potential AI harms rather than creating new AI-specific legislation?

speaker

Catherine Mumma (Senator from Kenya)

explanation

This approach may be more flexible and avoid prematurely constraining AI development while still addressing potential risks.

Is there an optimal timeframe for implementing AI regulations, and how can we balance innovation with risk management?

speaker

Jamal Fakhr (Bahrain)

explanation

There is tension between regulating early to prevent harms and waiting to avoid stifling innovation. Finding the right balance and timing is crucial.

How can collaboration between parliaments, especially in the Gulf region, be strengthened to address shared digital governance challenges?

speaker

Dr. Abadi (unspecified country)

explanation

Regional collaboration could lead to more effective and harmonized approaches to digital governance, particularly given shared cultural contexts.

How can large tech companies increase transparency about their algorithms while protecting commercial interests?

speaker

Dr. Saleh (Saudi Arabia)

explanation

Balancing algorithmic transparency with business competitiveness is a key challenge in AI governance that requires further exploration.

Summary

This discussion focused on the role and future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) within the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review and the Global Digital Compact (GDC) implementation. Participants emphasized the IGF’s unique position as a multistakeholder platform for inclusive dialogue on internet governance issues. They highlighted its contributions over the past 19 years, including fostering global awareness of critical digital issues, developing intersessional work, and nurturing national and regional IGFs.

Key points of discussion included the need for the IGF to evolve and adapt to new challenges, produce more tangible outcomes, and enhance its inclusivity, particularly for underrepresented regions and communities. Participants stressed the importance of strengthening partnerships with UN agencies, the private sector, and other stakeholders. The role of national and regional IGFs in localizing internet governance discussions and driving grassroots engagement was emphasized.

Many speakers advocated for making the IGF a permanent institution within the UN system, with adequate funding and resources. They also called for improving the IGF’s ability to communicate its outcomes to relevant policymaking spaces and interfacing more effectively with governments and intergovernmental processes.

The discussion highlighted the need for the IGF to balance innovation with inclusivity and privacy concerns, address the digital divide, and focus on emerging technologies like AI. Participants agreed that the IGF should play a crucial role in implementing the GDC and contributing to the WSIS Plus 20 review process. The overall consensus was that the IGF remains a vital platform for shaping the future of internet governance, but it must continue to evolve to meet new challenges and increase its impact.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The role of the IGF within the WSIS framework and how to enhance it

– Institutional improvements needed for the IGF, including making it permanent

– The importance of the multi-stakeholder model and inclusivity in internet governance

– The need for more tangible outcomes and actionable recommendations from the IGF

– The critical role of national and regional IGF initiatives (NRIs)

The overall purpose of this discussion was to reflect on the IGF’s contributions over the past 19 years and explore ways to strengthen its role and impact as it approaches its 20th anniversary and the WSIS+20 review. Participants aimed to identify priorities for improving the IGF’s institutional structure and its place within the broader internet governance ecosystem.

The tone of the discussion was largely constructive and forward-looking. There was a sense of pride in the IGF’s accomplishments, but also recognition of the need for evolution and improvement. The conversation became more urgent and action-oriented as it progressed, with many participants emphasizing the need for concrete steps to enhance the IGF’s relevance and effectiveness. Overall, the tone reflected a shared commitment to the IGF’s mission and a desire to see it adapt and thrive in the face of new challenges.

Speakers

– Carol Roach: MAG Chair for IGF 2024

– Gbenga Sesan: Executive Director of Paradigm Initiative, co-moderator

– Vint Cerf: Internet pioneer

– Christine Arida: Board Member of the Strategic Advisory to the Executive President, National Telecom Regulatory Authority of Egypt

– Timea Suto: Global Digital Policy Lead for the International Chamber of Commerce

– Valeria Betancourt: Internet Governance Lead, Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

– Kurtis Lindquist: President and CEO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

– Jorge Cancio: Representative from Swiss government

– Nigel Hickson: Works for the Department of Science, Innovation, and Technology on Internet Governance issues

– Bertrand de La Chapelle: Executive director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network

– Juan Alfonso Fernández González: From the Ministry of Communications of Cuba Juan Alfonso Fernández González

Additional speakers:

– Nthati Moorosi: Minister of ICT Science and Innovation from Lesotho

– Manal Abdel Samad: Public policy advisor from Lebanon

– Khaled Fattah: Expert in cyber security

– Israel Rosas: From the Internet Society

– Annaliese Williams: Part of the technical community, involved in Australia’s national IGF

– Nnenna Nwakanma: From “the internet”

– Christine Amesson: From the Ministry of Economy and Finance in Benin

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Discussion: Reflecting on the Past and Shaping the Future

This discussion focused on the role and future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) within the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review and the Global Digital Compact (GDC) implementation. Participants from various sectors and regions reflected on the IGF’s contributions over its 19-year history and explored ways to strengthen its impact and relevance moving forward.

1. The Role and Contributions of the IGF

Speakers unanimously recognised the IGF’s unique position as a multistakeholder platform for inclusive dialogue on internet governance issues. Timea Suto, representing the International Chamber of Commerce, highlighted the IGF’s role in fostering global awareness of critical digital issues and developing a vibrant intersessional work ecosystem. Valeria Betancourt from the Association for Progressive Communications emphasised the IGF’s function as a platform for debate on public policy issues across WSIS action lines, allowing different stakeholders to share challenges and solutions.

Göran Marby, President and CEO of ICANN, underscored the IGF’s centrality to the WSIS framework and internet governance, noting its role in shaping narratives and informing policymaking through open discussions. The IGF was praised for its ability to bring together diverse stakeholders, including governments, civil society, and the private sector, to address complex internet governance challenges.

Juan Alfonso Fernández González played a crucial role in motivating the audience, raising important questions about stakeholder representation and IGF attendance frequency. This highlighted the ongoing need to ensure diverse and consistent participation in the forum.

2. The Future of the IGF and WSIS+20 Review

As the IGF approaches its 20th anniversary, participants discussed its future role and potential improvements. There was broad agreement that the IGF should play a crucial part in implementing the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and contributing to the WSIS Plus 20 review process.

Timea Suto argued that the IGF should serve as a foundational resource for GDC implementation and maintain momentum for the WSIS+20 review. Valeria Betancourt echoed this sentiment, calling for the integration of the WSIS framework and GDC within the IGF’s work. She also stressed the need to operationalise the IGF’s vision for more impactful outcomes.

Several speakers, including Vint Cerf and Bertrand de La Chapelle, advocated for making the IGF a permanent institution within the UN system. They suggested that this would require revising the IGF’s mandate and improving its institutional structure to ensure adequate funding and resources. This proposal aimed to enhance the IGF’s stability and long-term impact.

Göran Marby emphasised the need for the IGF to adapt to remain relevant in a changing world, calling for strengthened partnerships with other UN agencies and processes. This sentiment was shared by Christine Arida, who suggested that the IGF should move to its next phase with more tangible outcomes and stronger linkages to governments.

3. Improving IGF Outcomes and Impact

A recurring theme throughout the discussion was the need for the IGF to produce more tangible outcomes and actionable recommendations. This was seen as crucial for enhancing the forum’s relevance and impact on global internet governance.

Valeria Betancourt highlighted the need to strengthen the IGF’s ability to communicate its messages to relevant policymaking spaces. Göran Marby agreed, stating that the IGF should focus on outputs that translate to actions. An audience member suggested that the IGF should generate more concrete recommendations and outcomes.

Nthati Moorosi, Minister of ICT Science and Innovation from Lesotho, proposed that the IGF should have a special forum with the private sector to address connectivity challenges. She also suggested that the IGF could track country progress on inclusivity goals, providing a more systematic approach to monitoring and evaluating the impact of IGF initiatives.

However, Vint Cerf offered a nuanced perspective, arguing that while the IGF can make strong, evidence-based recommendations, its primary strength lies in formulating problems or questions and suggesting where they should be addressed. This view highlights the ongoing debate about the IGF’s role in problem-solving versus problem identification and direction.

4. Enhancing IGF Inclusivity and Representation

Improving the IGF’s inclusivity, particularly for underrepresented regions and communities, was a key point of discussion. Göran Marby stressed the need to enhance inclusivity, especially for voices from the Global South, and to bring in more youth and marginalised communities. Carol Roach, the MAG Chair for IGF 2024, echoed this sentiment, calling for improved engagement with underserved communities.

The role of national and regional IGFs (NRIs) in localising internet governance discussions and driving grassroots engagement was emphasised. Christine Arida suggested leveraging the NRI network to shape the IGF’s renewed mandate. Israel Rosas from the Internet Society called for increasing the visibility of partnerships promoted by NRIs at national and regional levels to demonstrate the IGF’s tangible impact.

Valeria Betancourt highlighted the IGF’s unique ability to facilitate difficult conversations between stakeholders and governments. Audience members noted the IGF’s contribution to education and capacity-building through Internet Governance schools and its reach to grassroots levels and marginalised societies.

5. Balancing Innovation and Inclusivity

Participants stressed the need for the IGF to balance innovation with inclusivity and privacy concerns. The discussion touched on emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and their implications for internet governance. Speakers agreed that the IGF should play a crucial role in addressing these new challenges while ensuring that the benefits of digital innovation are accessible to all.

An interesting analogy was shared, suggesting that multistakeholder and multilateral processes need to “hold hands and dance together” rather than just shaking hands, emphasizing the need for deeper collaboration and integration.

Conclusion

The discussion revealed a strong consensus on the IGF’s importance and the need for its evolution. Participants agreed that the IGF remains a vital platform for shaping the future of internet governance, but it must continue to adapt to meet new challenges and increase its impact. Key areas for improvement include producing more tangible outcomes, enhancing inclusivity, strengthening partnerships with other stakeholders, and better integrating with other UN processes.

As the IGF approaches its 20th anniversary, the discussion highlighted the need for a clear vision and action plan for its future role. This includes working towards making the IGF a permanent operation within the UN context, developing strategies to improve engagement with underserved communities, and enhancing the IGF’s ability to produce and communicate actionable recommendations to policymaking spaces.

The creation of a compendium of the IGF’s achievements over the past 19 years was suggested as a way to showcase its impact and inform future directions. While there was broad agreement on these key issues, some questions remain unresolved, such as the specific mechanisms for improving the IGF’s tangible outcomes and impact, and how to effectively balance its role as an open forum for discussion with the need for more concrete outputs. These challenges will likely form the basis for ongoing discussions as the IGF continues to evolve and adapt to the changing landscape of global internet governance.

Carol Roach: Internet Governance. I am Carol Roach, the MAG Chair for IGF 2024. So this Looking Back and Moving Forward is under the theme Improving Digital Cooperation for the Internet that we want. Over the past 20 years, the IGF has played a significant role in the Internet and the digital ecosystem. It has evolved to meet the exponential growth of the Internet and the digital technologies, leveraging a multi-stakeholder model to bring together experts, communities, and users to address innovations, opportunities, and risks. With this in mind, the session today will focus on the IGF’s role in the Global Digital Compact implementation in the context of the WSIS plus 20 review as well as enhancing the IGF presence in the WSIS architecture and IGF institutional improvements ahead of the WSIS plus 20 review process. So joining me on stage and online, we have Timea Suto, who is the Global Digital Policy Lead for the International Chamber of Commerce. We have Valeria Betancourt, Internet Governance Lead, Association for Progressive Communications, or APC. Christine Arida, Board Member of the Strategic Advisory to the Executive President, National Telecom Regulatory Authority of Egypt. And we have Kurtis Lindquist, President and CEO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN. And my co-moderator is Benga Sessan, Executive Director of Paradigm Initiative. Welcome, everybody. So we’re going to jump straight into it and my first question goes to Timea. How did the IGF contribute to the 20-year implementation of the WSIS Action Lines, and what are the substantive contributions the IGF, mainly its reports, intersessional work, can bring to the GDC as we move into its implementation and look towards the WSIS Plus 20 review and beyond? It’s a big question, but I know you can handle that.

Timea Suto: Thank you very much, Carol. Good morning, everyone. It’s nice to see many of you here still on the last day of the IGF and with us in this session, and thank you to everyone for inviting me and ICC to share a few words. For those of you who don’t know us, the International Chamber of Commerce is a global business organization. We represent a network of companies of all sizes and sectors of over 45 million in number in more than 170 countries around the world, so we aim to bring their voice into their conversations here today. About the IGF, ICC was also very much involved in the WSIS process. We were the interlocutor for WSIS back in Geneva and Tunis phases 20 years ago almost, and since then we have an initiative that’s called Business Action to support the information society that looks at the outcomes of the WSIS process and tries to bring the business voices into this conversation. So it’s not unusual that we are always at the IGF and we’re trying to bring businesses into the IGF to support, of course, these meetings at the annual level, but also the work that happens intersessionally. So what has the IGF done in the past 20 years that is relevant to WSIS and the GDC? First of all, it has been instrumental in fostering inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogue on internet governance, of course, bringing together governments, businesses, civil society, academia, and the technical community, but also on a number of issues that are related to the internet. I like to say the technologies that either enable or are enabled by the internet. So the IGF has had the conversations in this multi-stakeholder setting in all these areas, and it has established itself as the premier global platform for open and constructive discourse on these issues. So for me, that is one element, the multi-stakeholder conversation and convening power. Another one of the IGF’s major contributions is that it really builds global awareness of the critical digital issues, whether that’s we’re talking about access to digital technologies or inclusion or cybersecurity or emerging technologies. And I think that’s really important. Thank you. encourages dialogue, shared understanding, and collaboration, which I think is a great contribution of the IGF. Over the years, the IGF has developed, as you said, vibrant intersessional work and an ecosystem through initiatives like best practice forums, the dynamic coalitions, the policy networks that have allowed these stakeholders from all around the world to coalesce and collaborate on specific issues on a year-round basis. And they have produced a lot of interesting reports and outputs on issues like cybersecurity, meaningful connectivity, AI, internet fragmentation, and many others. So while these outputs, yes, they are not binding, they provide valuable insights and practical guidance sometimes for policymakers and practitioners, and that is one more element that I think that we need to highlight from the past 20 years’ contributions of the IGF. And then, last but not least, it has fostered a network and the growth of the multi-stakeholder idea through the national and regional IGFs in local and regional communities. And this really helps localize the internet governance discussions that we have at this international level and really bring diverse stakeholders into the conversation to ensure that the regional priorities and voices are fed into the global debates, while also driving grassroots engagement on the digital issues that are pressing for a particular time and place. So these developments all together have been instrumental in identifying some actionable solutions and fostering alignment across sectors and regions, and therefore enabling a more cohesive approach to implementing the WSIS action lines, and I think should be leveraged to channel the voice of the multi-stakeholder community in the review process of the WSIS. But, of course, also very relevant for the GDC. As we consider the implementation of the Global Digital Compact, the IGF can really serve as a foundational resource, in my opinion, that capitalizes on this unique convening power that the IGF has to share insights and expertise that reflect the realities and aspirations of the multi-stakeholder community and to exchange best practices and forge partnerships. to foster and further the GDC implementation. It really is that unique forum that brings us all together where we can discuss, okay, what have you done on GDC, what am I doing, how do we move that forward and make sure that that voice of the community is really part of the discussions around how to implement the GDC as well. And last but not least, I think the IGF’s convening power can also help maintain momentum for these, both the WSIS Plus 20 review and the GDC. We tend to think of them as a moment in time, but I think the IGF has the power to carry that momentum further for the years to come and offer space for dialogue and monitoring and accountability on what we’ve committed ourselves to, whether that’s the WSIS Action Lines, whether that’s the GDC, or perhaps bringing the two together. So I’ll leave it at that, and turn it back to you, Carol.

Carol Roach: Thank you, Timea. I agree with you that we have such a community here, and we’ve already been in the space of discussions, and adding another discussion with regards to the GDC is something we’re able to handle. You’re quite right, thank you. So I’m now going to hand the same question over to Valeria. Thank you.

Valeria Betancourt: Absolutely. Thank you so much, Carol. Good morning, everyone. Very happy to see you all here, and also thank you for the opportunity to share the perspective of the Association for Progressive Communications, a global network of civil society groups working with the internet and other information and communication technologies to improve people’s lives. The Internet Governance Forum has been for years a platform for debate and for dialogue of public policy issues. that cut across multiple action lines, action lines of the WSIS. It complements both the WSIS forum’s role in monitoring progress regarding the WSIS action lines and also the CSTD, which serves as a forum for intergovernmental discussions. The Internet is at the heart of the WSIS vision of a people-centered, inclusive information society. Its development, its availability, how the Internet is used, how affordable and meaningful accessing it is, what languages one can use or read on the Internet, its potential for good but also its potential for harm. All of these Internet governance issues also relate to the WSIS action lines. And for the past 19 years, the IGF has given people from different parts of the world, with different perspectives and from different sectors and groups, the opportunity to share challenges and solutions. The IGF Best Practice Forum on Gender and Access, for instance, became the first global multi-stakeholder space for exploring gender-based online violence. The recommendations that emerged from this Best Practice Forum continues to inform efforts to make the Internet a space that is safe and is secure for women and gender minorities. Another example, the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity. It marked the first steps to recognition of the need to diversify solutions, models, markets and partnerships for empowering the unconnected to connect themselves. It has been mentioned already by Timea, but the regional and national IGFs are spaces for different stakeholders and for civil society to sit alongside governments and have difficult conversations about media freedom, human rights, accountability and digital justice. In the case of the LAC IGF, it has allowed us to build synergies with the e-LAC process, the regional digital agenda that resulted from the WSIS. So by addressing emerging issues and the way in which they are addressed, all aspects of society permeated by digitalisation have evolved, and, obviously, the global digital compact updates the framework for shaping our digital future and processes and proposes a set of shared principles and commitments for a more collaborative digital future. In that sense, it complements well the WSIS framework, and both should be integrated. The IGF is a central space to discuss ways to respond to gaps in the implementation in the WSIS goals, and tackle new issues addressed by the GDC, and in that way to contribute to reduce the fragmentation that permeates the global governance ecosystem of digital technologies. As the IGF vision beyond 2025 document that the Internet Strategy Working Group has put together, as it states, there is no dichotomy between the internet governance and digital governance, and the IGF, within its existing mandate, is a suitable platform for addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by the new and emerging digital technologies that shape our information society, and the related digital policy processes, and, at the same time, Also, continue analyzing and proposing solutions for the never-ending goals of the WSIS. I would like to call on the MAG and the IGF community to implement the actions proposed by the IGF Strategy Working Group in order to operationalize the vision for a more impactful IGF towards a people-centered and planet-centric digital policy, and also for democratic, inclusive, accountable and transparent governance of digital technologies. Last but not least, the IGF, we should recall, it also facilitated the IANA transition and also the NetMundial process emerged from the IGF. So there is a lot to build on the IGF, and the IGF is still playing a critical role to shape the digital future that will serve people’s lives in the best possible way.

Carol Roach: Thank you, Valeria. I do believe and agree with you that the IGF is well-positioned to look at the opportunities and the innovations as well as the threats and the risks, and we’re good at finding gaps and addressing them. So thank you very much. We are poised and ready to be impactful for the GDC as well as our communities. So we’re now going to move and end this session with the audience. We want to make it very interactive. I just want to remind the audience that you have a two-minute limit for your intervention. Please, this is not the time for advertising. Let’s just try to stick with the topics. I’m going to ask Jorge Cancio from Ofcom to start us off with his thoughts. Jorge, you want to take the mic?

Jorge Cancio: Oh, you’re on this side. Welcome. So, hello, do you hear me okay? Good. I don’t see you very well, but I hope you hear me. I’m hearing myself, so it must be working. So thanks for giving me this opportunity. I’m Jorge Cancio from the Swiss government. I was, I have to confess, I was in Tunis almost 20 years ago. When we agreed on the WSIS second phase, the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. So I was part of that process. And if we look back, it’s not only 20 year old documents that we agreed on. We agreed on a vision of a people-centered, development-focused, human-based, human rights-based information society, what is a digital society. And we also agreed on means to make that happen with the so-called action lines, where the different agencies from the UN and also many other stakeholders would work towards that vision. We also agreed on some governance structures, the WSIS action lines would be discussed every year in what became the WSIS Forum. Member states would look into the progress in the Commission for Science and Technology for Development. And we would have the most creative kid on the block, the IGF, to look into emerging topics and have digital governance discussions. So as everything that becomes reality, it hasn’t been perfect. Many things have been imperfect, but we have achieved a lot. Many hundreds or thousands of millions of dollars have been spent in implementing those action lines. Many thousands of hours have been spent in discussing, in exchanging, in networking. So there’s something that became reality from the ideas that were discussed in 2003 and 2005. Now we have the challenge of a newer kid on the block, the global digital compact, which brings some important impulses on data governance, AI governance, on human rights online, on also what connectivity means today. And we have to look how do we implement those new goals. And we think that if we look at the wider WSIS family, so the architecture I mentioned before, where the IGF is a part of it, we have good means to do that, but we need a serious discussion amongst all of ourselves, being able to find a positive sum game in these discussions during the so-called WSIS plus 20 review, to see how this architecture, including the IGF, can deliver on a more fairer digital present and future that addresses the needs of everybody, be it on the global north or the global south. So I think we have a good basis. We have to try to strive for consensus, for common grounds, not being too much attached to flags or to words with many connotations, but really work towards an inclusive multi-stakeholder. So I hope this discussion helps in this, as seven years ago, the IGF helped in bringing about the beginning of the global digital compact process by recommending that the Secretary General should start discussion at the highest international level on the future of digital cooperation. Thank you.

Carol Roach: Thank you, Jorge. The floor is open for questions. You can just make your way down. Introduce yourself, please. Go ahead.

Audience: I’m Kim from the Telecommunication Directorate of Cambodia. Just a quick question. Connect from the previous panel to this panel. My question to all the panelists is how can we connect from the Internet fragmentation to the Internet governance? That’s my short question. Thank you.

Carol Roach: Any of the panelists want to take that? Okay. Sorry. Can you repeat the question again, please? Just give us a brief introduction of what the previous panel was, so we can make the connection.

Audience: Okay. In the previous panels, we heard a lot about the Internet fragmentation, the cause and effects, and we did not really hear much about how to fix it. So in this panel, it’s about the Internet fragmentation. Internet Governance. So what I want to hear is how can the panellists in this discussion connect from the Internet fragmentation to the Internet Governance? So it seems like how can we fix the Internet fragmentation by using the Internet Governance? That’s how I can emphasize to my question. I hope that all panellists are clear with what I want to ask. Is it okay with that or not really?

Timea Suto: Thank you, sir. Yes, the question is clear.

Audience: Excellent.

Timea Suto: Thank you very much for repeating that and connecting us to the previous panel. And this is what IGF should be about, by the way, having conversations across panels as well, not just in sessions that we are sitting in. So Internet fragmentation, the way I see it, how it connects to Internet Governance, Internet Governance discussions here and generally policy discussions on digital issues should be the way through which we actually make sure that we collaborate to avoid fragmented Internet. We are all here talking about an open, interconnected, interoperable, resilient Internet. If we approach these issues, the issues of the Internet or the issues on the Internet in silos or we try to fix them in our own bubbles, in our national context or regional context or in our own stakeholder groups, we are already creating fragmentation. The Internet is something that transcends borders and that is its beauty and I think the greatest challenge. We cannot address what we want the Internet to look like or how the Internet should work without being the same idea of working like the Internet in the Governance conversations. My friend Bertrand says that it was a quote from Kofi Annan, we need to be as innovative as the people. who invented the Internet, if we want to have the conversations about the Internet. So we need to be able, in the Internet governance conversation, the digital policy conversations, to bring ideas, laws, regulations, whatever might be necessary, that connect, rather than break up the various parts that we want to fix.

Valeria Betancourt: Yes, in addition, I think from the governance point of view, it is very important to avoid the proliferation of processes, and to facilitate the integration of processes, so they can work together in a synergetic way, cross-fertilizing not only policy dialogue, but also policy development towards common ends. I think the challenges that we have to face really demand all the stakeholders to work around common goals, and the proliferation of processes, siloing of issues, does not contribute to precisely providing all the necessary solutions and responses that have to be consistent in terms of the different levels that we have to address. In that sense, I think the IGF is a very unique space to precisely consolidate the conversation, the analysis to bring together, and to also identify specific key messages and recommendations that could go to the different decision-making spaces, including at national level. So in that sense, I think fragmentation could be avoided also by integrating the different processes that are relevant for the governance and the policies of the Internet and digital technologies.

Carol Roach: Yes, I think also it’s one of the reasons why the IGF found it necessary to bring, to add the parliamentary and the judiciary track so that we can take that from discussion into policy, bringing the policymakers, the decision-makers into the conversation so that it’s just not talk, that we could move it forward in this collaborative space. Thank you. Vint?

Vint Cerf: Thank you very much, Carol. So far, this discussion has been extremely helpful. I just wanted to make a couple of observations that drive my conclusions. The first thing is that we’ve all seen the Internet evolve over time, and today it does things that we weren’t doing 30 years ago or 20 years ago. The important point is that the IGF needs to evolve as well, and it needs a permanent presence, because the Internet is not a static thing. IGF has to adapt to the Internet’s evolution, and so we need an IGF there at all times. It should become a permanent part of the DESA operation. It should have mainline funding at roughly $3 million a year, and we need to activate our ability to assess the state of the Internet collectively. There are examples of metrics of the condition of the Internet. UNESCO has its Internet universality indicators, for example. We might want to work together to assemble a picture of the Internet on an annual basis in order to present policymakers with a sense for where the Internet is going and where there is need for additional governance activities. I would love to see us harness even more the NRIs and the annual IGF meetings and the intersessional activity in order to assess the implementation of the GDC. So we have a big opportunity, I think, as IGF to contribute to the Internet’s evolution and continued utility, and as many of the speakers have pointed out, the Internet’s fragmentation is in some ways the antithesis of its original design, which was to connect everything together. And so we have to be continually concerned about that. fragmentation and abuse of the Internet. We need policies and implementations that will create a safer environment and one which is more productive for everyone. So thanks so much for letting me intervene, Carol. I’m eager to hear what others have to say.

Carol Roach: Somebody online needs a mic open.

Audience: Hello, everybody. My name is Muriel Alapini, and I’m from Benin. Please allow me to speak French because I knew I would be a little emotional during my speech, so I will be go with my native language. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. This is Muriel Ami from Benin. I am intervening as a user of Internet, and I would like to thank each and every person present here physically and remotely, allowing us actually to have Internet and to do whatever we are doing today. In Africa, the Internet is improving, and today, thanks to the IGF, you have no idea how many people are actually learning every day to use Internet. This is allowing them to change their lives and to have a new perspective on the world. The number of people who are participating in associations related to governance, Internet governance, et cetera, is huge. So we reach a point today, a culminated point, where I would like to ask you, everyone, decision makers and representatives from different stakeholders in IGF, to really look at the human side, the human beings who, through Internet, are only thinking about the role of associations. What are these associations doing? What is the IGF doing? The government in Africa is interested in Internet. This was not the case years ago. You have students, you have children. And today, everyone is involved in this collaborative work. Therefore, I would like to call upon you, beside discussions and diplomacy and words, please take into consideration that the humanity today depends on this, actually, tool and on the work that was done by the associations in the field that are bringing a new layer to the population. And this new layer of population is interested in these issues. And the fragmentation and division should not be existent. Despite all of this, actually, we have people who are interested in Internet and all relevant issues. Of course, nothing is perfect, and we need action. We need tangible actions to continue to work with you. And we hope to improve, actually. And we hope that you will be proud of us, because there will be new people contributing in your work. So thank you so much for your attention.

Carol Roach: Thank you. Tamir or Valeria, you’d want to add to the comments? No? Thank you very much for your observations. And the national and regional IGFs are doing tremendous work on the ground. And that is why we can see a lot of movement and improvements as well as the DCs, the dynamic coalitions. We have a question on the floor.

Audience: I’m going to speak in Arabic. In Arabic, the ambassador of goodwill and peace in Yemen, we are suffering from the worst humanitarian crisis, and the Internet blocked the rule of women. So what is the right procedures that we can use the Internet to free and set free the detained women? And why not the international organization enhance the Internet connectivity in Yemen, which suffer from the lack of information and the Internet governance? And how can we protect our data and our service on the Internet space?

Carol Roach: Very good question. Valerio, Tamir? Vint, any input?

Vint Cerf: I think the question, if I’ve understood the question correctly, how do we deal with the inequities that appear, especially in the Internet environment for various groups, women for example, children and others? As you all know, our purpose in the Internet is to be an inclusive and supporting environment where everyone has useful access. The only thing that we can do as we see these inequities happening is to make recommendations for more inclusive capacity, more inclusive practices. Perhaps the best way we can do that is to give examples where these problems have been addressed successfully and to explain what went into those solutions. Some of these problems are not technical. They’re social, they’re economic, they’re cultural. And this is where we have to understand that not all of the solutions are going to admit of a technical response, which makes it harder to address. But recognizing that these solutions require a variety of different responses across social, technical, and economic spheres, I think is an important first step.

Carol Roach: Thanks, Vint. A question from the floor.

Audience: Thank you very much. My name is Martina Legal Malakova. I’m from Slovakia. I’m a MAG member and I represent private sector. We always see the same countries active in also digital or green transition. My question is, what is the action plan that also another countries will be active in IGF and also in implementation GDC that we will achieve our digital future human and planet centric? Thank you.

Carol Roach: Okay. Sorry, Martina, can we have the question again? Sorry.

Audience: Sorry. So my question is, what is our action plan that also another countries will be active in IGF much more and also we will ensure that they will be active in implementation GDC that we will reach our human and planet centric digital future?

Valeria Betancourt: Just a brief response to that. As I was saying, I think the vision that the IGF is crafting for the future of the IGF also includes a set of suggested actions for the IGF community to be able to precisely shed some light in relation to how to refresh the role of the different stakeholders towards precisely that type of digital future. So I think I could call on also again to the IGF community and the MAG to put in action some of those recommendations that I think will put us in the right track towards integrating processes and tackling the challenges that we have.

Kurtis Lindquist: And I think also we need to work closer with the community that the IGF has built through the national and regional networks, but also just to all of us individuals, try and connect the conversations that we have here at the IGF on the international level to the realities that matter to those countries and the stakeholders in those countries, so it’s not just becomes an ivory tower of IGF conversations, but that they actually are connected to the realities. Not everything will be relevant or relevant in the same way to everybody, but I think we need to do a better job in translating what our work here means to those who are working on the ground. We cannot see the podium from up the stage here from the right, but I understand there’s people on the right side, so if I can maybe ask people, I don’t know, if you use the left side, I know it’s a bit of a track, but the moderator can see you, otherwise we can’t see you because of this podium right on the side of the stage. So I’m sorry, I just realized that somebody was there. So Bruna and Bertone are on that side. Maybe use the left side, please, because then we can see you. I’m sorry.

Carol Roach: I just want to interject. I think from the previous speaker and Martina, I think what they’re asking us is to improve our outreach, and as Timea say, to come up with an action plan to make sure that the outcomes that we have here get some kind of traction within the countries that need it. So I think outreach. a better outreach program is required. I don’t know who got to the stage first. Okay, everybody’s moved to this side. So go ahead, speaker on the floor. Go ahead on the floor. Mic on the floor, please.

Audience: Thank you very much, the chair, for giving me the floor. My name is Mary Uduba. I’m from Nigeria. I coordinate the West Africa Internet Governance Forum. I’m part of the Africa Internet Governance Forum and have been part of the WSIS from 2005 in Tunis. The IGF has progressed. We have seen participants from government and business, I mean private sector, and now we are including the parliamentarians and the judiciary. My question is when and where will the multi-stakeholder process and the multilateral process have a handshake? Will it be the implementation of the GDC? We need that handshake. We need it to be smooth enough for us to speak from the same angle and read from the same perspective. The same pitch. Vince, you can answer this question. Thank you.

Vint Cerf: I’m sorry that I was distracted taking notes and I’m not sure that I have the, if I was being asked to answer the question, I think I need a little summary of what the question was.

Audience: Can I say it again?

Carol Roach: Yes, go ahead.

Audience: I’m asking when and where will the multi-stakeholder process process, which the IGF is, and the multilateral process, which the government, okay, where and when will it shake hands, have a handshake when it’s smoothing out, and is the GDC implementation will it help to do this? That’s what I’m asking.

Vint Cerf: Yeah, that’s a wonderful formulation. Thank you for the summary and for the question. You know, I think part of the answer is right here. This is where the multilateral and the multistakeholder process should come together. Remember, multistakeholder includes government. And as Carol has pointed out, we’ve created tracks that include jurists and legislators and regulators to participate in the conversations. And I think you’ll also notice that some of the other parts of the internet infrastructure, think about ICANN and its governmental advisory committee. We have places where these kinds of connections can be made. Even in the technical community, the Internet Engineering Task Force has government representatives showing up to consider technical matters. So your point, which I’d like to emphasize, is that we should be looking for places where the governments and the rest of the multiple stakeholders can work together. And IGF is certainly one of them, which is why I think this should become a permanent part of the UN landscape.

Carol Roach: Thank you, Vint. I’d also like to point out that the IGF works closely with the inter-parliamentary group, and so we are handshaking in that way as well. From the floor, question? Question on the floor, mic, please. Oh, now it’s working.

Audience: Thank you. Thank you, Carol. Now, I just wanted to bring us back to the previous session, because during the Policy Network for Internet Fragmentation session, we discussed specifically Article 29C from the GDC, and asked everyone really a question as to how other stakeholder groups besides governments would think we could act and work together in order to implement, and not just implement, but also analyze, and maybe even establish KPIs for analyzing the implementation of the GDC. And I think, to be honest, this is the main question in the room, right? right, and we still have a lot of questions in the open as to how the GDC communicates with the WSIS Plus 20 process, what’s the role of the IGF, and how can we help steer this process, and maybe looking into next year, it would be really important for us to come to Norway, or come to the Norway preparation, living here as well, with a very clear picture as to how the IGF should help in these discussions, and perhaps develop our own sort of KPIs, together with the Sao Paulo Motor Stakeholder Guidelines to analyze how both processes will go, and how can we improve this space as well. That’s all. Thanks.

Carol Roach: Thank you. Very good input there. Anybody online? I see Nigel Hickson, so we will take one from the online. Go ahead, Nigel.

Nigel Hickson: Yes, good morning. I hope you can hear me. Clearly. Thank you. I wish I was there with you. I’m Nigel Hickson. I work for the Department of Science, Innovation, and Technology on Internet Governance issues, and I think this has been a really inspiring discussion. I think that the questions we had earlier on what the IGF can do for marginalized constituencies and marginalized people is just so important, because if the Internet Governance Forum and other bodies cannot work to, if you like, improve processes and to capacity-build in different countries, then I really do think we’ve lost an opportunity, and I think my good friend Mary from Nigeria put a finger on it earlier, in that we have to, if you like, work together as governments in these processes. Often, the multi-stakeholder approach, and I think it’s really important that we and multilateral words are conflated. And what really matters is not the terminology, it’s the ability of people to work together and to cooperate and to coordinate. And in that spirit, just two remarks on what the IJF can perhaps do better. I think what it can do better is not just, if you like, having topics to discuss, which is important, of course. It’s important that we discuss AI. It’s important that we discuss new and emerging technologies. But it’s also critical that we help communities in their capacity building. And there, I think the IJF could do a lot more. We could respond to the comments and the needs and the messages we get through the NRI network, and we could respond at the IJFs to a certain amount of capacity building, case studies where people have, in other countries, solved problems that countries still have with connection, with competition, competition policy, and many other issues where we could perhaps do more to enable people to get online in an affordable way. So I do think there’s more we can do, and we look forward, of course, to the mandate being renewed of the IJF, which will give it new spirit, which will give it new dynamic to work on these critical issues. So thanks for this panel, it’s really great. Carol, you’re an inspiration, as always.

Carol Roach: Thank you very much, Nigel. We’ll just take one more question in this segment, and, oh, sorry, I wanna make it equal, so we’ll do Nima and then one more from the floor. Nima? Oh, sorry, I think I pronounced your name wrong. Yes, I can’t see that well from this side. Nima, go ahead. Remember, two minutes, please. So, I’m going to turn it over to Mary, who is going to talk about the fragmentation of the internet. Mary, do you want to go first? Can everyone hear me? Yes, Nana, go ahead.

Audience: Thank you very much. This has been a very interesting one. I had to wake up early to follow. So, I’m going to talk about the importance of Internet Governance schools. The IG schools are very critical in building capacity on one end, but also inducting people into the multi-stakeholder model of governance, not just on Internet governance, and that’s why I’m very happy that we have the judiciary joining us after the parliamentarians. I believe that for those of us who are faculty, we have seen that those stakeholders, individuals from whatever stakeholder group they’ve come from, who have gone through the Internet Governance schools, are more holistic in their approach. I think the IG schools have been around for 12, 15 years, and I believe that there is a generation from the Internet Governance schools that have been around for a long time, and that’s why I’m very happy that we have the judiciary joining us today. I would like to thank all of the graduates who are now the decision-makers, and I would like to put it on our table that as we renew the mandate, and, by the way, I applaud the support of the UK Government to have this mandate, because this is where the national and regional initiatives actually come together. The schools are born by NRIs. The schools help induct people into the multi-stakeholder framework. The schools help us to raise holistic stakeholders into this, and they are more engaged because they’re coming through the right way. So I just want to lay this on our tables, pay homage to all of those who’ve been from the WSIS era, but encourage the newer generation like Muriel and the younger ones who come after us. So there is the Vincent’s generation, there is the Nena generation, there’s the Muriel generation. And I believe that as we work together to build more, the schools are critical. And like Mandela says, education is still the strongest weapon we have for development. And it implies in the IG section that educating IG schools may be our greatest weapon to ensure a multi-stakeholder and a united global digital community. My name is Nena. I come from the internet, and it’s been an honor following every step of the way from here in Abidjan. Merci beaucoup.

Carol Roach: Thank you very much, Nena. We have one last question from the floor. We do have another segment to get into, another exciting one. So last question from the floor. Thank you.

Bertrand de La Chapelle: Thank you. And thank you for making this a real interactive session. And apologies for my Martini voice, which is a strange thing to have in Saudi Arabia. My name is Bertrand de La Chapelle. I’m the executive director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network. Like Jorge, I was in the WSIS when people who were extremely innovative, including Nitin Desai, and Marcus Kummer, created the innovation that is the IGF on which we continue to run. The IGF has developed, added innovations as well, and one of the most important is the creation of the national and regional IGFs, which came up, bottom up the way they should be. The key problem we have today is that the IGF is caught in a catch-22 situation. It doesn’t have the resources to fulfill all its potential, and it cannot get the resources unless it charts a vision of what it wants to achieve and what is the potential it wants to accomplish. We have the WSIS Plus 20 review process, and what I’m going to say is not the only thing that we should discuss at the WSIS Plus 20 review. There are many other topics, and Jorge mentioned them among others. But there’s one thing that we should definitely put on the agenda as quickly as possible, is beyond the prolongation or the permanent nature of the mandate or the existence of the IGF, we need to seriously discuss the revision of its mandate and the improvement of its institutional structure. I do not know how to do it. I may have ideas. Other may have ideas. We will have to discuss this during that period. The suggestion I’m making is that we ask, and we collectively launch a consultation to all the national and regional IGFs in the perspective of the IGF in Norway in June next year and beyond, to ask at least to all of them this question, maybe others, but this question, how do you see the improvements, the new mandate for the IGF, how to improve its institutional structure, and most importantly, how should we discuss this? Should we have a new WGIG? Should we have another group? Should we have something more than all the reviews that have already been made? But this question of the new mandate is more important than just the question of reconduction. Thank you

Carol Roach: Thank you. I this is a very good opportunity to invite persons to go onto the IGF website and to review the vision document that the working group on strategy produced and the The MAG has given a nod to and it gives an outline to much of what was said just now with regards to a Way forward and with that I’m gonna hand over to Gbenga

Gbenga Sesan: It’s all yours, sir, thank you. Thank you Carol and thank you Timia. Thank you Valeria I I think that was a that was a good one Now we of course, I will say thank you to Christian. Christian is with us online Thank you for being patient, but this the first conversation then feeds into the second and thanks Curtis for Being patient now, we will move to have a conversation on two specific areas One is how do we enhance the IGF within the WSIS architecture? And the other which a few people had actually, you know entered on as we were getting comments and questions Is on the institutional improvement of the IGF we’re talking about a renewal of the mandate making it permanent But what would that look like? Institutionally, and so I have two questions for both Christian and and and caught Curtis and These two questions you could decide to answer just one or you know Take one of the questions or both And the first is how does the IGF Currently fit into the structure of implementing the WSIS outcomes and what role should the IGF play as we approach WSIS plus 20 review and beyond? That’s the first question. And the second is, taking into account all the contributions of the IGF over the last 19 years from all stakeholders, and the role of the IGF within the UN ecosystem, what do you consider the key priorities that we should focus on on strengthening the IGF in terms of institutional and other areas? I guess we can start with Christine, whose mic is already ready to go.

Christine Arida: Thank you very much, can you hear me well?

Gbenga Sesan: Yes.

Christine Arida: Okay, great. Maybe I should start my intervention by congratulating the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for such a successful and great IGF, even if I’m participating online, it’s obvious and clear, and I’m really proud that the IGF is again in the Arab region. Also, let me say that I very much appreciate the opportunity to join this session, and I really thank the MAG for organizing this timely discussion on the future of the IGF and how to continue to empower its role in the digital governance space. I think I need to begin like all the other people who talked in the session before me to acknowledge the longstanding contribution that the IGF has had to the internet governance space. It has evolved into this unique platform that we all cherish because it is providing open dialogue for everyone on equal footing. But not only that, it’s also this space where emerging policy challenges have arised in a bottom-up manner and are being analyzed, discussed in a multi-stakeholder setup, and where in-depth policy options are developed and put forward to the wider community. I think we all appreciate that very much and have been long enough in there to see that as well. So it’s the time now to look at the future and address the gaps in order to advance the IGS mandate within the upcoming WSIS Plus 20 review. And I really like the interventions that were made by all the different participants from the floor, how we have to look at that. I particularly like Bertrand’s intervention that we really should look at the how, not just at the renewal, but what should we be doing to continue to build on this unique role. So I would like in my intervention to focus on three main points, which I believe, in my view, are critical to the empowerment of the IJF moving forward. And they are, in my view, all equally important, no particular order. So number one, and this was mentioned also by others, is the extended network of national, regional, and youth IJFs. I think this grassroots network of NRIs, which has grown organically over the years, reflects the specific diversions of the IJF community. NRIs reach to their communities, to their multi-stakeholder communities, and they’re so well-positioned to reach out to policy-making bodies. And I say not only policy-maker, but also policy-making bodies within their respective territories and regions. And therefore, I think they can, they are really well-aligned with the WSIS, they have put the IJF well-aligned with the WSIS vision to be people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented. And they provide a source of innovation. We’ve seen so many different modalities, emerging policy topics, and different output shapes come out innovatively from NRIs and being injected into the global IJF. So I think we would be losing a lot if we do not leverage the NRIs’ extended network ahead of the WSIS Plus 20 review to shape up the renewed mandate of the IJF. I think this is where we should look, this is where we should have the discussions, and then we should have a coordinated work that would come through the NRIs to identify the gaps and put in directions for evolution and development, possibly at the upcoming IJF in Norway. The second point I want to tackle is the importance of creating linkages and building channels beyond the IJF community. The IJF has 20 years. of policy dialogue wisdom, and it is a cornerstone of the digital governance landscape, with no doubt. But it is also one component of the bigger WSIS family, Jorge talked about that. It has its unique role, which complements the action line facilitators, the program is monitoring for us, or even intergovernmental discussion venues. But with that holistic view in mind, I think we should really look at that there is no dichotomy between Internet governance and digital governance. The mandate of the IGF has been so broad that it has really put forward all the rapidly evolving challenges of digital policies, and this is clearly visible in the agenda over the past years, in its intersessional work, and also in the wealth of output it produces. I think what we’re missing, or what we need to do more, and this has been said, is how to communicate this more effectively and efficiently beyond the IGF’s own community. And in order to do that, linkages need to be made, more institutional coordination needs to be made, and to do that we need adequate and efficient resourcing and institutionalization of the IGF, which is also imperative if the IGF would play the role we want it to play in the implementation and the follow-up of the GTC. My third and last point is about the role of the IGF in inspiring multilateral processes and helping them evolve in the spirit of multistakeholder principles. The Net Manjar Plus 10 multistakeholder statement talks about the importance of including stakeholder voices in multilateral and decision-making processes, and that is important. Why? Because without that we wouldn’t have effective solutions to challenges that we face, and solutions wouldn’t be implementable without that. So the IGF has the beauty of both worlds. It is the innovative kid on the block, the innovative multistakeholder process within the multilateral UN system, and so best fitted to address the gap between discussion and action, between dialogue and recommendations. Therefore, I think the IGF should dedicate a track, not only at the annual event, but also intersessionally, also within NRIs, to pull, analyze, and help evolve the different flavors of multistakeholder approaches that are out there, and then echo them to inspire multilateral processes, and obviously the Sao Paulo multistakeholder guidelines would serve well in that respect. To that end, I think we should formalize the IGF evolution in order to give room for ongoing and continuous innovation and experimentation within the IGF framework. We should be bold enough to harness its potential to deliver actionable and tangible outcomes, such as evidence-based policy recommendations or policy testbeds, for example. And finally, I think we should be really mindful of the growing, increasingly fragmented digital governance ecosystem, and make sure the IGF plays the role we want it to play in the coordination of this space by providing cohesion and inclusive and diverse participation. of stakeholders, especially from developing countries and the global south. With that, I go back to you, and thank you very much for listening to me.

Kurtis Lindquist: Thank you. I’d also like to start by thanking the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for a very successful hosted IGF. You asked the question, what does the IGF fit into the current institutional structure of the VISIS outcomes? The IGF is really the central to the VISIS framework and to the VISIS internal governance. VISIS recognized that the multistakeholder collaborative effort and collaboration is a requirement of necessity for successfully implementing the goals from the VISIS process. In that spirit, the UN and the UN Secretary General established the IGF as the platform to facilitate interrelated public policy discussions. In this space, the multistakeholder approach, which is very core to the VISIS outcomes, actually is brought to life and becomes concrete. For the last 19 years, the IGF has provided this platform for government, civil society, business, academia, and the technical community to engage with each other in these open discussions that we’re having here and have had for the last 19 years. And internet governance and the future of the internet. And the real value in this is fostering this dialogue and building consensus on these topics that then shapes the narratives and inform policymaking at national and international levels as we go forward. And as we come to the VISIS plus 20, and I think IGF is going to have, in order to remain relevant, I mean the world around us is changing as well, it’s not a static world, we’re not in the same world as we were 19 years ago, and IGF really needs to change to facilitate the new discussions and amplify to the decision makers and there’s a real outcome that the discussions here is taken away. IGF should continue to strengthen partnerships with other UN agencies and topical and specialist agencies and their processes. And there is really a need for the coordinated global governance more than ever before. As again the world has evolved on from the 19 years ago when we came together in Tunis. And the IGF really already was recognized in the GDC as the primary multi-stakeholder platform for discussion of internet governance issues. And we really should make sure that we don’t undermine that role and the importance as expressed in the GDC. Your second question was about the substantive contribution by the IGF in 19 years. And I think there’s three key areas to focus on is to strengthen the outputs. The IGF has been exceptionally effective in generating rich and meaningful discussions on a wide range of topics relating to internet governance. But we need those discussions to translate into tangible and actionable outcomes that as I said we can take with us and bring back into policy-setting discussions. And this should also help to bring impact in bridging the digital divide as we heard in some of the questions in the previous session. And make sure it helps also to connecting the unconnected people. The second key area is to enhance inclusivity. It was also a topic of the previous session or the previous part. And we really need to bring in more voices especially from the global south into the discussions. The youth and marginalized communities. I mean this was I think two or three of the questions or points made earlier. I completely agree with that. There is a diversity of perspectives here that makes the IGF quite unique. Again it’s one of the outcomes of the multi-stakeholder process, right? That’s why we’re here. And it’s really important that those unique perspectives are shared with these underrepresented regions. That they are heard in this and brought into these discussions. So make sure we have really have the broad stakeholder base that we can have in the multi-stakeholder process. And I think it’s also important to say that representation matters because the governance framework we have and it was driving to really must reflect realities of needs of all the Internet users all around the world in order to make this is also have confidence in the process. And the last area is to adapt to new challenges. IGF has evolved. over the years. It’s not the same IGF as 18 years ago, so there has been an evolution. There are new challenges, new topics, and this has really been the platform for this multi-stakeholder process and participation to discuss around these emerging technologies and emerging challenges and policy challenges. We need to make sure that we continue to bring that in and to adopt it. And if we don’t address these priorities, I think the IGF has a risk of losing a bit of, maybe credibility, but also relevance, right? There is a risk that that’s undermined. And last, of course, there is also geopolitical issues that could deepen the global divides, and we had to be very careful to also address that and provide a platform for that to ensure that we have, as Vint talked about, the continued unified and open Internet that’s globally reachable. That’s a very important part, as we heard in the previous session as well.

Gbenga Sesan: Thank you, Curtis. And the interesting thing is you’ve both emphasized the role of multi-stakeholder, the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF and the lessons we’ve learned and how that helps with a lot of diversity. We will come to the room now. This room is full of experts, and I’m sure that, you know, we will benefit from the contributions and conversation. I will invite, to get us started on this, I am sure we have Joan in the room to get us started on this this twin questions. First of all, what is the role of the IGF within the, you know, WSIS framework? And secondly, how do we work on improving this in terms of improving the institutionalization of the IGF as we go into the next phase of the work?

Juan Fernandez: Good morning. I’ve been asked to motivate the audience for this second and round of interactions and questions and ideas. So, but in order to motivate the audience, I need to know the audience. I will introduce myself and if you allow me, I will ask just a couple of questions to try to feel the audience. My name is Juan Fernandez. I’m from the Ministry of Communications of Cuba. That means that I represent government. And you know, here, there are different stakeholders. So my first question, I’d rather, with that light in my face, I don’t see, I will move over there. Well, maybe I will take the microphone so I can move freely. I will ask, can you please raise your hand, those in the audience that represent government, government stakeholders? As usual, a minority here. And please, can you raise your hand, the members that represent civil society? More or less the same. And private sector companies? Well, and the fourth is the technical community. More or less the same. It’s more or less an equal distribution. So thank you very much. And my second question. For whom of you, this is the first IGF? Who repeats, who is the second? And more than two? Oh, the majority. So we have a very faithful community, Carl, that keeps on coming. And so to pass the floor to you to ask the questions, I just want to elaborate on that. In my view, you know, I said I was government. I was in Tunis when… and the IGF was agreed, you know, the proposal to have an IGF, and I’m going to be very honest to you. In that moment, I really did not understand why we needed a new forum that, you know, we have a very tight schedule all the year. So I really was a little bit skeptical about the IGF. But you know what? After the years has passed and the IGF has evolved to what is now, that is not only a yearly meeting, but we have all these national and regionals, IGF, we have a lot of intersessional things that are going on, dynamic coalitions, best practice forum, that are going and working all the year around, and voluntarily by people that are really interested in this thing. So it really, you know, I fell in love with the IGF, and that’s why I’m here now. So I think that the IGF has this unique characteristic that among all the fora in the UN system and maybe beyond, that the program and the issues discussed are proposed by you, by the community that comes to the IGF. The topics of the workshops, even the main things in every year is selected by consultation from a bottom-up consultation. So I think this is the beauty of the IGF. And now that we have reached the 20th anniversary next year, and there’s a big question to the international community, whether the IGF should continue or not, I would like to ask you a very concrete question. What would you say to the officials that are considering whether to recommend if the IGF should continue? or not? What would you say to them? And with that, I open the floor to answer this one question. Thank you.

Gbenga Sesan: Thank you so much. Yes, I think that was a good opener for this second segment of questions, and I’m sure you gave some work to the cameraman there. All right, I see we have a queue already. Please be reminded, we’ve got two minutes for each speaker, preferably answering the question of how do we internalize the IGF within the framework of WSIS plus 20, and we’ll focus on the second segment. Thank you.

Audience: Hello everyone, this is Manal Abdussamad from Lebanon. I’m a public policy advisor based here in Riyadh. This is my first IGF. I have two viewpoints that focus on two key ideas. First of all, I believe that IGF should focus on balancing innovation with inclusivity, with privacy, with equitable access to all, especially and particularly for the underserved communities and vulnerable people. And secondly, the major question and the major viewpoint is IGF after 19 years, why it isn’t generating outcomes and recommendations? We know very well that having this open-ended, this continuous dialogue without tangible recommendations can lead to nothing and can risk impact. Thank you.

Gbenga Sesan: Thank you so much. Let’s have the, if there’s anyone to my right, I can’t see you. Okay, there’s no one. Okay, so thank you so much. Everyone is using the left. Please go ahead. The next comment.

Audience: My name is Khaled Fattah. First of all, hello Vint. I’m sure we’re keeping you up late. This is Khaled speaking, and hello Christine. These are colleagues from the days when I refer to the days of when dinosaurs roamed. before the IGF, so I also, I can’t remember, I don’t know who the person who was speaking earlier was, so I was also there when IGF was created. One of the things I want to point out, and taking away the question of what do we do next, IGF is, by next IGF, we no longer are a teenager, so we won’t have the excuse of still experimenting. With the advent of technology, the advent of the ability of AI to crack so much of the democratize, the risks, through cyber, through the internet, to society all over the world, it is imperative, and I think I will draw on the question from the last intervention, we must find a way, and I’ve been saying this for many years, Vint, if you recall, we must a way of making conclusions so that we serve society, both of us, you and I, we have had this journey for a long time to try and make the internet a better place, not the OK Corral that it is today. So I think we need to really get out of our comfort zone. Without getting out of comfort zone, we will continue to be, we will continue, unfortunately, to remain a talking shop, and that in itself isn’t sufficient to come up with answers. Because today, just by doing this, and the leveraging of AI, a 15-year-old could shut down a city and a country, and I’m speaking now as an expert in the space of cyber. So I think we need to get out of comfort zone and find a way forward, and perhaps be more creative in what we need to do moving forward. Otherwise, as, where’s the ICANN CEO? He made a comment earlier on in his presentation that was very, very vital. We risk losing value and losing our raison d’etre. and I want to see this succeed because this is also my baby just like it’s yours, Vint.

Carol Roach: Thank you. So I’ll go online. I see two hands. I see Nena from the internet and Vint. So I’ll take Nena and then we’ll have Vint and then I’ll come back offline or on-site. If Nena is not ready we can take Vint and when she’s ready I’m sure I’ll see that on the screen. Vint, please.

Vint Cerf: I just wanted to respond to Khaled’s question. Of course the IGF can’t possibly solve all problems and so my recommendation and response to what should we do is to focus not only on the problems which we talked a lot about but also where they could be addressed. So IGF should not necessarily in itself try to solve problems, all of them. Some of it surely can make strong and evidence-based recommendations for but one of the strongest things we can do is to formulate the problem or the question and then suggest where that question should be addressed.

Carol Roach: Okay, thank you, Vint. Nena, are you ready or should I go?

Audience: Yes, I am. I needed to be unmuted. Thank you, Gbenga. I want to speak to the questions that were asked. What am I going to tell someone are the reasons we should make the IGF permanent or renew its mandate. I have seven reasons. The first is that this is one true global So I think that is one reason to preserve the multi-stakeholder model. The second is that we have global instances. We have the global, we have the regional, we have the national, we have sub-regional, and I don’t know of any other instance so far that we have all of those instances. So I think that is one reason to keep the IGF. The IGF is an instance that does not heavily depend on the UN for its financing. I mean, it’s very cheap, by the way, to have these conversations, to have these convenings. So it does not heavily depend on the UN and its finances. I earlier talked about the Internet Governance Schools. The IGF allows us to have education that is capacity-building packaged into it. So I believe it’s a holistic governance capacity-building package that is built into the IGF. There is also the cost of changing what we have now. We don’t have any other thing, it is true. But what is the cost of abandoning it to seek for something else? I think that cost is way more. And finally, I think that the IGF, because of the instances that we have, because of its nature, because of what it already gives us, is a great place to serve the GDC, which is what we are working on now. So I believe that as a vehicle, as an implementation vehicle, as a broad way, and as a leeway, as an avenue for the GDC, GDC, the IGF, it’s a great place. And please, one thing, emerging technologies. 10 years ago, we used the word emerging technologies generally, but now I think that in the past few days, past few years, the AI has come into force. There will be more in the future. And I think that the IGF space is a good place for us to have conversations on emerging technologies. My name is Nnena. I come from the internet, and I think this will be my last intervention for the day. Thank you very much.

Gbenga Sesan: Thank you, Nnena.

Audience: I will speak in French. Can I proceed, please?

Gbenga Sesan: Go ahead.

Audience: My name is Christine Amesson. I come from Benin, from the Ministry of Economy and Finance. We had a great session, but I would like to ask about the repercussions. We, in 2003 and 2005, put with the Society of Information and Technology new measures. Why don’t we change the paradigm to become an entity of observation and allow each stakeholder from this private sector to actually take part? Each can actually participate and bring his expertise, progress, and say whether this is doable or not. Why do we? How about internet belonging to everyone? And what do you think about this new idea that I brought?

Gbenga Sesan: Thank you so much.

Audience: Hi, I am Israel Rosas from the Internet Society. First of all, I also want to thank you for organizing this session in this format. I think it’s part of the value of the IEF. One of the contentious topics is whether the IEF provides tangible outcomes. And I think that we, this community, should think about how to increase the visibility of the partnerships that the NRIs are promoting and using at the national and regional level, because that’s where the multi-stakeholder model translates into tangible, concrete outcomes that benefit people, where all stakeholders can participate and create concrete solutions in benefit of people. Thank you.

Gbenga Sesan: Okay. We’ll take, let’s have, we have two comments online and I see, we’ll close the queue now because of time and we have four people. So let’s have two more comments in the room. We’ll take two comments online and we’ll come back to the two last comments in the room. And at this point, if you could help me spend a minute, I’ll get to everyone, I promise. If you spend a minute, I’ll get to everyone.

Audience: Thank you. I’ll be very brief. My name is Annalise Williams. I’m part of the technical community and I’m very involved in Australia’s national IGF. I moderated a session yesterday on evolving the IGF that generated many ideas that will maybe be put forward in the session report, but just briefly, they included closer engagement with the NRIs and incorporating national and regional discussions into the program of the global IGF in a more coordinated way. And perhaps looking back, some sort of compendium over the 19 years of the IGF and its achievements and outcomes and the things that have been discussed here. In response to the question about what we would say to decision makers, the DNS Research Federation report on the IGF’s achievements said if the IGF… didn’t exist we’d have to create it, but the IGF does exist, it’s very valuable, I think it should continue and its mandate should be permanent and I think we can perhaps think about how the IGF works in accordance with its Tunis, the mandate in its Tunis agenda in relation to identifying emergent issues and bringing them to the attention of relevant bodies and the general public and where appropriate making recommendations. Thank you.

Carol Roach: Thank you so much. The next comment from the room.

Nthati Moorosi: Thank you very much. I will try to spend a minute. My name is Nthati Moorosi. I am the Minister of ICT Science and Innovation from Lesotho. I’ve been sitting here, this is the first time I attend IGF and I must say it’s a very good forum because it brings everyone to the table, but I’ve been really bugged by the objective of IGF regarding leaving no one behind, regarding inclusivity and looking at the challenges that I shared when I was at the panel about some of the challenges that we have in Africa regarding inclusivity, especially the price of the gadgets, the price of the data. As governments we’ve done a lot to connect people with the infrastructure, but a lot of people are not connected to internet because of the gadgets. I think it’s about time we ask IGF to have a special forum with the private sector to come up with solutions for us regarding some of these special challenges and maybe the IGF to track all the countries to see how we are doing from time to time in the objective of bringing everyone and inclusivity and leaving no one behind. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Audience: We have Anup and one other, and online, can we take those two comments? Thank you for the opportunity to let me speak. So I would just like to stand with my views, that I stand in solidarity with IGF to continue from a personal perspective, for the room should be made for the innovations and inclusions and widely reaching to rightist societies, even like the social societies and civil societies and people of the world for better governance, forum and interaction. So I believe that IGF has the whole potential to reach to the grassroots levels. Even I was attending the cyber security meeting today, and there also we spoke about that how IGF can reach up to the marginalized society and help the unlearned people to learn about the perspective of internet governance forums. And thus, I would also like to say, governance and system rethinking is crucial with evolving nature of technology. And thus, I also discovered the digital peace day, which I would like to celebrate with IGF further. Thank you.

Gbenga Sesan: I’m sure if we did a world map of this session, one huge one would be NRIs, and I think that is really critical. Let me give our panellists the chance in two minutes each to give us what would be your last word and ask a recommendation or a best practice that you see in these conversations that we’ve had. Let me start with you, Timea, if you don’t mind.

Timea Suto: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Gbenga. I’ll try to be brief in how to respond to a very large question and to the very rich discussion that we’ve had today. I want to go to the comment that Mary raised from Nigeria about how multistakeholder and multilateral need to shake hands. I don’t think they only need to shake hands, they need to hold hands and go along the road together. It’s an either-or, and I think it’s about time that we’ve realised that. We don’t need to be married to words. It’s not something that we say this word or the other, and we’ve solved the issue. We do need to think about implementation, and I think the implementation is bringing the these two ideas into one governance conversation where we truly have everybody at the table and make recommendations together that resonate with the local realities. And that can only happen if we have governments, businesses, civil society, the technical community, academics, all around the table that bring their own perspectives. It’s not about everybody having a vote or everybody negotiating an outcome, but everybody having a voice and for that voice to actually be heard and having a dialogue. And that is what I mean by multi-stakeholder, multilateral needing to hold hands as we move along the business road together.

Gbenga Sesan: I like the picture I’m seeing there. They shouldn’t just shake hands. We need to hold hands and maybe take a walk. Valeria.

Valeria Betancourt: Yes, I cannot agree more with Temea. And I could say that the IGF has to also strengthen its capacity to not only produce messages, but to communicate those messages to the relevant policymaking spaces. I think that’s essential. Having the messages obviously is necessary, but the IGF has to strategically identify the different spaces and processes and forums where to take those messages and shape and help shaping the decisions. For instance, around what is being decided at the moment around artificial intelligence governance or data governance. And this should also include the national level processes. So in that sense, I think the ability to also communicate and connect with governments is something that has to be strengthened. In other words, interfacing with the governments, interfacing with decision-making spaces, intergovernmental processes is key. And the IGF should continue to evolve in that direction.

Gbenga Sesan: Thank you so much.

Kurtis Lindquist: With the risk of taking the analogy slightly too far, but I don’t think you just need to hold hands. I think you need to dance together because they are very much linked and intertwined. Because the IGF is uniquely positioned within the business framework and the UN ecosystem. I don’t think there’s a going back on that, right? Even if the format. And I think it’s one of the few spaces, again, where all the stakeholders can really come together and they can tackle complexities of internet governance. But as I said in my intervention, to fulfill this potential, it also needs to adapt, right? We need to evolve it. It needs to, as we heard from the speakers, really focus on outputs that we can translate into actions. And it has to be a platform that’s truly inclusive. We need to expand on this. And the process has to be flexible enough to address the challenges that’s coming. Again, the space is static. We’re not back to 19 years ago.

Gbenga Sesan: Thank you so much. Christine.

Christine Arida: Thank you. I think I want to echo what the Minister of Liswato said. Because I know we’ve had at the IGF for years and years so many discussions about meaningful access, about connecting the next billions. And the points that were raised by Her Excellency the Minister are points that were really mentioned in all those discussions, in that dialogue. So to echo what every second person in the session has been saying, it’s about having more actions, having more recommendations, having linkages to governments. I think we just need to move with the IGF to the next phase. We need to figure out how we can use the potential that the IGF has, and actually in its current trend date, even to deliver on tangible outcomes. And we need to innovate to do that. Innovate in terms of frameworks, in terms of modalities. And again, the second point that I want to say is about the NRIs. I think there’s so much that’s been said about the NRIs in this session. We need to capture that and move towards implementing it. And I will bring an example from my region, the Arab region. We just had a collaborative session of different national and regional and subregional IGFs just a few weeks ago. And one of the recommendations that came out of that session was that our collective NRI should inspire decision-making and multilateral and intergovernmental processes within the region. I think we should encourage that in various regions as well and move on the global level to that.

Carol Roach: Thank you. Thank you. Vint, you’re literally next to Christine on the big screen in this main room. So your closing thoughts.

Vint Cerf: Oh my. Well, let me just be very brief and say that in this session and in the other sessions that I’ve attended, I reached the conclusion that IGF should become a permanent operation within the UN context and that we should work towards that outcome as we prepare for the IGF meeting in Norway and the subsequent WSIS plus 20. I think Bertrand makes the good point that we should consider moving in that direction by laying out what issues we should be addressing and how we should address them. Keep in mind that the IGF and the NRIs are not the only place where solutions might be found. So let’s be expansive as we think about problem formulation. Let’s think about where those problems could best be addressed. This has been a very stimulating session. I took a lot of notes and I’m looking forward to the closing question coming up later today.

Gbenga Sesan: Thank you, Vint. Thank you, Christine. Thank you, Kurtis. Thank you, Valeria. And, of course, thank you, Carol. I guess this literally brings us to the end of this session, but I see your mic, so something is coming.

Carol Roach: Sorry. So I’m going to take 15 seconds. I think, as Mike shared, this is my takeaway and something that we will bring to the Secretariat, the strengthening of partnerships with other UN agencies, strengthening of partnerships with private sector and business community, and the handshakes and the hand-holding, we need more of that. We’ve started with the inter-parliamentary union. I think there’s also something similar with the diplomatic corps or state missions, so I think we probably could extend that, and we must, must improve engagement and outreach with the underserved. Thank you. Thank you to the organizers for this fantastic session.

Agreement Points

IGF should produce more tangible outcomes and recommendations

Valeria Betancourt

Kurtis Lindquist

Unknown speaker

Christine Arida

IGF needs to strengthen ability to communicate messages to policymaking spaces

IGF should focus on outputs that translate to actions

IGF needs to generate tangible recommendations and outcomes

IGF should move to next phase with more tangible outcomes and government linkages

Multiple speakers emphasized the need for the IGF to produce more concrete, actionable outcomes and effectively communicate these to relevant policymaking bodies.

IGF should enhance inclusivity and representation

Kurtis Lindquist

Unknown speaker

Carol Roach

IGF should enhance inclusivity, especially voices from Global South

IGF should bring in more youth and marginalized communities

IGF reaches grassroots levels and marginalized societies

IGF should improve engagement with underserved communities

Several speakers agreed on the importance of making the IGF more inclusive, particularly by involving underrepresented groups such as those from the Global South, youth, and marginalized communities.

IGF should become a permanent part of the UN system

Vint Cerf

Bertrand de La Chapelle

IGF should become permanent part of UN landscape

IGF mandate should be revised and institutional structure improved

Both speakers advocated for the IGF to become a permanent fixture within the UN system, with suggestions for revising its mandate and improving its institutional structure.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of the IGF in implementing and integrating the Global Digital Compact (GDC) with existing frameworks like WSIS.

Timea Suto

Valeria Betancourt

IGF should serve as foundational resource for GDC implementation

IGF should integrate WSIS framework and GDC

These speakers highlighted the importance of the IGF’s ecosystem, including its intersessional work and National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs), in shaping discussions and informing policy.

Timea Suto

Kurtis Lindquist

Christine Arida

IGF has developed vibrant intersessional work and ecosystem

IGF provides platform for open discussions shaping narratives and informing policymaking

IGF should leverage NRI network to shape renewed mandate

Unexpected Consensus

Need for IGF to adapt and evolve

Kurtis Lindquist

Christine Arida

Bertrand de La Chapelle

IGF needs to adapt to remain relevant in changing world

IGF should move to next phase with more tangible outcomes and government linkages

IGF mandate should be revised and institutional structure improved

There was an unexpected consensus among speakers from different backgrounds on the need for the IGF to evolve and adapt its structure and processes to remain relevant and effective in the changing digital landscape.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around the need for the IGF to produce more tangible outcomes, enhance inclusivity, strengthen its role in implementing the GDC, and evolve its structure and processes to remain relevant.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among speakers on these key issues, suggesting a shared vision for the future of the IGF. This consensus implies a strong foundation for potential reforms and improvements to the IGF’s structure and processes, which could lead to more effective internet governance discussions and outcomes in the future.

Different Viewpoints

IGF’s role in producing tangible outcomes

Unknown speaker

Vint Cerf

IGF needs to generate tangible recommendations and outcomes

IGF should not necessarily in itself try to solve problems, all of them. Some of it surely can make strong and evidence-based recommendations for but one of the strongest things we can do is to formulate the problem or the question and then suggest where that question should be addressed.

While one speaker argues for the IGF to produce concrete recommendations and outcomes, Vint Cerf suggests that the IGF’s role should be more focused on problem formulation and directing issues to appropriate bodies for resolution.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the extent of the IGF’s role in producing concrete outcomes versus facilitating discussions, and the specific ways in which the IGF should evolve to meet current challenges.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the fundamental importance of the IGF and the need for its evolution, with differences mainly in the nuances of how this should be achieved. This suggests a generally unified vision for the future of the IGF, which could facilitate productive discussions on its development and role in internet governance.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree that the IGF needs to evolve and adapt to new challenges, particularly in relation to the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and WSIS framework. However, they differ slightly in their emphasis: Timea Suto focuses on the IGF as a resource for GDC implementation, Valeria Betancourt emphasizes integration of WSIS and GDC, while Kurtis Lindquist stresses the need for overall adaptation to remain relevant.

Timea Suto

Valeria Betancourt

Kurtis Lindquist

IGF should serve as foundational resource for GDC implementation

IGF should integrate WSIS framework and GDC

IGF needs to adapt to remain relevant in changing world

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of the IGF in implementing and integrating the Global Digital Compact (GDC) with existing frameworks like WSIS.

Timea Suto

Valeria Betancourt

IGF should serve as foundational resource for GDC implementation

IGF should integrate WSIS framework and GDC

These speakers highlighted the importance of the IGF’s ecosystem, including its intersessional work and National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs), in shaping discussions and informing policy.

Timea Suto

Kurtis Lindquist

Christine Arida

IGF has developed vibrant intersessional work and ecosystem

IGF provides platform for open discussions shaping narratives and informing policymaking

IGF should leverage NRI network to shape renewed mandate

Key Takeaways

The IGF plays a crucial role in fostering inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogue on internet governance issues

The IGF has contributed significantly to building global awareness of critical digital issues over the past 20 years

There is broad agreement that the IGF’s mandate should be renewed and made permanent within the UN system

The IGF needs to evolve to remain relevant, focusing on producing more tangible outcomes and recommendations

Enhancing inclusivity, especially for voices from the Global South and marginalized communities, is seen as critical for the IGF’s future

The national and regional IGF initiatives (NRIs) are viewed as a key strength to be further leveraged

There is a need to better integrate the IGF with other UN processes and improve communication of IGF outcomes to policymakers

Resolutions and Action Items

Work towards making the IGF a permanent operation within the UN context

Develop a vision and action plan for the IGF’s future role ahead of the WSIS+20 review

Strengthen partnerships between the IGF and other UN agencies, private sector, and civil society

Improve engagement and outreach with underserved communities

Enhance the IGF’s ability to produce and communicate actionable recommendations to policymaking spaces

Unresolved Issues

Specific mechanisms for improving the tangible outcomes and impact of the IGF

How to effectively balance the IGF’s role as an open forum for discussion with the need for more concrete outputs

Detailed plans for enhancing inclusivity and representation, particularly from the Global South

The exact nature of potential revisions to the IGF’s mandate and institutional structure

Suggested Compromises

Balancing the need for more tangible outcomes with maintaining the IGF’s open, non-binding nature

Integrating multistakeholder and multilateral approaches in internet governance, described as needing to ‘hold hands and dance together’

Finding ways to make IGF discussions more relevant to local realities while maintaining a global perspective

The IGF has the beauty of both worlds. It is the innovative kid on the block, the innovative multistakeholder process within the multilateral UN system, and so best fitted to address the gap between discussion and action, between dialogue and recommendations.

speaker

Christine Arida

reason

This comment insightfully positions the IGF as a unique bridge between multilateral and multistakeholder approaches, highlighting its potential to drive concrete outcomes.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards how to leverage the IGF’s unique position to produce more tangible results and recommendations.

IGF should continue to strengthen partnerships with other UN agencies and topical and specialist agencies and their processes. And there is really a need for the coordinated global governance more than ever before.

speaker

Kurtis Lindquist

reason

This comment emphasizes the need for greater coordination and collaboration in global internet governance, recognizing the evolving complexity of the digital landscape.

impact

It prompted further discussion on how the IGF can better integrate with other governance processes and agencies to increase its impact.

We must find a way of making conclusions so that we serve society… Without getting out of comfort zone, we will continue to be, we will continue, unfortunately, to remain a talking shop, and that in itself isn’t sufficient to come up with answers.

speaker

Khaled Fattah

reason

This comment challenges the status quo and pushes for more concrete outcomes from the IGF, highlighting the urgency of addressing emerging digital challenges.

impact

It sparked a debate about the need for the IGF to evolve beyond discussion to produce more actionable results.

IGF should not necessarily in itself try to solve problems, all of them. Some of it surely can make strong and evidence-based recommendations for but one of the strongest things we can do is to formulate the problem or the question and then suggest where that question should be addressed.

speaker

Vint Cerf

reason

This comment provides a nuanced perspective on the IGF’s role, suggesting it should focus on problem formulation and directing issues to appropriate bodies rather than trying to solve everything itself.

impact

It reframed the discussion about the IGF’s purpose and potential impact, leading to more focused ideas about its future role.

I think it’s about time we ask IGF to have a special forum with the private sector to come up with solutions for us regarding some of these special challenges and maybe the IGF to track all the countries to see how we are doing from time to time in the objective of bringing everyone and inclusivity and leaving no one behind.

speaker

Nthati Moorosi

reason

This comment from a government minister highlights the need for more concrete action on digital inclusion, particularly in developing countries, and suggests a new role for the IGF in tracking progress.

impact

It brought attention to the practical challenges of digital inclusion and prompted discussion on how the IGF can facilitate more targeted solutions and accountability.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by pushing it beyond general praise for the IGF towards a more critical examination of its future role and potential for impact. They highlighted the need for the IGF to evolve, produce more tangible outcomes, and better integrate with other governance processes while maintaining its unique multistakeholder character. The discussion moved from celebrating the IGF’s past achievements to envisioning how it can adapt to meet current and future challenges in global internet governance, with a particular emphasis on inclusivity, concrete problem-solving, and bridging the gap between dialogue and action.

How can we connect from Internet fragmentation to Internet governance?

speaker

Kim from the Telecommunication Directorate of Cambodia

explanation

This question aims to understand how Internet governance can address the issue of Internet fragmentation, which was discussed in a previous panel.

How can we ensure the IGF generates tangible outcomes and recommendations?

speaker

Manal Abdel Samad

explanation

This question addresses the concern that after 19 years, the IGF may not be producing concrete results, which could risk its impact and relevance.

How can the IGF get out of its comfort zone and find more creative ways to address current challenges?

speaker

Khaled Fattah

explanation

This question suggests the need for the IGF to evolve and become more action-oriented in the face of rapidly advancing technologies and their associated risks.

How can the IGF increase the visibility of partnerships promoted by NRIs at national and regional levels?

speaker

Israel Rosas from the Internet Society

explanation

This question aims to highlight the concrete outcomes of the multi-stakeholder model at local levels and demonstrate the IGF’s tangible impact.

How can the IGF incorporate national and regional discussions into the program of the global IGF in a more coordinated way?

speaker

Annalise Williams

explanation

This question suggests a need for better integration of local and regional perspectives into the global IGF agenda.

Can the IGF create a special forum with the private sector to address challenges related to device affordability and data costs?

speaker

Nthati Moorosi, Minister of ICT Science and Innovation from Lesotho

explanation

This question addresses specific barriers to internet inclusivity in Africa and suggests a more targeted approach to problem-solving within the IGF framework.

How can the IGF track countries’ progress on inclusivity and leaving no one behind?

speaker

Nthati Moorosi, Minister of ICT Science and Innovation from Lesotho

explanation

This question proposes a more systematic approach to monitoring and evaluating the impact of IGF initiatives on global internet inclusivity.

How can the IGF strengthen its capacity to communicate its messages to relevant policymaking spaces?

speaker

Valeria Betancourt

explanation

This question addresses the need for the IGF to more effectively influence decision-making processes, particularly in areas like AI and data governance.

Summary

This discussion focused on applying human rights standards to online spaces and emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI). Experts from various Council of Europe bodies discussed how existing conventions and recommendations address online safety, violence against women and children, and discrimination risks in AI.

The panelists emphasized that human rights apply equally online and offline, but acknowledged challenges in implementation. They highlighted the importance of both legal and non-legal measures, including education, awareness-raising, and multi-stakeholder cooperation. The Lanzarote Convention on protecting children from sexual exploitation and the Istanbul Convention on violence against women were cited as key frameworks that have been adapted to address online dimensions.

Regarding AI, the discussion explored both risks and opportunities. Concerns were raised about AI potentially amplifying existing biases and creating new forms of discrimination. However, panelists also noted AI’s potential to identify patterns of discrimination and improve safeguards. The need for transparent, auditable AI systems and updated non-discrimination laws was stressed.

The experts called for greater collaboration between governments, civil society, and tech companies to ensure online platforms uphold rights. They emphasized the importance of political prioritization and moving from rhetoric to action in addressing online harms. The discussion concluded that innovation and human rights protection are not mutually exclusive, but require clear standards, commitment, and cooperation across sectors.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Applying human rights standards to the online/digital space

– Challenges and opportunities of AI for human rights, especially regarding discrimination and vulnerable groups

– Need for comprehensive legal and non-legal approaches to protect rights online

– Importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments, civil society, and tech companies

– Balancing innovation with human rights protections in developing new technologies

Overall purpose:

The goal was to explore how established human rights standards can be understood and applied in the online space and with new digital technologies, with a focus on protecting vulnerable groups like women and children.

Tone:

The tone was primarily informative and analytical, with speakers providing overviews of relevant conventions, recommendations, and challenges. There was an underlying sense of urgency about the need to take action, but the tone remained measured and solution-oriented throughout. Towards the end, some speakers emphasized the need to move from rhetoric to concrete action in a slightly more forceful tone.

Speakers

– Menno Ettema: Moderator, Council of Europe, Hate Speech, Hate Crime and Artificial Intelligence

– Octavian Sofransky, Council of Europe, Digital Governance Advisor Camille Gangloff, Council of Europe, Gender Equality policies

– Naomi Trewinnard: Council of Europe, Sexual violence against children (Lanzarote Convention)

– Clare McGlynn: Professor at Durham Law School, Expert on violence against women & girls 

– Ivana Bartoletti: Member of the Committee of Experts on AI, Equality and Non-Discrimination of the Council of Europe, Vice President and Global Chief Privacy and AI Governance Officer at Wipro

– Charlotte Gilmartin: Council of Europe, Steering Committee on Anti-Discrimination, Diversity and Inclusion (CDADI)

Additional speakers:

– Clara McLaren: Professor at the Dunham Law School, an expert on violence against women and girls

Expanded Summary of Discussion on Human Rights in the Digital Age

Introduction

This discussion, moderated by Menno Ettema of the Council of Europe’s Anti-Discrimination Department, explored the application of human rights standards to online spaces and emerging technologies, with a particular focus on artificial intelligence (AI). Experts from various Council of Europe bodies examined how existing conventions and recommendations address online safety, violence against women and children, and discrimination risks in AI.

Key Themes and Arguments

1. Applying Human Rights Standards Online

The panellists unanimously agreed that human rights apply equally online and offline. Menno Ettema framed the central question of the discussion: “How can well-established human rights standards be understood for the online space and in new digital technology?” This set the agenda for exploring specific ways in which existing frameworks are being adapted to digital contexts.

Octavian Sofransky presented the Council of Europe’s digital agenda, emphasizing the organization’s commitment to protecting human rights in the digital environment. A Mentimeter poll conducted during the discussion showed that participants felt some or all human rights are more difficult to apply online, underscoring the complexity of the issue.

Naomi Trewinnard emphasised the importance of the Lanzarote Convention in setting standards to protect children from sexual exploitation online. She also mentioned a background paper prepared for the Lanzarote Committee on emerging technologies. Similarly, Clare McGlynn discussed how the Istanbul Convention, adopted in 2011, addresses the digital dimension of violence against women, with a General Recommendation on this topic adopted in 2021. These examples illustrated how existing legal frameworks are being adapted to address online harms.

2. Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights

The discussion explored both the risks and opportunities presented by AI in relation to human rights. Ivana Bartoletti provided a critical perspective, stating, “AI does threaten human rights, especially for the most vulnerable in our society. And it does for a variety of reasons. It does because it perpetuates and can amplify the existing stereotypes that we’ve got in society.” She also raised concerns about new forms of algorithmic discrimination created by AI that may not be covered by existing laws.

Naomi Trewinnard noted that AI is being used to facilitate sexual abuse of children online, highlighting the urgent need for updated protections. However, Bartoletti also emphasised AI’s potential for positive impact, stating, “We can leverage AI and algorithmic decision-making for the good if we have the political and social will to do so.” This balanced view led to a discussion of specific ways AI could be used to promote equality and human rights, given proper guidance and political commitment.

Octavian Sofransky highlighted the Council of Europe’s work on the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, demonstrating the organization’s proactive approach to addressing AI-related challenges.

3. Collaboration to Protect Rights Online

A recurring theme throughout the discussion was the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration to effectively address online human rights issues. Naomi Trewinnard highlighted the importance of cooperation with the private sector to obtain electronic evidence in cases of online child exploitation. She also emphasised the critical need for global collaboration and mentioned the annual Awareness Raising Day about sexual abuse of children on November 18th.

Ivana Bartoletti suggested the use of regulatory sandboxes to allow governments, companies, and civil society to work together on AI governance. She also discussed the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) as an example of regulatory efforts in this space. Clare McGlynn called for greater political prioritisation and action from tech platforms to address online harms.

4. Balancing Innovation and Human Rights Protection

The experts grappled with the challenge of balancing technological innovation with human rights protections. While recognising the potential benefits of AI and other emerging technologies, they stressed the need for transparent, auditable systems and updated non-discrimination laws.

Clare McGlynn emphasised the societal and cultural dimensions of online violence, stating, “If we’re ever going to prevent and reduce violence against women and girls, including online and technology facilitated violence against women and girls, we need to change attitudes across all of society and including amongst men and boys.” This comment broadened the scope of the discussion to include education and awareness-raising as key strategies alongside legal and technological approaches.

5. Defamation Laws and Human Rights Defenders

In response to a question from audience member Jaica Charles, Menno Ettema addressed the issue of defamation laws being misused against human rights defenders online. He highlighted the Council of Europe’s work on Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) and emphasized the need to protect freedom of expression while combating online hate speech, referencing CM Recommendation 2022-16 on combating hate speech.

Conclusions and Unresolved Issues

The discussion concluded that innovation and human rights protection are not mutually exclusive but require clear standards, commitment, and cooperation across sectors. The experts called for a move from rhetoric to concrete action in addressing online harms and protecting human rights in digital spaces.

Several unresolved issues emerged, including:

1. How to effectively balance innovation with human rights protection in AI development

2. Addressing new forms of algorithmic discrimination not covered by existing laws

3. Ensuring transparency and auditability of AI systems used by private companies

4. Protecting human rights defenders from misuse of defamation laws to silence them online

The discussion highlighted the need for ongoing dialogue, research, and collaboration to address these complex challenges at the intersection of human rights, technology, and governance. The use of Mentimeter questions throughout the session encouraged active participation and provided valuable insights into audience perspectives on these critical issues.

Menno Ettema: Hi Imano, she’s just joining now. Perfect, good. Then I will slowly kick off. You should be hearing on channel one. Can you hear me now Imano? No? Yes, great. Okay, good. Good morning everyone. Good afternoon for those in other parts of the world or good evening. Good night. We are here at an open forum for one hour, a short timeline to discuss quite a challenging topic, which is to advance online safety and human rights standards in that space. I will shortly introduce myself first. I’m Imano Etema. I work for the Council of Europe in the Anti-Discrimination Department, working on hate speech, hate crime and artificial intelligence. And I’m joined by quite an extended list of speakers and guests. I’m joined here by Clara McLaren. And I’m sure that the technician is precisely Clara McLaren. She is a professor at the Dunham Law School, expert on violence against women and girls online. We are also joined here in the room by Ivana Bartoletti, member of the Committee of Experts on AI, Equality and Non-Discrimination of the Council of Europe, and also Vice President and Global Chief Privacy and AI Governance Officer at Wipro. Also with us is Naomi Trevannert, Council of Europe, as well as working on sexual violence against children, the Lanzarote Convention. As online moderator, we have with us Charlotte Gilmartin, who works also in the anti-discrimination department and is secretary to the expert committee on AI, non-discrimination, and equality. And Octavian Sofdrasky, digital governance advisor, also at the Council of Europe. The session is about human rights standards and if they also apply online, question mark. And I think it’s important to acknowledge that the UN and regional institutions like the Council of Europe, but also the African Union and others have developed robust human rights standards for all its member states. And that also includes other key stakeholders, including business and civil society. The UN and the Council of Europe has clearly stated human rights apply equally online as it does offline. But how can well-established human rights standards be understood for the online space and in new digital technology? So that’s the question of today. I would like to give the floor first to Octavian, who will provide us a little bit of information about the Council of Europe’s digital agenda. So just to set the frame for our institution, and then we will broaden the discussion from there or actually narrow it into really working on the anti-discrimination field. Octavian, the floor is yours.

Octavian Sofransky: Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, I’m greeting you from Strasbourg. The Council of Europe, the organizer of this session, remains unwavering in its commitment to protecting human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in the digital environment. This dedication was reaffirmed by the Council of Europe’s Secretary General during the European Dialogue on Internet Governance in Vilnius last June. The Secretary General emphasized that the digital dimension of freedom is a priority for the Council of Europe. Europe. Our organization has always recognized the importance of balancing innovation and regulation in the realm of new technologies. In reality, these elements should not be viewed as opposing forces but as complementary partners ensuring that technological advancements genuinely benefit our societies. A Council of Europe Committee of Ministers declaration on the WSIS plus 20 review was issued this September advocating for a people-centered approach to internet development and the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance and supporting the extension of the IGF mandate for the next decade. Moreover, we are proud to announce the adoption of the pioneering Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Protecting Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law last May. This landmark convention, which was opened for signature at the Conference of Ministers of Justice in Vilnius on 5 September very recently, is the first legally binding international instrument in this field and has been already signed by 11 states around the world. Sectoral instruments will complement this convention, including possibly on online safety, our today’s section topic. As a long-time supporter of the IGF process, the Council of Europe has prepared several sessions for this real edition of the IGF, including on privacy, artificial intelligence and indeed the current session on online safety, a topic that remains a top priority for all European states and their citizens. Thank you.

Menno Ettema: Over to you, Menno. Thank you, Octavian, for elaborating the Council of Europe’s work and the reason for this session and a few others. Can I ask all the speakers that are joining us online to switch on their cameras, because it makes it a little bit more lively for us here in the room, but also online that are joining. Thank you very much. I would like to thank you for this, Octavian, and I would like I would like to go over to Naomi, because the Lanzarote Convention on sexual violence against children has a long-term experience with the topic, it’s a very strong standard, but recently published a new document on the digital dimension of sexual violence against children. Naomi, I give the floor to you to introduce the convention and the work that it does.

Naomi Trewinnard: Thank you, Meno. Good morning, good afternoon, everybody. I’m very pleased to be joining with you today. I’m a legal advisor at the Lanzarote Committee Secretariat, and that’s the committee of the parties to the Convention for the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse. So, as Meno mentioned, this is a really comprehensive international treaty that is open to states worldwide, and it aims to prevent and protect children against sexual abuse and to prosecute those who offend. So I wanted to just briefly present some of the standards that are set out in this convention. So firstly, to do with prevention, it requires states to screen and train professionals, ensure that children receive education about the risks of sexual abuse and how they can access support if they’re a victim, as well as general awareness raising for all members of the community and also preventive intervention programmes. When it comes to protection, really, we’re trying to encourage professionals and the general public to report cases of suspected sexual abuse and also to provide assistance and support to victims. And this is including through setting up helplines for children. When it comes to prosecution, it’s really essential to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. And this comes through criminalising all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, including those that are committed online, for example, solicitation or grooming. child, offences related to child sexual abuse materials, so also called child pornography, and also witnessing or participating in sexual acts over a webcam. The Convention also sets out standards to ensure that investigations and criminal proceedings are child-friendly, so there the aim is really to avoid re-victimising or re-traumatising the child victim, and also to obtain best evidence and uphold the rights of the defence. So in this respect the Lanzarote Committee has recognised the Children’s House or Barnahus model as a promising practice to ensure that we obtain good evidence, perpetrators are brought to justice and we avoid victimising children. So these standards and safeguards apply equally to abuse that is committed online and also contact abuse that is committed offline. The Treaty really emphasises the importance of multi-stakeholder coordination in the context of combating online violence, and this Convention really specifically makes a reference to the information and communication technology sector, and also tourism and travel and banking and finance sectors, really trying to encourage states to coordinate with all of these private actors in order to better protect children. The Lanzarote Committee has adopted a number of different opinions, declarations and recommendations to clarify the ways in which this Convention can contribute to better protect children in the online environment. For example by confirming that states should criminalise the solicitation of children for sexual offences even without an in-person meeting, so when this is in order to obtain sexual offences online, and also given the dematerialised nature of these offences multiple jurisdictions will often be involved in a specific case. We might have the victim situated in one country, electronic evidence being stored on a server in a different country, and the perpetrator sitting in another country. committing this abuse over the internet. Therefore, the committee really recognises and emphasises the importance of international cooperation, including through international bodies and international meetings such as this one. The convention is also really clear that children shouldn’t be prosecuted for generating images or videos themselves. We know that many children are tricked or coerced or blackmailed into this or, you know, generate an image and thinking it’s going to be used for a specific purpose within a conceptual relationship. And then it gets out of hand. So the committee’s really emphasised that we should be protecting our children, not criminalising or prosecuting them. In terms of education and awareness raising, the committee really emphasises that we need to ensure that children of all ages receive information about children’s rights. And also that states are establishing helplines and hotlines, like reporting portals, so that children have a place, a safe place to go to get help if they’re becoming a victim. And in that context, it’s also really essential to train persons working with children about these issues so that they can recognise signs of abuse and know how to help children if they’re a victim. So I’ve put some links to our materials on the slides and I’ll hand back to Menno now. Thank you for your attention.

Menno Ettema: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Naomi. It is quite elaborate work to be done. But what I think the convention really outlines is that it’s legal and non-legal measures. And it’s the comprehensive approach and the multistakeholder approach that’s really important in addressing sexual exploitation of children or violence against children. In that line of thought, I want to also give the floor to Claire, who can speak on the work of the Istanbul Convention, around the Istanbul Convention, and particularly because it published a relatively new policy recommendation, number one, on the digital dimension of violence against women, which I think is a very important document to share here today.

Clare McGlynn: Yes, good morning, everybody. And thank you very much. So I’m Claire McGlynn. I’m a professor of law at Durham University in the UK. And I’m also a member of the Council of Europe’s expert committee on technology facilitated violence against women and girls. So I’m going to briefly talk today about the Istanbul Convention that’s just been referred to, which was adopted first in 2011. And there’s four key pillars to make this a comprehensive piece of law. It talks about prevention, protection, prosecution, and integrated policies. Now, the key theme of the Istanbul Convention is that violence against women and girls must be understood as gendered. Violence against women and girls is perpetrated mainly by men. It’s also experienced because women and girls are women and girls. Now the monitoring of that convention is done by the body called GRIVIO. That’s the independent expert body which undertakes evaluations of state compliance, as well as preparing various thematic reports. And as already mentioned, in 2021, GRIVIO adopted our general recommendation on the digital dimension of violence against women and girls. So this general recommendation offers an interpretation of the Istanbul Convention, in light of the prevalence and growing concern and harms around online and technology facilitated violence against women and girls. It provides many detailed explanations as to how the convention can be interpreted and adopted in light of the prevalence of online abuse, including things like reviewing relevant legislation in accordance with whether the digital dimension of violence against women and girls is particularly acute. We see this particularly in the area of domestic violence, where some legislation does not account for the fact that in reality today, most forms of domestic abuse involve some element of technology and online elements. It also talks about incentivizing internet intermediaries to ensure content moderation. The point here is about how women’s human rights are being inhibited and affected by online abuse. And regulation, such as content moderation, is necessary to protect those rights. In other words, regulation frees women’s speech online by ensuring we are more free and able to talk and speak online rather than self-censoring in the light of online abuse. It also talks, for example, about the importance of undertaking initiatives to eradicate gender stereotypes and discrimination, especially amongst men and boys. If we’re ever going to prevent and reduce violence against women and girls, including online and technology facilitated violence against women and girls, we need to change attitudes across all of society and including amongst men and boys. Thank you very much.

Menno Ettema: Thank you very much, Claire. I really like the general recommendation because of how it portrays the offline forms of violence against women and harassment and all the different ways and shapes it forms and how that is actually also mirrored in the online space. So it’s really a very clear explanation of how one and the other are the same, the online and the offline, even though we call it maybe different or it might be slightly differently presented because of the online context. But the dynamics are very similar. Thank you. Content moderation is an important part here as well. And working again with stereotypes and attitudes is a challenge. So it’s, again, legal, but also the non-legal approaches are very important. Thank you very much. Ivana, can I give the floor to you? Because one new area is, of course, AI. Octavian already mentioned it, the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, just adopted. From, can you just give two short words and how these human rights standards apply in the AI field? And then we’ll give the floor to the rest of the audience. And then we’ll come back a little bit more on the discrimination risks when it comes to AI, including gender equality.

Ivana Bartoletti: Thank you so much. So AI, of course, is one of the most talked things at the moment at the IJF here. We’ve been talking about AI a lot. And what is the impact is on AI on existing human rights and civil liberties? So obviously, artificial intelligence has been capable of doing so many excellent and good things over recent years. Can you hear me? There’s been a big push over recent, especially with the right gender. And talking about this, which is the idea we’re used to, which is that, oh, it’s breaking up. Can you hear me? Is that OK? OK. So I’m talking about generative AI, which is the idea we’ve seen that can generate images, that can generate, that is another area of discussion. Now, AI does threaten human rights, especially for the most vulnerable in our society. And it does for a variety of reasons. It does because it perpetuates and can amplify the existing stereotypes that we’ve got in society. That’s crystallizing them into either representation. So what you were mentioning earlier, you were saying, how do we change these stereotypes beyond the legal side? Well, there is an issue here, because the use of big data and machine learning, it can amplify the existing stereotypes. crystallizing, crystallize them. And on the other hand, it does provide, for example, with very easy and lower the bar to access to tools, such as, for example, generative AI tools that can generate deep fake images. And whether this is in the space of fake information, whether this is in the space of assigning civil women to depict pornography, what we are seeing is, again, the lowering the bar of access to these tools can have a detrimental impact on on on women, especially. But if you think about privacy, for example, I mean, privacy, and and the what Claire was saying, which was saying, you know, a lot of the domestic abuse is enabled by technology, AI plays a big part in it. Because of the enablement of tools like that, they can turn into monitoring tools. And these monitoring tools can turn into real tools of suppression. So we are very firm that, and the convention is wonderful, in the sense that it’s the first in really international convention, yes, you have the European Act, which is limited to Europe, the convention is international, alongside many other things that have happened. So for example, the digital compact at the UN, that thinks of reframing, framing human rights into the digital space, there’s been declaration happening. So there is definitely a discussion that is happening globally on how we protect safeguarded enhance human rights in the age of AI, but it’s not an easy task. Also, and and is one that needs to see all actors involved in.

Menno Ettema: Thank you very much. This is only just a small start on the discussion on AI. So we’ll come back to that in a second round. But I think what I what we’re trying to do here is to explain the various conventions that exist in a few of the various conventions that are exist related to discrimination and protection of groups that are particularly targeted, Istanbul Convention, the Lanzarote Convention. But I think I also wanted to engage with the audience here in the room and, and also online. We we launched a little Mentimeter because for us, it’s a and I’ll ask Octavian to put the mentor Mentimeter on online. Because for us, it’s very evident that human rights apply equally online as offline. But maybe we’re wrong. I was wondering what others think about this. So I have a little Mentimeter for for a little quiz to just put the finger on the polls. Octavian, are you there? Can you put the Mentimeter on please?

Octavian Sofransky: The Mentimeter is on.

Menno Ettema: We can’t see it. You have to change screens. Okay. I can assure you we tested this yesterday and it worked perfectly. But when the pressure is on, there’s always a challenge. Okay, well, Octavian is dealing with the technical challenge. And maybe I can give this floor first to Charlotte. Maybe there are already some questions from the audience online. And then I’ll go to the here’s the Mentimeter. Sorry, Charlotte. So you can scan the QR code or go to menti.com and then use the code. that is mentioned there, 29900183. So if you scan it or type it in, yes, I see people going online. Great. Then we can go to the next slide, Octavian, for the new first quiz. So are there specific human rights that are more difficult to apply online? There are four options, so please answer. Meanwhile, Charlotte, maybe I can give you the floor while people cast their votes. From online, were there any questions or comments that we should take in here in the room?

Charlotte Gilmartin: For now, there’s one comment from Peter King Quay from Liberia IGF. Their question is, what are some of the key interventions that can be suggested to increase or improve this topical problem in West Africa, especially in West Africa and the MRU region of Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Ivory Coast, vis-a-vis these conventions and norms against women and girls, especially the Istanbul Convention? Thank you very much.

Clare McGlynn: Can I give the floor to Claire on this question? Yes, what I would add is that, as the colleague is possibly aware, the African Commission a couple of years ago did adopt a specific resolution on the protection of women against digital violence in Africa. And the work of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women in Africa has done a lot of work around this regarding the online dimension. So both that specific resolution and the work of the Special Rapporteur are likely to… perhaps provide some further help and guidance on the particular issues and problems and challenges and opportunities arising in Africa. Thank

Menno Ettema: you very much Claire and I would also say that the recommendation number one of the Istanbul Convention of the Grevio, I mean it gives very practical suggestions on what can be addressed and I think this can be adjusted to, adapted to local context of course, always, that’s everywhere including the European continent but I think there are many guidelines there or suggestions that would be equally applicable in other parts of the globe. I see that the overall people, there’s a tendency to say yes all human rights or some human rights are more difficult to apply online. It’s an interesting result so yes all human rights apply online but it’s sometimes more difficult so maybe some people want to respond to that. I would like to go to the second question of the Mentimeter. What should be done more to ensure human rights online? So if some human rights are more difficult to apply online what could be done? What do you think could be done? And meanwhile I want to check the audience here if there are any questions or statements that they would like to share. Yes in the back of the room. Could you please state who you are just for the audience? Should be. It should work. Can you hear? Yes. Very well.

Audience: My name is Jaica Charles. I work with the Kenyan section for the International Commission of Jurists Nairobi. So thank you. First of all thank you for these wonderful presentations from various stakeholders. We appreciate you a lot. It’s actually something that we are very much interested in as digital rights expertise and human rights activists, sorry human rights defenders and especially on digital rights based on AI. So my question is there has been especially in African context there has been a lot of fight by the authorities towards the human rights defenders in the name of defamation. I hope we all understand defamation. So defamation has been used against human rights defenders online whenever they try to I mean to pinpoint issues regarding human rights online. They are mostly being charged under defamation and you’ll see aspects of abductions and such like things and especially it has happened recently in African context. For example in Kenya there was a Gen Z movement which was well known all over. So how can we approach that or how can we cap that especially in the context of AI to prevent such like things from happening? Like how can we I mean protect the human rights defenders online from being charged under defamation or rather being used on grounds of defamation as a tool to prevent them from doing the human rights work? Thank you.

Menno Ettema: Thank you very much. Just looking at my speakers who would like to pick up this question. And maybe I give it a go first myself and then the other colleagues can contribute. I mean, it’s a very pressing question. I think within the European scope, maybe if I may translate to that area where I’m more knowledgeable. So within the European scope, the Council of Europe and national authorities are moving away from defamation laws and legislation. I think also in the UN, this is echoed that defamation laws are not particularly helpful. And because of the way it’s often formulated and applied, that’s a problem. There are questions about now hate speech legislation, for example. And the Council of Europe has adopted a recommendation in 2022, CM Recommendation 2022-16, if you want to check it out, on combating hate speech. And it specifically explains and argues why defamation laws are not up to the task to actually deal with hate speech. And hate speech is a real problem for societies. It undermines the rights of persons targeted or groups that are targeted and undermines cohesion in communities. And I think well-crafted hate speech laws may function quite well. But well-crafted also means that we need to acknowledge the severity of hate speech. So you have hate speech that’s clearly criminal, falls under criminal responsibility. And this should be a very restrictive understanding, so we should be very clearly defined, explained what we understand, which grounds are protected under this hate speech under criminal law. Then you have other forms of hate speech that could be addressed through administrative law and civil law. For example, self-regulatory mechanisms with the media or political parties that have administrative law in place. And that is a less severe intervention when it comes to freedom of expression, Article 10 of the European Convention, for example. And it’s this balancing act. And then we have other forms of hate speech that cannot be restricted through legislation but still is harmful, so we need to address it. So I would really argue that taking inspiration from the recommendation, for example, to really engage in a national dialogue on reforming legislative situations and to really abide by a very narrow understanding of hate speech that falls under criminal law. And in the recommendation, we also refer to international UN standards and conventions that specify what falls under that. And then other forms of reactions you could do, including non-legal measures, education, awareness raising, counter speech, etc. And this would be a much better response. And defamation laws should not be used in such a way. It can be very easily misused. Well-construed hate speech laws should help. There’s also the work on SLAPs, strategic litigation, that might also give some guidance on what could be done to address misuse of legislation for silencing a group. So SLAPs, there’s a recommendation on SLAPs, and that’s quite an interesting document that could guide you in your work in that sense. Thank you. Naomi, please.

Naomi Trewinnard: Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to perhaps share some insights of something parallel that we’ve dealt with at the level of protecting children from sexual abuse. So the convention is quite clear that professionals and all those that have a reasonable suspicion of sexual abuse in good faith should report it to the appropriate authorities, to like child protection authorities or police or whatever, but also that people who report in good faith should be protected from criminal or civil liability, so also be protected against claims of defamation. And so actually the Lansworthy Committee is looking at this question at the moment, looking how to reinforce protections for professionals so that they can respect their duties of confidentiality, their obligations to keep information safe, but also their duties to protect children. And I think it’s a really fine balancing act, but certainly I think clear guidance from states and policymakers setting out the ways in which people can be, when they’re denouncing something or reporting something, the ways that they should be protected from consequences can be very helpful as well.

Menno Ettema: Thank you Naomi for that addition. Just going to the Mentimeter, I see a few suggestions, several suggestions, thank you for that. Education, more education, content moderation, more research and data privacy laws, working on safety at all levels, physical and the online space and strengthen frameworks and their interpretation. So it’s quite an array, but I see very much also education as mentioned by a few people. Thank you. I would like to open a second section of the discussion and going back to AI because it’s the new, it’s the big elephant in the room. So I mean it’s the elephant in the room and the question is if human rights standards are in the area, for example, of gender equality, non-discriminations and the right of the child, are delicate porcelain that will soon encounter an elephant stampede or are there actually opportunities by the use of AI and should we not be so worried about the rights, human rights of these groups when it comes to the deployment of AI. Ivana, you already mentioned some aspects that, yeah, AI and human rights, they slowly come together, we need to be cautious, there are risks, but maybe there’s some more to add specifically in the area of non-discrimination and equality, also from your work in the expert committee.

Ivana Bartoletti: Octave, next slide, yes, thank you. Yeah, so I think in, I mean AI enables a lot of this, not the question that we just had, for example, about human rights, the same with journalists, no, there is a lot, there is also gender dimension of it because what happens often is that it is women who are the ones that are targeted the most and the elephant in the room is AI because AI has made a lot of this very much available, okay. So in the area of, if you think about artificial intelligence and algorithmic decision making, first we have to distinguish, it’s very important, one is what is so-called discriminative AI, which is the machine learning, what we use more traditionally, although it’s not really traditional, but in essence. So what is happening in that space, especially around algorithmic decision making, is that we are seeing women being, and especially the intersection between gender, race and other dimensions, we have seen often women being locked out of services, been discriminated against, it happened a lot, for example, with facial recognition, it happened a lot with banking services, education, now this is because AI needs data, data is central, data is scarce, often data comes the western world, therefore when this data then is the, it doesn’t work, no? It goes on and off, we can’t hear you, but it goes. When the, and therefore this bias is, exists, because it exists in society, so there is, to an extent, there is little technological solution to a problem which is a societal problem. So we have seen this bias with generative AI, we have seen another set of issues, which is, which, in the sense that, it doesn’t work. In the sense that these products are also the product of the scraping of the web, which means taking language as it is, bringing a whole set of new issues, like the language that we are all taught. talking about and learning from these tools, is it inclusive or not? So, I think there is an understanding that has become more mainstream around all of this, around the fact that discriminative AI and generative AI, in a combination of the two, can perpetuate and softwareise existing inequalities into systems that make decisions and predictions about tomorrow. However, there is also a positive use of these tools that can be where we can leverage AI to try and address some of these systems. For example, leveraging big data to understand the root causes of these inequalities. For example, understanding that there are links between discrimination or sectors and areas of discrimination, looking at big data that we wouldn’t be able to look at through human eyes. Using artificial intelligence and algorithmic systems to set a higher bar on, for example, how many women we want to work in a business, by manipulating the data. By manipulating the data, using synthetic data, by creating data sheets that enable us to improve the outputs. What I’m trying to say is that we can leverage AI and algorithmic decision-making for the good if we have the political and social will to do so. Because if we leave it to the data alone, it’s not going to happen because data is simply representative of the world. And I think there is an understanding in the study on the challenges and opportunities that we’ve done. And I encourage everyone to read it. It’s important because we provide an understanding of where bias comes from. The fact that this bias that is detrimental to women’s human rights, to discrimination, that is dangerous. We provide a set of recommendations for states to say, how can we challenge this? How can we look at existing non-discrimination laws and see if they’re fit for the age of AI? For example, if a woman is discriminated and is not getting access to a service because she is a woman and also a black woman, how are we going to ensure that this intersectional source of discrimination is addressed by existing non-discrimination law? And furthermore, who is going to have the burden of the proof? Because if the individual who is already vulnerable in the big problem that we have, which is the unspoken figure, which is the asymmetry between us as individuals and the data and the extractivism and the complexity of what some call surveillance capitalism, in this big asymmetry, it can’t be left to the most vulnerable to say, I am going to challenge this. So this also means that there has to be strong regulation in place to make sure that the onus is on the company to provide the level of transparency, challengeability and clarity and auditability of the systems that they’re using, so that the onus is not just left on the individual to challenge, but these systems can be open to question by civic society, government and institutions. Business can play a big part in it. So what I’m trying to say here is that AI can be used, and especially if I think about automated bots, responsibly automated bots, can be great in supporting public sector, private sector to develop and create AI, which is inclusive. We can use AI, big data strategies to really understand where the bias may come from. We can look at big data analytics and really say, identify patterns of discrimination. There is a lot that can be done in this space, but there has to be that willingness to do so. So I’m really hoping that in a space like this, we can… I mean, a document like that one that brings together can be leveraged beyond Council of Europe, because it’s really important… important that we understand that existing legislation around discrimination law, privacy laws, may need to be looked at in order to be able to cater for the harms that come from algorithmic decision-making or generative AI.

Menno Ettema: Thank you very much, Ivana. That’s quite an elaborate and detailed analysis of the challenges that lie ahead, but also the opportunities. There are opportunities and possibilities. Can I give the floor to Naomi, maybe from the perspective of the risk for children’s safety and the use of AI?

Naomi Trewinnard: Sure, and thank you. Thank you for the floor. In terms of AI, the Lanzarote Committee has been paying particular attention to emerging technologies, especially over the last year or so. The committee has actually recognised that artificial intelligence is being used to facilitate sexual abuse of children. Ivana mentioned generative AI models. We know that generative AI is being used to make images of sexual abuse of children, and also that large language models are being used to facilitate grooming of children online and identification of potential victims by perpetrators. Generative AI is also being used to alter existing materials of victims. I know of cases where a child has been identified and rescued, but the images of the abuse are still circulating online, and now AI is being used to alter the images of the abuse of this child that’s been rescued to create new images of that child being abused in different ways. Then we also know that this is being used to generate completely fake images of a child, and that in some cases those fake images of a child naked or being sexually abused are being used to coerce and blackmail the child, either into making images and videos of themselves. Sometimes it’s being used to blackmail children in order to get contact details of their friends, so that the perpetrator can have a wider group of victims. And in other cases, we know of fake images being used to blackmail children for financial gain. And so all of these different forms of blackmail and abuse of children have been recognised as a form of sexual extortion against children by the Lanzarote Committee. And many mentioned at the beginning of our session, the Lanzarote Committee held a thematic discussion on this issue actually in November. So just a few weeks ago in Vienna and has adopted a declaration which sets out really some steps that states particularly can take to better protect children against these risks of emerging technologies, such as criminalising all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse facilitated by emerging technologies. So looking at legislation, making sure regulation is in place, including AI generated sexual abuse material, and also ensuring that sanctions are effective and proportionate to the harm caused to victims. So historically, we’ve seen sanctions and criminal codes being much lighter for, for example, for a child sexual abuse material offence where there’s no contact with the victim. So perhaps really looking at those codes to see if that’s still effective and proportionate, given the harm that we know is being caused to children today by these technologies. On the screen there, you have a link to a background paper that was prepared for the committee, which really explores in detail, setting out the risks and the opportunities of these emerging technologies. And just to close, I wanted to mention that criminalising these behaviours is not enough. So the committee is also called on states to make use of these technologies. So as Ivana mentioned, there’s also a great opportunity here to leverage these technologies to help us better identify and safeguard victims and also to detect and investigate perpetrators. So this really requires cooperation. with the private sector, especially as regards preserving and producing electronic evidence that can be then used in court across jurisdictions, and the Cybercrime Convention, the Second Option Protocol, also provides really useful tools that states can use to better obtain evidence. So I just wanted to close by saying we’re really grateful to have this opportunity to share this with you, and we’re really interested in exchanging further with those in the room about how to cooperate to better protect children. And perhaps just lastly, to mention that the 18th of November is the annual Awareness Raising Day about sexual abuse of children, and it’s really an invitation to all of you to add that date to your calendars and to do something on the 18th of November each year to raise awareness about sexual abuse so that we can better promote and protect children’s rights. Thank you.

Menno Ettema: Thank you, Naomi, and also for mentioning the International Day, because it is awareness raising in education is a key part of resilience, but also being aware also for parents and others to support children that are in a possible target. I’ll soon give the floor again to the audience, but I just want to also give the floor to Claire on violence against women and AI. Ivana already addressed some of these points, but I’m sure Claire has some contributions to also from the graveyard’s perspective.

Clare McGlynn: So yes, I don’t know if the slide is going to come up that I’d prepared, but it’s actually just need to be very brief, because what I wanted to say follows on from Ivana, and in fact, refers to and provide the link to the report that she and Raffaele Zenedes wrote about, in fact, the opportunities of AI as well as the challenges and particularly drawing out what states could be doing and particularly things like reinforcing the rights and obligations. around taking positive action in terms of using AI to eliminate inequalities and discrimination. But the one point I’ll just add there is as well that Ivana’s report refers to the possibility that into the future, there will be other vulnerable groups that are not necessarily covered by existing anti-discrimination laws. And so we have to be very open to how experiences of inequality and discrimination might shift in the advent and the world of AI and be alive to that and be ready to take steps to help protect those individuals. Thank you.

Menno Ettema: Thank you. Octavian, this next slide didn’t come up. Maybe you could work on that. Because I think, yes, exactly. Because it’s very important to encourage people to take a quick picture. Because I think the report that Claire refers to is in particular, and Ivana also worked on and referred to as particularly useful to understand the risks of AI when it comes to discrimination, but also particularly also to gender equality or violence against women and the steps that can be taken. I think the point here is that there are new groups or new, we sometimes talk about grounds or characteristics that are particularly coming up because of the AI, intersection of data or data points create new, how do you call it, references.

Ivana Bartoletti: Algorithmic vulnerability, yeah. The point here is that you can have a, so when you think about non-discrimination laws, you think about specific grounds, right? You say you can’t be discriminated because of this ground, religion or whatever. The problem with AI is that the algorithmic discrimination, which is created by the AI itself, because it can identify, for example, can discriminate against somebody because they go on a particular website, or because at the intersection between going on a website and doing something else, this is big data, right? The algorithmic discrimination may not overlap with the traditional sources of discrimination, the grounds of discrimination. So there is a lack of overlap. So somebody may be discriminated for an algorithmic discrimination, which may not overlap with the traditional grounds that we were protected people for. So this lack of overlap is what Claire is referring to. And this is something that we need to think because we may need to look beyond the way that we’ve looked into discrimination law until now.

Menno Ettema: Yeah, thank you very much. I want to go back for a last round to the audience and also launch another little quiz with the Mentimeter. So I’ll ask Octavian to change the screen to the Mentimeter. Octavian, can you manage? Well, Octavian is trying that out. Maybe Charlotte, can I give you the floor first if there are any further comments or questions that came from the online audience?

Charlotte Gilmartin: Not just at the moment, no, no further questions. But I have put the links to the documents that all the speakers have discussed in the chat. So if any participants want to want to find the links, they should all be there.

Menno Ettema: That’s great. I take this opportunity to also mention everybody that’s in the room. The recordings will be online later on on the YouTube channel of the IGF. And there you can then also find all the links because the chat will be also visible in the recordings. Octavian, are you with us? Do you manage with the Mentimeter? Octavian? Yes, there you go. So it’s the same quiz, but in case you lost connection, you can scan against the QR code and use the numbers. I see people registering again. First question. So as I stated, the beginning AI is the elephant stampede trampling over gender equality, non-discrimination, the rights of the child. Yes, no holding them back. The AI, of course. No, elephants are skillful animals and human rights are not fragile. Or maybe, but let’s not blame the elephants. Meanwhile, are there any questions in the audience in the room? Just checking quickly. There you go. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes.

Audience: Ivana and Naomi all mentioned collaboration. So how can governments, civil society, tech companies more effectively collaborate to ensure that the online platforms are protecting and upholding rights? Can I ask who you are? Sorry, yes. I’m Mia McAllister. I’m from the US.

Menno Ettema: Great. Thank you. The question was to Claire and Ivana. Claire, would you like to start?

Clare McGlynn: No, I’m happy. Ivana has probably got more expertise in this particular aspect.

Ivana Bartoletti: So, thank you for the question. So, there are several aspects here. First of all, there are a lot of, so, there is responsibility coming from platforms and private sector, okay, which are very important. So, for example, I mean, if I think about the European Union, the DSA, which goes in that direction, content moderation, having, so, there is an issue, there is something about transparency, requiring transparency, requiring openness, requiring auditability. So, for example, one of the provisions of the DSA is that data can be accessed, and there’ll be brushing over things, but for researchers to then be able to understand what are the, what could be some of the sources of online hate or, so, and, so, there is an onus that must be placed onto companies that is important. There is AI literacy that needs to happen within education, in education settings. I always say we need people to develop a distrust by design as a way to grow with these technologies, but challenge them. You know, we need to tell people that they have to challenge all of this. It’s really important also to look at new regulation, but it’s also very, in my view, important that we create safe environments for companies and governments together to experiment. So, for example, the sandboxes are very good. There are different kinds of sandboxes, regulatory, technical, but it’s really important that companies, because there are some things that are very hard to tackle in this field, especially with generative AI. They are difficult, okay, because some of the things can be odd with the very nature of generative AI. So, having these sandboxes where you can have government, civic society to work together, to look into this product, influence this product, I think this is really, really important. So, I would push towards this kind of collaboration.

Menno Ettema: Thank you very much. Davian, could you just launch the last question, just to gather some further thoughts on what can be done more to ensure human rights in the use of AI? I just wanted to ask if there’s any other questions from the audience or online? No? Then while people answer this question, maybe a last word, a recommendation for us to take forward. We have two minutes, a minute left, so maybe Naomi, just a last final word of wisdom.

Naomi Trewinnard: Well, thank you. Yeah, I think just to reiterate again, I think the key is really collaboration and dialogue, so I think this is an excellent opportunity at the IGF to have this dialogue. For those that are interested in collaborating with the Lanzarote Committee, please do get in touch, our details are on there, and we also regularly at the Council of Europe have stakeholder consultations in the context of developing our standards and recommendations, so please tech companies do engage with us and let’s have a constructive dialogue together to better protect human rights online. Thank you, Naomi. Claire,

Clare McGlynn: last word of wisdom? Yes, I think what we need to see is greater political prioritisation and the need to move basically from the rhetoric to action, and that for me means demanding that the largest tech platforms actually act to ensure that we proactively reduce the harms online. There is a lot of very positive rhetoric, but we’ve yet to see an awful lot of action and actual change.

Ivana Bartoletti: Thank you. Ifeana? Yeah, to me it’s very much breaking that innovation versus human rights versus privacy versus security versus safety argument sometimes we hear, you know, it’s like the one hand there is the argument that we’ve got to innovate, we have to do it fast and quickly, and to do so we may have to sacrifice. Well, that is an argument that doesn’t stand, that this is Claire’s right, you know, this is where we need more action. Yeah, we need to do all,

Menno Ettema: and it’s possible to do all, through cooperation, clear standards, and clear commitment. Legal and non-legal measures, I think those are the key takeaways and the key words that I want to take forward. I thank my panellists, also my colleagues Charlotte and Octavian for the support. Thank you everyone for attending this session, and if there are any other questions, please be in touch with us through the forums on the Council of Europe website, or directly you have our details in the IGF web. Okay, thank you very much, and thank you technical team for all the support. Yes, I do. Thank you.

Audience: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agreement Points

Human rights apply equally online and offline

Menno Ettema

Octavian Sofransky

Human rights apply equally online and offline

Council of Europe has developed robust human rights standards for member states

Both speakers emphasize that human rights standards should be applied consistently in both digital and physical spaces, with the Council of Europe playing a key role in developing these standards.

Need for collaboration to protect rights online

Menno Ettema

Naomi Trewinnard

Ivana Bartoletti

Multi-stakeholder collaboration and dialogue is key

Cooperation with private sector needed to obtain electronic evidence

Regulatory sandboxes allow government, companies and civil society to work together

These speakers agree on the importance of collaboration between various stakeholders, including governments, private sector, and civil society, to effectively address online human rights issues and challenges in AI governance.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the importance of specific conventions addressing digital dimensions of violence and exploitation, particularly for vulnerable groups like children and women.

Naomi Trewinnard

Clare McGlynn

Lanzarote Convention sets standards to protect children from sexual exploitation online

Istanbul Convention addresses digital dimension of violence against women

Both speakers point out that AI systems can reinforce and create new forms of discrimination, potentially affecting groups not typically protected by existing legislation.

Ivana Bartoletti

Clare McGlynn

AI can perpetuate and amplify existing stereotypes and biases

AI creates new forms of algorithmic discrimination not covered by existing laws

Unexpected Consensus

Positive potential of AI in addressing inequalities

Ivana Bartoletti

AI can be leveraged to address inequalities if there is political will

Despite the discussion largely focusing on the risks and challenges of AI, Ivana Bartoletti unexpectedly highlights the potential for AI to be used positively in addressing societal inequalities, given the right political commitment.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the application of human rights standards online, the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, the importance of specific conventions addressing digital violence, and the recognition of AI’s potential risks and opportunities.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers on the importance of protecting human rights online and the need for collaboration. This consensus implies a strong foundation for developing and implementing effective strategies to address online human rights issues and AI governance challenges. However, there are nuanced differences in approaches and emphasis, particularly regarding the potential of AI to address inequalities.

Different Viewpoints

Effectiveness of existing laws in addressing AI-related discrimination

Clare McGlynn

Ivana Bartoletti

AI creates new forms of algorithmic discrimination not covered by existing laws

AI can perpetuate and amplify existing stereotypes and biases

While both speakers acknowledge AI’s potential for discrimination, Clare McGlynn emphasizes the inadequacy of existing laws to address new forms of algorithmic discrimination, whereas Ivana Bartoletti focuses on how AI amplifies existing biases without explicitly stating that current laws are insufficient.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the effectiveness of existing legal frameworks in addressing AI-related discrimination and the specific approaches to leveraging political will and tech platform action.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the fundamental issues but have slightly different emphases or approaches. This suggests a general consensus on the importance of addressing human rights in the digital space and the challenges posed by AI, but with some variation in proposed solutions or areas of focus. These minor differences do not significantly impede the overall discussion on enhancing online safety and human rights standards.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for political action to address AI-related challenges, but Ivana Bartoletti emphasizes leveraging AI positively to address inequalities, while Clare McGlynn focuses on demanding action from tech platforms to reduce online harms.

Ivana Bartoletti

Clare McGlynn

AI can be leveraged to address inequalities if there is political will

Greater political prioritization and action from tech platforms needed

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the importance of specific conventions addressing digital dimensions of violence and exploitation, particularly for vulnerable groups like children and women.

Naomi Trewinnard

Clare McGlynn

Lanzarote Convention sets standards to protect children from sexual exploitation online

Istanbul Convention addresses digital dimension of violence against women

Both speakers point out that AI systems can reinforce and create new forms of discrimination, potentially affecting groups not typically protected by existing legislation.

Ivana Bartoletti

Clare McGlynn

AI can perpetuate and amplify existing stereotypes and biases

AI creates new forms of algorithmic discrimination not covered by existing laws

Key Takeaways

Human rights apply equally online and offline, but some are more difficult to enforce in the digital space

Existing human rights conventions like Lanzarote and Istanbul need to be adapted for the online context

AI poses both risks (amplifying biases, facilitating abuse) and opportunities (addressing inequalities) for human rights online

Multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments, tech companies, and civil society is crucial for protecting rights online

There is a need to move from rhetoric to concrete action in enforcing human rights standards online

Resolutions and Action Items

States should criminalize all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse facilitated by emerging technologies

Governments and companies should create regulatory sandboxes to experiment with AI governance

Tech platforms need to take more proactive measures to reduce online harms

Stakeholders should engage in dialogue and consultations to develop better online protection standards

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively balance innovation with human rights protection in AI development

How to address new forms of algorithmic discrimination not covered by existing laws

How to ensure transparency and auditability of AI systems used by private companies

How to protect human rights defenders from misuse of defamation laws to silence them online

Suggested Compromises

Using AI and big data analytics to identify patterns of discrimination while ensuring privacy protections

Developing narrowly-defined hate speech laws instead of broad defamation laws to protect freedom of expression

Balancing content moderation to protect vulnerable groups while preserving free speech online

The UN and the Council of Europe has clearly stated human rights apply equally online as it does offline. But how can well-established human rights standards be understood for the online space and in new digital technology?

speaker

Menno Ettema

reason

This framed the key question for the entire discussion, setting up an exploration of how existing human rights frameworks can be applied to rapidly evolving digital spaces.

impact

It set the agenda for the session and prompted speakers to address specific ways human rights standards are being adapted for online contexts.

The committee really recognises and emphasises the importance of international cooperation, including through international bodies and international meetings such as this one.

speaker

Naomi Trewinnard

reason

This highlighted the critical need for global collaboration in addressing online safety and rights issues that transcend national borders.

impact

It shifted the conversation to focus on international cooperation and multi-stakeholder approaches throughout the rest of the discussion.

If we’re ever going to prevent and reduce violence against women and girls, including online and technology facilitated violence against women and girls, we need to change attitudes across all of society and including amongst men and boys.

speaker

Clare McGlynn

reason

This comment emphasized the societal and cultural dimensions of online violence, moving beyond just technical or legal solutions.

impact

It broadened the scope of the discussion to include education and awareness-raising as key strategies alongside legal and technological approaches.

AI does threaten human rights, especially for the most vulnerable in our society. And it does for a variety of reasons. It does because it perpetuates and can amplify the existing stereotypes that we’ve got in society.

speaker

Ivana Bartoletti

reason

This introduced a critical perspective on AI, highlighting its potential to exacerbate existing inequalities and human rights issues.

impact

It sparked a more nuanced discussion about both the risks and potential benefits of AI in relation to human rights and online safety.

We can leverage AI and algorithmic decision-making for the good if we have the political and social will to do so. Because if we leave it to the data alone, it’s not going to happen because data is simply representative of the world.

speaker

Ivana Bartoletti

reason

This comment provided a balanced view on AI, acknowledging its potential for positive impact while emphasizing the need for intentional human guidance.

impact

It led to a discussion of specific ways AI could be leveraged to promote equality and human rights, shifting the tone from purely cautionary to also considering opportunities.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by framing it within the context of applying existing human rights frameworks to digital spaces, emphasizing the need for international cooperation, highlighting societal dimensions beyond technical solutions, critically examining the impact of AI on human rights, and exploring the potential for AI to be leveraged positively with proper guidance. The discussion evolved from a general overview of online human rights issues to a nuanced exploration of specific challenges and opportunities, particularly in relation to AI and international collaboration.

How can we protect human rights defenders online from being charged under defamation laws?

speaker

Jaica Charles

explanation

This is important because defamation laws are being misused to silence human rights defenders, particularly in the African context.

How can existing non-discrimination laws be adapted to address algorithmic discrimination that may not align with traditional protected grounds?

speaker

Ivana Bartoletti

explanation

This is crucial as AI systems can create new forms of discrimination that current laws may not adequately cover.

How can we leverage AI and big data to understand and address root causes of inequalities?

speaker

Ivana Bartoletti

explanation

This represents an opportunity to use AI for positive social impact and to combat discrimination.

How can governments, civil society, and tech companies more effectively collaborate to ensure online platforms are protecting and upholding rights?

speaker

Mia McAllister

explanation

Effective collaboration between these stakeholders is crucial for addressing online safety and human rights issues.

What are some key interventions to improve online safety for women and girls in West Africa, particularly in relation to the Istanbul Convention?

speaker

Peter King Quay

explanation

This highlights the need for region-specific strategies to implement global human rights standards in the digital space.

How can AI literacy be improved through education to help people critically engage with these technologies?

speaker

Ivana Bartoletti

explanation

Developing ‘distrust by design’ and critical thinking skills is important for navigating the challenges posed by AI technologies.

Summary

This session focused on digital innovation in the United Nations system, featuring presentations from representatives of UNHCR, UNICEF, the UN Pension Fund, and UNICC. The speakers discussed various digital transformation initiatives aimed at improving services and operations within their respective organizations.

UNHCR’s presentation highlighted their digital strategy, which includes efforts to empower refugees through digital skills and access, as well as initiatives to improve internal operations. Key focus areas included digital inclusion, protection, and innovation, with examples such as a refugee services mobile app and efforts to combat misinformation.

UNICEF shared their approach to digital resilience for children, emphasizing the importance of protecting children’s data rights and digital security. They outlined a framework encompassing data protection, information security, and responsible data use for children.

The UN Pension Fund presented their innovative digital identity solution for proof of life verification, utilizing blockchain, biometrics, and AI technologies. This system aims to streamline the process of confirming beneficiaries’ status while ensuring security and privacy.

UNICC, as the UN’s shared IT services provider, showcased various digital projects supporting multiple UN agencies. These included AI-powered chatbots, the UN digital ID platform, and cybersecurity initiatives, demonstrating UNICC’s role in facilitating digital transformation across the UN system.

The discussion highlighted common themes of collaboration, efficiency, and the responsible use of technology to support UN mandates. Speakers also addressed questions about accessibility, education for refugees, and the potential for sharing UN-developed solutions with external entities.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Digital innovation and transformation efforts across UN agencies (UNHCR, UNICEF, UN Pension Fund)

– Use of emerging technologies like blockchain, biometrics, and AI to improve services and operations

– Importance of data protection, privacy, and ethical use of technology

– Collaboration and shared solutions across the UN system

– Accessibility and inclusion considerations in digital initiatives

The overall purpose of the discussion was to showcase how different UN agencies are leveraging digital innovation and emerging technologies to improve their operations and better serve their constituents, whether refugees, children, or retirees. The speakers aimed to highlight both agency-specific initiatives as well as collaborative efforts across the UN system.

The tone of the discussion was largely informative and positive, with speakers enthusiastically sharing their agencies’ digital transformation journeys and achievements. There was an underlying tone of collaboration, with multiple speakers emphasizing the importance of working together and sharing solutions across UN agencies. The Q&A portion at the end introduced a slightly more critical tone, with audience members raising questions about monitoring fund recipients and ensuring accessibility for all users.

Speakers

– Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio – Chief Information Officer of the United Nations Pension Fund

– Michael Walton – Head of Digital Services at UNHCR (UN Refugee Agency)

– Fui Meng Liew – Chief of Digital Center of Excellence at UNICEF

– Sameer Chauhan – Director of the United Nations International Computing Center (UNICC)

– Sary Qasim – Representative of the Government Blockchain Association in the Middle East

Additional speakers:

– Nancy Marango – Chairman of an organization in Kenya

– Audience member – From University of Ghana and Internet Society Ghana chapter

Digital Innovation in the United Nations System: A Collaborative Approach

This session, held in the context of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), showcased digital innovation initiatives across various United Nations organizations. Representatives from UNHCR, UNICEF, the UN Pension Fund, and UNICC presented their agencies’ efforts in leveraging technology to enhance services and operations.

Key Themes and Initiatives

1. UNHCR’s Digital Strategy

Michael Walton, Head of Digital Services at UNHCR, outlined the agency’s digital strategy focusing on:

a) Digital Inclusion: Ensuring refugees have access to digital tools and skills

b) Digital Protection: Safeguarding refugees’ digital rights and privacy

c) Digital Innovation: Leveraging technology to improve service delivery

Walton highlighted initiatives such as a refugee services mobile app and efforts to combat misinformation, emphasizing the importance of digital inclusion across age and gender divides.

2. UNICEF’s Digital Resilience and Public Goods

Fui Meng Liew, Chief of Digital Center of Excellence at UNICEF, presented the organization’s approach to digital resilience for children and its digital public goods initiatives. Key aspects included:

a) Digital public infrastructure development

b) A database of digital interventions for children

c) Efforts to protect children’s data rights and digital security

Liew emphasized UNICEF’s work on creating digital public goods and identifying digital solutions for children with disabilities.

3. UN Pension Fund’s Digital Identity Solution

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio, Chief Information Officer of the UN Pension Fund, introduced an innovative digital identity solution for proof of life verification, utilizing blockchain, biometrics, and AI. The system’s four-proof framework includes:

a) Proof of identity at enrollment

b) Proof of authentication for subsequent interactions

c) Proof of liveness to prevent fraud

d) Proof of life to confirm beneficiary status

Dell’Accio highlighted the use of permissioned blockchain to balance security with organizational control.

4. UNICC’s Shared Digital Solutions

Sameer Chauhan, Director of UNICC, showcased various digital projects supporting multiple UN agencies, including:

a) AI-powered chatbots for enhanced user interactions

b) Cybersecurity initiatives coordinating threat intelligence across the UN system

c) Support for the UN digital ID platform

Chauhan emphasized UNICC’s role in facilitating digital transformation and collaboration across UN agencies.

5. UN Digital ID Project

Multiple speakers highlighted the UN Digital ID project as a significant cross-agency initiative, demonstrating the collaborative nature of digital innovation within the UN system.

Common Themes

Throughout the presentations and subsequent Q&A session, several common themes emerged:

1. Collaboration and knowledge sharing across UN agencies

2. Emphasis on data protection, privacy, and responsible use of technology

3. Focus on digital inclusion and accessibility, particularly for vulnerable populations

4. Adoption of emerging technologies like blockchain, AI, and biometrics

5. Development of scalable and cost-effective solutions

Audience Engagement

The session included a Q&A period where audience members raised questions about accessibility efforts for people with disabilities and the potential for sharing UN-developed systems with external entities. Speakers addressed these questions, highlighting ongoing initiatives and challenges in these areas.

Conclusion

The session provided a comprehensive overview of digital innovation efforts across the UN system, demonstrating a unified approach to leveraging technology for improved service delivery and operational efficiency. While each organization has its unique focus areas, the discussion revealed a strong foundation for collaboration and knowledge sharing in digital transformation efforts. As UN agencies continue to navigate the complexities of digital innovation, their collective efforts promise to enhance the impact and reach of their vital work worldwide, while addressing shared challenges such as digital inclusion, data protection, and the ethical use of emerging technologies.

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Welcome to Session 50 on Digital Innovation in the United Nations System. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, depending on where you are located. Welcome to our audience here in Riyadh and welcome to our audience online. My name is Dino Di Lattro. I’m the Chief Information Officer of the United Nations Pension Fund. And here today with my colleagues and friends from UNHCR, UNICEF, and UNICC, we are going to present the digital innovation in our respective organizations. Here in Riyadh, I’m with Mike Walton, the Head of Digital Services in UNHCR. And online, we are joined by Fuyi Meng, the Chief of Digital Center of Excellence of UNICEF, and Samir Shahwan, Director of the United Nations International Computing Center. The sequence of presentation will be as follows. Mike will present the experience and the strategy in UNHCR. We’ll then go online with Fuyi Meng. She will be presenting the UNICEF experience. And then I will make a presentation on the experience of the UN Pension Fund. And last but not least, we are going to have Samir, as Director of UNICC, is going to present how UNICC is actually supporting us and the entire UN system in our efforts to implement digital innovation and transformation in the UN system. So without further ado, I’ll give the floor to Mike. And I will be monitoring also the chat for any questions or comments that you may have. Thank you. Mike?

Michael Walton: Thank you, Dino. And good morning, everybody. I was told that I spoke a little bit too fast when I did another session. So please wave at me if I’m speaking too fast and I’ll slow down. So I’m Mike, I head up the digital service at the UN Refugee Agency, and good to see you all today. Really glad that we can share the experiences. We’ve been through a bit of a journey since lockdown where we started defining our digital strategy. So we were working on our digital strategy all through the pandemic. And when we decided to do it, one of the things the high commissioner said to us was this has to be designed from the ground up, has to be designed by the regions, and it has to be a framework. It can’t be a very restrictive strategy because every region is different. So we had a fantastic response from all of the regions. They ran workshops locally, and we really feel that at the end of it, we got something that was very locally relevant to people. So. I won’t play the video. But just just to remind people about really the last 10 years in terms of the number of forcibly displaced, just to kind of state UNHCR’s mandate here, since I started in 2011, we’ve seen lots of many different conflicts around the world. And this is everywhere from from America’s over to the Asia region. And you can see there the number of forcibly displaced is just grown really hugely. And I know we’re all aware of that because it touches on on all of our countries and all of our lives. So there’s a huge need out there, a huge need to meet the needs of these people and to work with them to help them rebuild their lives. This is Jessie, she’s from DRC. I met her in Kakuma Refugee Camp. This was about five or six years ago. She’s now moved on, but she was she was she was running a coding center in Kakuma with very little resources. She had a generator. She had a team. She had some. laptops, and they were developing Android coding apps for the local community in Kakuma Refugee Camp. And it was really amazing just to see what they’ve been able to do with such little resource. It’s actually grown much bigger now, and now there are big coding centers. And there is an initiative called I Am Code, which focuses on female coding skills. And it’s growing from strength to strength. But this is in its minority. So we need to see many more examples of local skills and investment. So don’t worry about reading this slide. It’s our digital strategy on a page. But I’ll talk you through it, just to say. But what we tried to do was a cross-cutting digital strategy for every part of the organization. And really, again, although we talk to regions, we also talk to all of the divisions at HQ to make sure that their needs were met. So I’ll walk you through this just very briefly. The first part of the strategy is around refugee empowerment and making sure that refugees have the digital skills and the agency and tools to engage in the digital world. Many of us take the digital access for granted, and we can do many things. But for many, the gap still exists. So how can we address that gap? Really, to rebuild lives. And rebuilding lives is something that’s so important. Refugees spend many of their years, many of their youthful years, in refugee camps. And things like education are so important to help them build the skills further. We also had two pillars of the strategy which were looking internally, which are how do we work better and how can we be more effective as an organization? And I’ll go into those two pillars. But it was important for us to match what we were saying externally with what we were doing internally, too. At the end, maybe we have some discussion time about the commonality, because there’s so much common need across all of the conversations I’ve heard. I’ll focus on a couple in a minute. But just to say, I’ve heard so much about capacity building over the last few weeks. How do we work together, multi-stakeholder, to deliver the best possible outcomes? And how do we work together to make sure that we’re deliver a capacity-building approach across all of our users? How can we be efficient in our digital tools that we produce? How can we be more effective and make sure that we reuse, we share and we don’t waste valuable resources? And how can we make sure that we don’t, with one hand, provide good, but with the other hand, inadvertently cause harm, perhaps by using climate-heavy, carbon-heavy approaches? So how can we really be good at making sure that we do no harm? And ethics is going to be a really important part of our focus next year. And if anyone here is interested in being involved in that with us, we’re really looking at how we can have an ethical approach to the use of tech in the humanitarian sector, working with other stakeholders. With accessibility, we’ve worked a bit with Microsoft and Google, and we’ve met with a group of refugees in London at Google headquarters. So thanks to them for helping facilitate that meeting. But as well as Google and Microsoft, there are so many other applications being developed. How can we make sure that the disabled users, whether it’s those with visual impairment, those with hearing impairments or other forms of disability can be properly catered for in the digital world? So we’re really focusing on that. And we’ve done a big piece of work on accessibility. It’s a common need. It’s come up again and again. How can we share? How can we have a joint approach and a joint center of excellence to something like digital accessibility so we can be more effective and not reinvent the wheel? My team’s mantra is engage, engage, engage, engage with the communities, make sure that we’re delivering something that is relevant to them. Two of my team members have just been to Iraq and to Rwanda and have sat with our new refugee gateway to make sure that actually the prototype is meeting their needs and meeting their expectations. So really important that we design for user feedback. Digital inclusion is a critical first pillar of the strategy. I won’t go on too much about digital inclusion because it’s been such a key focus of this week. You know, I’ve heard almost every session about digital inclusion. It starts with connectivity and we have a big refugee connectivity for refugees initiative. But it also goes on to when you get that connectivity, what can you do with it? How can you learn? How can you train? How can you get work? How can you be financially included? So for us, that inclusion is very all encompassing. Connectivity is always talked about. But what about all of the other things that come? I’ve heard one or two, one conversation actually on age. And I sat with my 94 year old father in law before I came here trying to get him to use his mobile phone so he could access. some of the services and call for safety if something happened to him, he wouldn’t have been able to do that without support. So I think when we’re talking about inclusion, we’re also talking about inclusion of elderly people who may not have the skills, or people who don’t have the access, and also make sure that that’s completely equal across the gender divide as well. So the second piece is digital services. So what we said was, okay, so when people get connectivity, the ability for us to provide services to individuals is going to be much more effective and much more efficient. So we’re now building a digital gateway, which is a one-stop shop for refugees to register, access appointments, find work, and find essential services. So that’s very much in its first stage of development. However, and we’ve heard a lot about risks, I think, in this week, with connectivity comes the risks and the threats of being online. So we have a huge program of work on digital protection, and I’ll talk a little bit more about that, but that really covers everything from hateful content. Imagine if you’re a refugee coming to a new community, whether that’s in the UK or anywhere else, and you’re met online with hateful comments or with misinformation, and it’s a real issue for us. So we want to make sure that we find a way of addressing that. Communicating, how we communicate with each other, how we communicate with our partners is another pillar. I won’t go into too much detail on that today, but that’s very much about how do we use all of the new communication tools to be more effective, and how do we work digitally? This may not look like a digital picture, but we were using Internet of Things monitoring for our water deliveries to make sure that we knew what the water levels were, we knew when deliveries needed to be made, and we’re using Internet of Things technology to help us inform and send data back for that. So really, really useful, interesting examples. Dino, please tell me if I need to speed up. know we talked about innovation, what we have is we have a fantastic innovation team in UNHCR. They have a digital innovation fund and actually there’s a refugee-led fund as well which goes into it and a data fund too but let’s talk about the digital fund. We have a certain amount of money allocated to the innovation fund and refugee-led organizations can apply too and it’s really about if you have a good idea and you want to test it, how can they get funding for it and how can they do a pilot and a prototype. It’s a really good mechanism and we find that we have maybe 50 or so, 100 or so different applications across the funds every year and some of them will fail, that’s the nature of innovation and some of them will succeed and that can help us move forward. This is a just a picture of our refugee services mobile app that I mentioned that’s being tested in Rwanda and Iraq. So you can see it’s online services, you’ll be able to arrange appointments, refugees will be able to access documents, they’ll be able to register. Imagine the huge queues that happens when there is a sudden onset of an emergency and the sudden need to be registered as a refugee. With a mobile app we can help relieve that. We’re not trying to take away face-to-face contact, that will always be our number one priority but we are looking at how can we actually speed up registration so people can access essential services and information as quickly as possible. This is our help website. When I arrived we didn’t have a help website, now we have 14 million forcibly displaced visiting our help website for critical information every year and it’s really important, it’s a lifeline for people. They can find out how to access, how to go through the asylum process, how to access essential services that in the country they’re in and it’s becoming, we now have pretty much all country operations covered by this and when things suddenly change, for example in the Syria situation or in Ukraine situation, it’s really important to be able to provide information quickly to people, quickly to refugees and as well as this we have a WhatsApp service which is about engaging refugees who are using WhatsApp but when Ukraine happened, we realized that WhatsApp wasn’t really the primary tool of communication in Ukraine, it was it was Viber and we hadn’t really explored Viber before so we really needed to kind of look at what are all of the different messaging platforms that we should be working on and how can we be more effective. We work really closely with partners, some of whom have been here this week so with Meta, with Google, with the EU, how can we really work with them and also how can we work to adapt business practice as well. so that actually business practice changes for some of these companies so that they also do no harm when they’re operating. Just a little thing around hate speech really, you know, it’s we’ve done a two-year project that’s been funded by the European Union and it’s about now we’re really talking about information integrity and trusted information. How can we be sure that trusted information is is accessible at all times and how can we make sure that that access to information is not restricted? So we’ve been working a lot with UNESCO, with ICRC and with the Norwegian government, with the Swiss government on really looking at ways that we can make sure that there is a safe and trusted information world out there. I don’t think I can play this video but if it’s circulated, is it possible to play that video on the You don’t necessarily need the sound, that’s fine. But just as an example, this is a AI-generated video. Don’t worry about the sound. An AI-generated video that was playing out in the Rohingya crisis and it was, if you can tell, it was by AI because actually AI is quite bad at creating the letters and the acronyms of UNHCR, so it’s quite wrong. But it’s basically showing UNHCR, bearing arms and holding content, which actually is never the case. We only act in peace and it’s completely fabricated content. So how do we really work against AI to make sure, work with AI and restrict AI to make sure that we don’t get false content out there? This was also, you know, a quite heavy issue for us in terms of impact on our operations and impact on refugee safety in Indonesia. So we had to be really careful at the time, too. Okay, so and then survey results, we actually looked at some of, we asked a survey of some of the questions that we wanted to ask refugees. And actually, you know, the many many, Many refugees have faced hate speech, have seen it on their own channels and have been disturbed and affected by that. So how can we really make sure that we’re really addressing that hate speech and it really isn’t causing harm? And you can see there, psychological harm, social harm, financial harm. We all reported this when we went out and we did a survey. Coming to a close now, but just some of the things that we’re seeing is borders are increasingly becoming digitized. And if you’re a refugee seeking safety, how do we make sure that actually safety is really there and that the technology that can be used for good at borders is also not used in the wrong way at borders? So we’re really looking and keeping an eye on the technology. Looking at what might happen here, biometric travel documents, apps and websites that are being used. So bots. It’s only being tested. Data is really essential. I went to a great presentation on data and movements and how can we really ensure that we can do good predictive analysis there. Again, I won’t play this video, but again, if you have the deck afterwards, you can see that. And finally, just to say, as I said at the beginning, how can we work in the spirit of the digital compact on common areas? Ethics, a common approach to ethical, ethical approaches. Gender, how can we really make sure that we are including both gender, but also age, as I mentioned at the beginning. Accessibility, let’s not reinvent the wheel and create many different training courses. On accessibility, there only needs to be one that we can share or maybe several that we can share. These things can be adapted. And then policy, again, lots of discussion on policy today and standards. So that’s it for me, Dino, over to you.

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Thank you very much, Mike, for the very insightful, comprehensive presentation. Very impressive, the amount of technologies and the scope of your purview. Fantastic. Thank you so much for sharing. So, we are now going to pass the floor to our colleagues, Kim Yang, Chief of the Digital Center of Excellence at UNICEF. She’s based in New York. Kim Yang, if you can please turn on the video, as you already did. Thank you so much. And also share your screen for the presentation. Kim Yang is going to make a presentation on digital resilience for impact for children. The floor is yours, Kim Yang. Thank you.

Fui Meng Liew: Thank you, Dino. First of all, can you hear me loud and clear?

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Yes, we can hear you very well. But if you can please share your screen for the presentation. It’s not shown on the main screen.

Fui Meng Liew: Let me do that now, because I have to replace Mike’s sharing right now. And please let me know if you can see it.

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Not yet.

Fui Meng Liew: What about now? Okay. Let me see. Yeah. Okay, perfect. It’s clear now. Yeah, it’s clear?

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Yes, it is. Thank you.

Fui Meng Liew: Thank you, Dino. Dino, because we are hearing online from the room a bit choppy, the voice, so please feel free to stop me if in the room you don’t hear me very clearly. First of all, I want to thank Mike for doing such a good presentation about digital transformation and innovation in the impact for refugees. And today, or now, I’m going to take us to another turn in terms of how do we see digital innovation and transformation for refugees. the impact for children. As an introduction, my name is Hui-Ming Liu. I am the Chief of Digital Center of Excellence of UNICEF, and I’m based in Nairobi. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening to everyone today. So as some of you might have known, UNICEF is a child rights organization. From our perspective, we look at the holistic view of how UNICEF as a UN agency can actually propel and deliver impact for children around the world. And today, in this conversations that I’m having with you all, we’re going to focus on the digital resilience framework that UNICEF put together to really look at in the digital age, how do we make sure that the rights for children in terms of assessing data and their digital rights are being protected along the way. So it is go without saying that digital is intertwined in UNICEF’s DNA. In UNICEF, we are actually guided every four years by our strategic plan. Digital transformation is in our current strategic plan of four years from 2022 to 2025. What does that really mean? That really means that the entire organization look at digital as a very important change strategy for us to change our way of delivering services and impact for children. And it’s not only that. In the UN organization, most recently in September, we also see that the approval and launch on the pack of the future that actually trigger a lot of conversations. Most importantly, the global digital compact actually also bind us with the member states of our ambition on digital. So this is not digital is not only really happening in. UNICEF and it is really happening around the world and we are living in a digital world. What we are also seeing most importantly is that our stakeholders, over 190 governments and territories, countries and territories that UNICEF work very closely with, we’re seeing a sea change of them coming out and telling us the fact that they need us to be also stepping up on how to do digital delivery for services and any of the results that we deliver for children. Just a little bit of data. Over the last two years, UNICEF around the world, we actually successfully got a sneak peek about what are the digital interventions that we are hearing from our country offices. As I mentioned, we have a global footprint. We have country offices in over 160 countries and we’re in seven regions. What we’re seeing is that through our knowledge management platform, we’re looking at over 1,600 digital interventions and this can be digital innovations, digital ideas and this can also be digital interventions that scale massively in the country with the government. This is not a small number in all ways and means and this really strengthens our belief that digital is intertwined in UNICEF. How do we see digital is important for child rights, being a child rights organization? The way that we look at it is that it’s the whole journey of a child. In UNICEF, our mandate is covering from health, education, sanitation and so forth. Really, that reflects into a journey of a child from birth to a child getting registered with a legal ID. a child being vaccinated, they receive social protection, and they receive the right education, and they receive the protection all the way from zero age, all the way to when they become a young adult. And there are some disturbing numbers that we’re seeing so far is that, let’s say, let’s take the example from legal identity perspective. A child is born, and we know that from our interventions and data collection from all the government agencies is that in sub-Saharan Africa, just for an example, over 90 million children are actually not registered. If a child is not registered legally, that means that will truncate the potential of the child because he or she will not be able to successfully get vaccinated, may not, most likely not get the proper education, and it might get into a lot of social protection gray zone that we cannot protect the child. So the fact that the child is being registered and the child getting the right services to us is really, really important. And what does it mean with digital? With the notion of governments as getting more and more digital, and we’re seeing a proliferation of digital solutions or digital public goods in the market, we do see that there is a strong need for UNICEF to come out working with the lights of this digital solutions providers, such as DHIS2, the Digital Health Information System 2, that, sorry, the District Health Information System 2 that is managed by University of Oslo, OpenSPP, that’s about social protection that is championed by some of the big member states such as the Germany, Primero, which is a case management system, Learning Passport, Giga. Giga is actually a very interesting one because the way that we see digital is. It’s also the importance of having connectivity in every school, in every primary healthcare center that we provide the services directly or indirectly to children and family. Giga is a flagship partnership with ITU, of UNICEF with ITU to really connect every school. So that’s a very, very ambitious goal, but it just goes to show that digital is important for child rights. And we do see that for us, we have to come out and really support this cause. I just want to spend a little bit of time about not only digital is important for child rights, how UNICEF walked the talk about enabling the digital public goods in the digital ecosystem to deliver results for children. A little bit of background of digital public goods. There is an alliance called Digital Public Goods Alliance, which UNICEF is a co-founder of the alliance that established three years ago. And we have been very strong in really working with different key partners from the Norwegian to UNDP and so forth to really realize the key principles of DPG from making sure that the solutions give countries greater control on how they build and enhance the digital public infrastructure, being able to give them the control of being able to optimize and offer cheaper and faster implementation. I hope the room can hear me because I see. Okay, so I continue. So also offer cheaper and faster implementation than the proprietary solution so that governments do not get into vendor lock-in situations. Last but not least, catalyze the local tech. ecosystem. So, you know, locally, there can be a vibrant ecosystem to sustain the work on digital public goods. And on the right hand side, you’ll see some of the UNICEF, how we walk the talk on investing in not only the key principles, but investing in some of this digital public goods, ranging from RapidPro, a real-time messaging platform that used by more than 100 countries. And last year, we sent more than 1.2 billion messages yearly to globally, all the way from Primero, Oki, Bebo and Yoma, they covered different sectoral needs of UNICEF in delivery impact for children. So switching gear a little bit, we live in a digital world and by design, we are vulnerable. So from the way that we see it, not only cyber attacks is everywhere, cyber attacks impact UN agencies as much as it impacts private sector or government agencies. So we take it very seriously that it is our accountability and responsibility to make sure that we have a way to ensure children’s data and the rights are fully respected. And in that notion, we started the framework of digital resilience, which the core objective of it is to be able to protect the data rights and keep personal data secure and be able to use it ethically. And in this realm, we’re talking about data of children as well, which in most of the time, they could be the most vulnerable group. They could be the most vulnerable group because they are not the attempt to make decision. I’m still hearing some sound from IGF7 here. So I just want to make sure everyone can hear me. So how does data resilience work? It actually has three key pillars or three key elements. One is about data protection. Second is about information security. Third is about responsible data for children. In data protection, we care about how to ensure the rights to know why personal data is being collected and to give consent for its use. I know in a lot of the countries, there’s clear data protection laws and so forth. From UNICEF perspective, we want to also keep the standard to make sure that we walk the talk on making sure data protection is clearly and adhered by in UNICEF and with the work that we do on the ground. Information security is to really make sure that we introduce a technical controls on who can access the data and when and really protect the data that is in our custody. The third pillar about responsible data for children is really about ensuring the adoption of the highest ethical standards. And we’re talking about data for children and of children. And this can be really sensitive data if we’re not actually do this right. So- The IGF-7, it’s unmuted, it creates a background noise. The fact that- It needs to be unmuted. The fact that we need to reduce the misuse of data and make sure there’s no misuse of data and use the data to its maximum potential is in the pillar of the responsible data for children. And how do we put the framework at use? There are multiple channels that we’re putting it at use. First is that we are integrating the resilience into the technology playbook. Technology playbook is a UNICEF way of providing a comprehensive guide for- our program and our technology for development colleagues on the ground to implement digital programming solutions. We make a very, very strong effort in integrating the digital resilience framework as an assessment into the playbook, so that we make sure that it is actually being fully utilized at all initiatives at the country level. So that’s one part of how we put it in use. The second part of how we put it in use is to also really amplify the need of it by strengthening the digital resilience framework through global partnership. And we have been concertedly working with different partners outside of UNICEF, and we will open for more feedback from this group as well. We really seek the collaboration with governments and donor agencies for implementing the capacity building for the information security, data protection, and also responsible use of data of the digital resilience framework as well. With that, I’m gonna pause, and thank you all for letting me have the stage to share with you what UNICEF is doing in digital transformation, digital innovation, more importantly, our digital resilience work. And I wanna hand it over back to the room. Dino, over back to you. Dino, I cannot hear you. I’m not sure. I think workshop seven is muted.

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Can you hear me now?

Fui Meng Liew: Yes, I was able to hear you, but hand it over back to you.

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Thank you very much, Fu-Ming. I really like your presentation, and actually, I really. like the fact that you gave some concrete example the digital public goods because there is a lot of talk about DPI but it’s not always clear for for many in the audience how this is translated into concrete application so thank you very much for sharing the example of UNICEF. So with that said we are now switching to my organization the UN Pension Fund where I would be walking you through the innovation that we implemented in the digital identity for proof of life or proof of existence. So I’m going to share my screen and make the presentation. So in the case of the UN Pension Fund we are focused on a particular demographics basically what we refer to as the aging population. The UN Pension Fund has 86,000 retirees and beneficiaries. They lived across the globe in more than 192 countries and one of the problem historically the UN Pension Fund had to address was how to confirm and determine that this individual that received periodic benefits from the UN Pension Fund are indeed still alive. So I will share with you how we address this problem using emerging technologies. So very briefly some data some indicators about the UN Pension Fund. We are striving to meet all the benchmark that have been defined for our operation and making sure that we pay 100% of the benefit. The market value of our asset as of today is actually around $100 billion. This in 2023 was evaluated at 84.4. It’s basically one of the biggest financial asset of the United Nations globally, an asset of $100 billion. And we are fully funded. So we are one of the few pension fund in the world, which is a defined benefit fund, pension fund, and we are completely funded. Actually in 2023, we are 117% funded. We serve 25 member organization. The 83,000 priority benefit a year you see in this slide actually increased to 86,000 and the 143,000 participant now increased to 150,000. These are some of the emblems and logos that you probably you’ll be able to recognize vis-a-vis the member organization that we are serving. One of our most important partner is actually going to present shortly after me is the United Nations International Computing Center, which actually develop technologically speaking, all our innovative, most innovative application and solution, which I’m going to speak about today vis-a-vis my organization. But then Samir, the director of the United Nations International Computing Center will be able to articulate a much wider presentation vis-a-vis what UNICC does, not only for the UN Pension Fund, but also for UNHCR, UNICEF, the entire ecosystem of the UN system. So here is the problem that I was alluding to before. For more than 70 year, the UN Pension Fund had this issue of serving… this 86,000 individual 190-feet country and determine whether and confirm whether they were alive. And how this was done was done by mailing through 195 postal services a form, a paper-based form, asking them to sign it and return it back through the same 195 postal services. So as you can appreciate, this process was highly prone to at least delays. And indeed, we had to perform this process twice a year, but in some cases also to loss of paper, which unfortunately, in extreme cases, because of the rules of the regulation of the pension fund, we were forced to suspend payments. And that, of course, as you can appreciate, have very serious and negative impact on the household. So how did we address this problem? We transformed, we digitalized, hence digital innovation slash transformation, a paper-based and mail-based process into a solution that uses emerging technology with a mobile application, blockchain, but also biometrics, artificial intelligence, and global positioning system. And this is indeed the real screenshot of our internet posting in 2021 when we went live with the application and we announced to all our stakeholders and clients the deployment of the solution itself. So on the right side, you see the screenshot of the web application, sorry, of the mobile application that each one of our client and user. can download on their device. And on the left side, you see the screenshot of our internet posting. So when I was given, when we were given this problem, we had to articulate and basically translate the problem into its main logical components. And the way we did this is that we identify the need to provide four proofs. One is the proof of identity at the very beginning of the process when we enroll our user, our client into the solution. And then proof of authentication every after, every time the application is utilized. As I alluded to before, this is not just a digital identity solution, but it’s a digital identity solution for proof of life, proof of existence, demonstrating and confirming that indeed the intended recipient is still alive. And therefore we had to provide a proof of existence. And then a proof of transaction in order to make sure that we were going to create an independently auditable and traceable record that could be verified and validated by external parties. And ultimately a proof of location because in some cases, our beneficiary receive or can receive, if they want, payment in local currency, hence the need to determine that indeed they reside in the country for which they elected to receive the benefit. So of course they were implicit, but also explicit benefit expectations such as security, reliability, transparency, accountability, and ultimately of course, attribution for the transaction. So in doing so, we were inspired by the 2018 UN Secretary General Strategy on New Technologies, as well as to the… Sustainable Development Goals, and most recently, by the UN 2.0 initiative of the UN Secretary General. So how did we address, as I alluded to before, we use and adopt and adopted emerging technology, blockchain, biometrics, specifically facial recognition, artificial intelligence, and geolocation. So blockchain served us as the technology that allowed us to create an immutable and independentable, auditable, traceable, triple entry general ledger, where each of the transaction that occurs is recorded in an immutable manner. Why blockchain? I added this slide because oftentimes, especially at the beginning 2021, when we were live, I was asked, why did you use blockchain? Is it because it’s now a trendy things to do? Well, no, indeed, as a first and foremost chief information officer, I wanted to make sure that we were going to use a technology that would also prevent any potential form of collusion, primarily with my own stuff, because of course, technologically speaking, the solution can also be implemented using distributed encrypted databases. By a database, by definition, hazard requires a database administrator that by default has a super user access to potentially manipulate the database. And therefore, I wanted to make sure that in order to protect my staff and myself, and of course, the organization, I was going to adopt a technology that will prevent and detect any potential cases of collusion. Therefore, by adopting blockchain, I adopted technology that did not have any type of central control. That however, in our case. utilizing a permission-based blockchain, we could determine who could participate. In our case, the scope of the application is very defined and limited to the 86,000 beneficiary of the UN Pension Fund. And of course, support privacy with the use of specific technology, such as zero-knowledge proof, and create, maintain, and audit an immutable ledger. There are documents also issued by the World Economic Forum, for example, that help organizations to determine when and if indeed blockchain is the suitable technology. Having used a technology based on biometrics and facial recognition, very soon, we realized that we were going to be exposed to new vulnerabilities, such as the vulnerability presented and the threats presented by artificial intelligence with deep fakes. And therefore, we decided to fight AI with AI by embedding into the solution an AI module that verifies and tests whether indeed the person on the other side of the phone, of the camera, is a real person and not a synthetic or artificially generated image. Therefore, facial recognition, which is stored only on the device of the user, so we do not transmit, we do not store at any given time the biometric profile, the biometric data of the user, which should remain on their phone in order to authenticate them, and in order to provide an input at a specific event, such as authentication has occurred and is recorded on the blockchain. And finally, the GPS capture the location when and if needed. So I’ve been working for the Indonesia for 25 years, and most of my career was spent in IT auditing. So one of the immediate second questions. that I wanted to address after designing and implementing this application with the subjective expertise of our colleagues in the UNICC was, how can I go now in front of my governing bodies and confirm that indeed a solution that makes use of emerging technology is secure, it’s credible, it’s trustworthy, it’s sustainable. And I started my quest to try to free criteria standards, best practices, especially international best practices most effectively the application was credible and reliable. So one of the first thing that I did in absence of specific standards of blockchain was to adopt the ISO for those who are familiar with cybersecurity standard, the ISO 27001, which is a set of best practices and international best practices on information security management system. And of course, the scope of the certification was focused on the application itself. And we got certified since then since 2021, we were subject to surveillance audit on a yearly basis. The second thing, dealing with biometrics and dealing with potential bias of technology, I also subjected a solution without direct assessment to confirm and demonstrate that there was no bias in the authentication identification. I also follow, of course, technical specification issue by my colleagues in the ITU, International Telecommunication Union, as well as additional documents standard best practices issued by the ISO organization. And finally, I also submitted the application to the specific cybersecurity assessment. As in data privacy. So the UN is not subject. for example the GDPR, but the United Nations adopted the same principle and issued its own data privacy principle that has a specific align for example the GDPR and similar regulation and therefore we conduct an assessment of the data privacy. Right now I’m in the process to have the application also be tested to a very recent ISO criteria for presentation attack protection. Talking about the things ISO organization came up with this 30107 standard that it’s a set of tests that can be conducted and confirm whether an application that uses biometrics is indeed resistant potential attack created generated using artificial intelligence that is in progress I hope to have it completed by the first quarter of 2025. Our solution the UN as a whole at the highest level by a body called the chief executive board decided to adopt the same solution to create now a digital identity for all staff members of the United Nations and indeed this is the document which is publicly available where the CEB the chief executive board of the United Nations launched the UN digital ID project defined the terms of reference of the product and appointed again UNICC the United Nations International Computing Centre has the technical support a subject matter expert for the implementation of this solution not only with the UN pension fund as in my case but now with the entire. UN system. And these are some screenshots of the application itself that our colleagues and myself included will be able now to download on our phone and use specific services related to us as staff members. Some mention about acknowledgement and recognition. In 2021, when we went live, we received an award from the UN Secretary General on innovation and sustainability. Shortly after, the Governing Blockchain Association, which is present here in Riyadh under the banner of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Assurance and Standardization, gave us an award on social impact. We also became a case study by Gartner. Gartner is a world leader in IT advisory services and market research. So they actually documented and issued a case study on our solution. And there was also a trade journal specific on investment and pension that recognized our efforts. And here we are, as I alluded to, we are here in Riyadh in the Village booth. I created a specific dynamic coalition and I brought to the attention of all our stakeholders the importance of assurance of blockchain, but more broadly of the emerging technologies. Thank you very much for your attention. I will now pass the floor to Samir Shawan, the Director of UNICC, which led the technical implementation of this sophisticated solution and can speak more broadly about his support to all the UN system. Thank you very much. Samir, the floor is yours.

Sameer Chauhan: Thank you, Dino. I will turn my camera on. Hopefully, you can see me. Yes, we can see you. Great. And I will try and share this presentation. Please let me know if you can see it. Yes, if you can put it in slideshow mode. Perfect. Thank you. Great. So, thank you and honor to come after all the other colleagues from UNHCR, UNICEF and yourself Dino, and thank you for having me join this IGF forum. As I mentioned earlier in your presentation, we are designed to support all of you, our partners in your digital transformation journey. So I’ll walk us through a few slides to tell you about what we do, and there are some really good connections to what you shared Dino earlier so I think it’ll be useful to present that from our point of view of what we did. Just a bit of background, we are designed through a general assembly resolution to provide technology support to the rest of the UN system. And at this point we are the largest technology partner strategic partner for anything digital as well as cyber for the UN system. We have over 100 clients and partner organizations so essentially the entire UN system works with us in some way, shape or form for cyber and digital efforts that they have underway. And we have been around for 54 years now. I think it was 54 years as of yesterday. So we celebrated our 54th birthday, and a whole diversity of different digital services and solutions and we operate out of five locations currently. I think Dino you shared a version of this map also. So we support everybody across the UN in their digital journeys, and the work we do we try to look at it from a perspective of which SDGs do we support. And since we work with the entire UN system what we realized when we started doing a mapping is that our work and our projects support all 17 SDGs. One more point to mention here is our board which the entire UN system, just approved recently, a few months ago, a new corporate strategy for UNICC. It essentially is a strategic framework that allows us to build digital foundations that all the UN partners can then use for their journeys, for their digital transformation journeys, for developing their digital solutions in order to achieve their organizational outcomes. So, there are five pillars of the strategy, everything from where the solutions are built, i.e. the infrastructure, where it’s running, to the actual digital tools and solutions that we can help our partners with, to securing those solutions, to using data and AI services to derive insights from all of the solutions that have been built by the partners, and finally, providing expertise and insights. So, provide experts who can provide support and guidance to our partners as they go on their digital transformation journeys. And I’ll just spend a few minutes sharing some examples of the kinds of work we do. It spans a very wide spectrum. On average, we do about 150 to 200 new digital projects a year for our partners, and we manage more than nine petabytes of data in our data centers, as well as support partners in the cloud, on the public cloud. So, it’s a very vast portfolio of technology services, but these are just some snapshots, some examples to give you an idea of the kind of work we do. So, the big buzzword today is Gen AI. So, lots of UN partners are implementing Gen AI solutions for their specific business needs, for their mandates, for the work that they do, out in the field, out on the ground, whether it’s for refugees, for children, for women, for health, and so on and so forth. What we are doing is behind the scenes building common solutions that multiple partner organizations can use, and this is a great example of that. UNHCR built a solution which was to centralize HR policies. and to provide a Gen AI chatbot. For example, you can ask, can you explain to me how much uncertified sick leave do I have, or how do I get parental leave? Can I request to work 90% of the time? So those kinds of policies and guidelines, what we’ve done is we took the solution that UNHCR had built, and we expanded it to make it work for 13 different organizations. So we sift through all of the HR policies from these organizations, train the AI on it, and make sure that we can make this chatbot available to all of the employees of these organizations. And this is being scaled up, so more and more partner organizations are continuing to join this platform. Another one which Dino spoke about earlier is we built the core technology that was used by the pension fund to build a certificate of entitlement that Dino shared. What we did then is, since this was championed by the CEB, the Chief Executive Boards of the UN system, they asked us to build on top of that pension fund solution, a platform or a solution that will be the UN digital ID. So today it’s six organizations, UN Secretariat, UNDP, UNHCR, UNICEF, the pension fund, and WFP, who have launched this. The first phase of the system is live. And the goal is multiple capabilities and features will be built onto this platform using that same blockchain biometric solution that Dino spoke about earlier. And this will allow all UN organizations eventually to use this one common platform to facilitate all of the data exchange, interoperabilities about staff data. And the data will be controlled by the staff members themselves. They will get to choose which information they share with which stakeholder when, and be able to revoke that access once they’ve shared that information. So this is just another example of a shared common collective solution that we have built. And when it comes to digital innovation, the solutions could be big or small, could be very, very complex, it could be fairly simple, but as we work with each one of our partners, our goal is to make sure that it is serving their needs and it is actually impactful. So this is a great example of what we built for PAHO, which is a Pan-American health organization. It’s the WHO regional office in the Americas. They asked us to build RPA solutions, which they call MAX and MIA. To start to handle all of their manual processes, which handle procurement. So MAX and MIA are now live. They are bots that are running at PAHO that automate all of the purchase orders for health supplies. So during COVID, it was a huge blessing for them because they were handling massive volumes of vaccine and supplies that were being shipped all over the Americas. And then MAX uses AI and machine learning. So it’s a much more advanced bot, if you will, than MIA. To automatically create advanced shipping notifications. So there’s much more complexity there. It’s typically something that human would do, but with the constant training, it is able to then generate this shipping notification and saves thousands of hours of human time every week. Another example I’d like to share is work we’ve done with UNDP through a partnership UNDP has with the EU to monitor elections assistance. And they created a joint task force, the EU and the UNDP, and asked us to build an early warning and early response system, which has now been called the iReports platform. So what this iReport platform does is gathers real-time information on the ground and provides all the relevant national authorities and independent monitoring authorities. Risk reports flags any incidents around electoral violence or gender violence, and it allows for coordinated nationwide responses. to these elections. And this platform, again, the value UNICC brings is it’s being built and enhanced election after election. So there’s more and more functionality and more and more capability that is being built to make sure that this platform is meaningful and can ensure that elections are handled seamlessly without any violence, without any interruptions. We have a large cybersecurity practice. And what we do here, what I’m demonstrating here is again, that collective collaboration across the UN system where we have brought the entire UN system together to make sure we look at and analyze all the threat intelligence so that we can all make collective decisions of how best to defend ourselves from cyber risks or cyber attacks. So what we do is we gather information from all of our partner agencies, the entire UN system, as well as we enrich it with additional information from commercial security firms, service providers, different member state government agencies, law enforcement, and other trusted sources. And those insights are then refined. And up-to-date timely information is presented to the entire UN community to say, how do you identify potential anomalies which could be risks or attacks? How do you respond to those? What kind of mitigating actions do you take? So that’s an example of, again, a shared collective responsibility in action. And this might be the last example I think I have, but what I wanted to highlight here is, we also take solutions that have been built by other partners. So in this instance, this was a solution that was jointly built by UNICEF, UNHCR, and the World Food Programme. And they asked us to take this on board. The idea was to have one common platform through which all the civil society organizations, these are third-party organizations out at the country level that these three organizations used to work with, to build one common interface. a partner portal through which they can all come in and interact with these UN organizations. So that platform was handed over to us by UNICEF and others, and we took it and we’ve scaled it, enhanced it, built more capabilities into it. And in the meantime, more and more organizations have joined. So at this point, I believe there are 12 or 13 UN organizations that use it. And this becomes one common way through which I think it’s 40,000 civil society organizations now can interact, partner, and do work with the entire UN system. As you can see, there’s massive functionality that’s in there, including some chatbots and some PSCA modules to make sure that any civil society organization the UN system works with has gone through some level of screening and background checks, if you will. So these are examples of the kinds of work we do at UNICC. Each one of these projects is designed for scale. It’s designed for use by multiple organizations. And as always, we have to be cost effective and respect all the principles of the UN family, which is to make sure we’re neutral and we are unbiased in the work we do. With that, I’ll stop, Dino, and hand the floor back to you. And thank you again from my side for giving us a chance to speak about what we do. Thank you.

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Thank you very much, Samir, for joining us and for sharing this very meaningful application that you have built for the benefit of the UN. I actually really like that quote that you use, built by the UN for the UN. So I think that is very indicative of the spirit that we all follow collaboratively in sharing our problem and finding common solutions. So thank you very much. I think it was very insightful, very meaningful. So with that said, I think we are perfectly on time. with our schedule. We now have approximately 10-15 minutes for any question or answer that you may have. So I see three hands raised and if I can ask to pass the mic. So first and it’s over here, please.

Sary Qasim: Hello, hi, good morning everyone and it’s really an incredible efforts that the UN is doing in digital transformation and the application that you have applied with the system. My question is, such application, is it unapplicable to offer it for cities and governments over the world for them to use it as something from the UN with a very good like, you know, public-private partnership because, you know, such systems is very important for the community but it’s expensive as well. Such governments just avoiding implementing these systems because of its cost, you know. Is that something you may think about in the future? Thank you.

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Can you please just mention your name and which organization you represent?

Sary Qasim: My name is Sari Qasim. I’m from the Government Blockchain Association and I represent the GBA in the Middle East.

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Thank you. Maybe this is a question for Samir that can elaborate a little bit more about the mandate and the mission of UNICC vis-a-vis potential interaction beyond the UN and with other entities.

Sameer Chauhan: Thank you, Dino. So thank you for your question and two things to mention here. One is, yes, we ourselves UNICC was designed to work with the UN system and beyond. So we can work with other non-profit organizations worldwide. And since our whole premise of creating UNICC was efficiencies of scale and reuse, anything we’ve built for our partners, like we did for DINO or for UNHCR or UNICEF or others, we can, under certain guidelines, make available to others, member states. So we have initiatives that we’re working with, for example, with CITES, where we are working with our partners like ITU. So it’s typically with a UN partner, but we do collaborate with CITES and any knowledge we have, any expertise we have, we want to make sure we make it available to the broader community besides outside of the UN. And the second part I’ll make is our partners themselves. As you saw in examples from Mike, from UNICEF, from DINO, what we try and do across the entire UN ecosystem is make sure what we’re building is relevant and applicable in the greater world outside. So many, many solutions, digital solutions that are being built by our partners with ICC or without are designed for use at a country level. So the examples you heard about DPIs, DPGs, those are designed by UNICEF, UNHCR and others so that they can be made available to countries. So I hope that answers your question.

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Thank you very much, Sameer. Thank you for the question from the audience. Please, if you can say also your name and your organization.

Audience: Thank you very much for this interesting presentation and the good things we are doing in the form of exciting innovation. My name is Youssef Amadou from University of Ghana. I’m also part of Internet Society Ghana chapter. I want to know, this question goes to you, about your fund. The first question is who qualifies for the fund? That’s my first question. The second question is how do you do due diligence to find out if the grantees are the right people who are applying for the fund? And finally, how do you monitor the grantees? I have an experience. I’m part of a World Bank project. We give funds to organizations, individuals for capacity building and job creation. We went for observation just last week and we found that one grantee has closed down his organization. He has changed his number and we cannot find him. Although we have fund management system, which is on an application, we have monitors who go to see what they are doing. But still, this person has vanished. Yours is a remote one. How do you monitor to find out that the grantees are real people and they exist and they are locations that you can easily find them, apart from using the technology? And the last one goes to the police organization. I’m a structural designer. online content for my university. I want to know your, what does that mean? What do you support? The refugees here. Refugee. I really care about formal education that you provide them. You have a common platform where the refugees can take course formal courses for other basic level, high school level, or university level, as well as professional courses for every refugee across the globe. We have something like that. We have intention to do that. Thank you very much.

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Thank you for your question. I’ll try to be very brief because there are many details in the process. However, so first and foremost, answer to the first question, who qualifies? As I alluded to, the UN Pension Fund serves 25 organizations. The majority of them are UN entities. So all the UN entities in the system, plus an additional international organization that, although are not part of the UN system, do have certain, do meet certain requirements and parameters. And therefore, they submit a request to be accepted into the UN Pension Fund. We have a board that meets regularly every year, and they go through this process and then ultimately decide whether or not they can be included. Second question, how do we vouch? How do we validate? How do we monitor? So someone, in order to become a retiree, had to be a former staff member, which means we have a history that the member organization has to provide to us through data interfaces. So we have two main data interfaces. One is called the financial data interface. The other one is called the human resources data interfaces, through which we collect the entire history on a regular basis of each staff member so that before they reach the normal retirement age, we get in touch with them, and we ask them certain documentation that proves and validates who they are and where they are going to live. The process of the digital identification for proof of life and proof of existence starts with an onboarding process, where I made that distinction before, identification versus authentication. So the first step is to identify can be admitted into the digital identity solution of the UN Pension Fund. In the onboarding process, we verify. Originally, we wanted to do in person, but that happened exactly through the pandemic. So we had to convert a process to a digital process with a video onboarding process that’s conducted by our call center, where we require the person decide to be onboarded with their national ID. We match their national ID with a document on file, on record, and we confirm, again, we are using the AI also in that instance, that indeed the person on the other side of the camera matches what we have on file. And once we have done that, then we authenticate the person. There is an additional question that usually you did not ask, but it’s commonly asked. How do we take into account the aging process? Because unfortunately, we get older. So how do we make sure that the biomarker provides? So every time, at least once a year, every time the user utilizes the application, their biometric profile is updated. So we take into account the aging process. I hope I addressed your question. If not, we can take it offline. Thank you. Mike?

Michael Walton: Great. Thank you. And on education, we have quite a vast connected education program with lots of partners. So we don’t develop courses ourselves, but we do have lots of partnerships with different universities across the world and online courses like Coursera and LinkedIn, et cetera. So we’re about to go into the process now of creating a new application, a new site called Opportunities. And we work really closely with, again, universities where we’re funding scholarships via the German government and other partners as well. So we don’t do the development courses ourselves, but we do try and gather together in every country and every opportunity the places they can go to both do tertiary education, but also other educational opportunities for training. So I’m happy to speak to you more about that, but yeah, it’s really a core part of our program, this connected education piece, and how you can provide remote learning. Thanks.

Nancy Marango: And the last question. Thank you very much for the floor. My name is Nancy Marango. I serve as chairman for an organization in Kenya. My question and concern is about accessibility. We have like a standardized system integrating the middle age and the elderly in terms of information access and opportunity access within the system. Thank you.

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Is that question directed to pension fund, UNHCR, UNICEF, all of us?

Nancy Marango: I love you because disability does not choose and everyone is a candidate.

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Thank you. Thank you. Very briefly, maybe I’ll respond for the pension fund. Our demographics, by definition, is a very peculiar type of demographic, as I alluded to in my title. We are dealing with the aging population, so definitely issues with accessibility are taken into account both on our website, in the instruction, and also in allowing those who have limitations to be assisted by legal guardians. So we are allowed also for that. Thank you.

Michael Walton: I’ve done a lot of work on disability over the last years, really looking at all of our applications, because what we want to ensure is that when somebody wants to work for you in HCR, they have the trust and the belief that they can come to a workplace where those applications can be used. From a refugee perspective, 100%, we are working with refugees, with disabilities to make sure. But I think your question is wider, which is how can we make sure this happens across the UN? And I think that there is a real potential here for a joint centre of excellence approach on accessibility so that everybody can take the benefit of that. I 100% agree with that priority. Thank you.

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Thank you, Mike. I don’t know whether Sui Meng, would you like to also provide a perspective on UNICEF?

Fui Meng Liew: Yeah, sounds great. So internal to UNICEF, we take accessibility very, very seriously. Just most recently, all our websites is actually proven to be accessible. And accessibility is not only just by age. There’s also disabilities and things like that. For people that have colourblind, can they actually access the information on our internal system? So that’s one angle. The other angle is about children. A lot of children that are having disability and needed better digital accessibility functions in… the tools that we provide, a lot of them are not identified. So we are also working on how to make sure that we identify that age group, like children, very more intentionally so that we can provide interventions digitally to give them, to let them, to help them actually learn, to help them being able to get through the journey better. So two different angles that we’re looking at accessibility and they’re both very, very important for our work as well. Thank you for the question.

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Thank you, Fui Meng. And Samir, would you like to also provide a little bit of analysis in?

Sameer Chauhan: Yes, please. Thank you. So absolutely. I think as you heard from the other speakers, this is front and center in the work we all do. Overall across the UN ecosystem, there is a whole group called the DTN, which is the chief technology officers of the entire UN system. They meet on a regular basis and accessibility guidelines and standardization is a key topic that they discuss at that level. So we want to make sure that everybody is using the same approach. And I can speak for UNICC, all the systems we build, we make sure that we adhere to those UN system-wide guidelines for accessibility. But there are additional guidelines that come into play. For example, human rights guidelines that have been issued by the secretary general. So we want to make sure that in all of the digital work we do, those human rights guidelines are also taken into consideration as well as any other gender considerations, et cetera. And as Dino alluded to in the solution that has been built by the pension fund, which we worked with the pension fund on, we also had to make sure that there is no bias from a regional perspective or a geographical perspective in the solutions we’ve built. So there are many, many factors to take into consideration here, but absolutely it’s something we’re all very conscious of and working on addressing every day. Thank you.

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Thank you very much, Samir. So we are perfect on time. Thank you very much. for your participation. I don’t see any question on the chat, so I think that we can thank the active participation of the audience, both in person as well as online, and thanks all my colleagues and friends, speakers, Mike Walton, Xiuying Meng, and Samir Shawan for participating. Thank you. The recording will be available on the website along with the presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much. Have a good day. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.

Agreement Points

Importance of digital inclusion and accessibility

Michael Walton

Fui Meng Liew

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio

Sameer Chauhan

Need to address digital inclusion and accessibility

Digital solutions supporting child rights and protection

Security and privacy concerns in digital identity systems

Ensuring solutions are scalable and cost-effective

All speakers emphasized the importance of making digital solutions accessible and inclusive for various user groups, including refugees, children, the elderly, and those with disabilities.

Collaboration and shared digital solutions across UN agencies

Michael Walton

Fui Meng Liew

Sameer Chauhan

Multi-stakeholder partnerships for capacity building

Shared digital public goods across UN agencies

Shared digital solutions and platforms for UN agencies

Speakers agreed on the importance of collaboration and sharing digital solutions across UN agencies to increase efficiency and maximize impact.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of data protection and security in digital systems, particularly for vulnerable groups like children and pensioners.

Fui Meng Liew

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio

Digital resilience framework to protect children’s data rights

Security and privacy concerns in digital identity systems

Both speakers highlighted how digital solutions can improve service delivery and support the rights of vulnerable populations like refugees and children.

Michael Walton

Fui Meng Liew

Digital services improving refugee assistance

Digital solutions supporting child rights and protection

Unexpected Consensus

Adoption of emerging technologies across different UN agencies

Michael Walton

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio

Sameer Chauhan

Digital strategy focused on refugee empowerment and internal effectiveness

Blockchain-based digital identity solution for UN pensioners

Shared digital solutions and platforms for UN agencies

Despite their different focus areas, all three speakers showed a strong commitment to adopting emerging technologies like blockchain, AI, and biometrics in their respective agencies, indicating a broader trend of technological innovation across the UN system.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement among speakers included the importance of digital inclusion and accessibility, collaboration across UN agencies, data protection and security, and the adoption of emerging technologies to improve service delivery.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers, suggesting a unified approach to digital innovation across different UN agencies. This consensus implies a strong foundation for future collaboration and knowledge sharing in digital transformation efforts within the UN system.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to digital innovation

Michael Walton

Fui Meng Liew

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio

Digital strategy focused on refugee empowerment and internal effectiveness

Digital resilience framework to protect children’s data rights

Blockchain-based digital identity solution for UN pensioners

While all speakers focused on digital innovation, they had different primary focuses based on their organizations’ mandates. UNHCR emphasized refugee empowerment, UNICEF prioritized children’s data rights, and the UN Pension Fund focused on digital identity for pensioners.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement were in the specific focus and approach to digital innovation, based on each organization’s mandate and target population.

difference_level

The level of disagreement was relatively low, with speakers mostly presenting complementary rather than conflicting approaches. This suggests a cohesive overall strategy for digital innovation across UN organizations, with each entity adapting to its specific needs and challenges.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agreed on the importance of collaboration and shared resources, but had different approaches. UNHCR focused on multi-stakeholder partnerships, UNICEF on digital public goods, UN Pension Fund on international standards, and UNICC on shared platforms across UN agencies.

Michael Walton

Fui Meng Liew

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio

Sameer Chauhan

Multi-stakeholder partnerships for capacity building

Shared digital public goods across UN agencies

Adoption of international standards and best practices

Shared digital solutions and platforms for UN agencies

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of data protection and security in digital systems, particularly for vulnerable groups like children and pensioners.

Fui Meng Liew

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio

Digital resilience framework to protect children’s data rights

Security and privacy concerns in digital identity systems

Both speakers highlighted how digital solutions can improve service delivery and support the rights of vulnerable populations like refugees and children.

Michael Walton

Fui Meng Liew

Digital services improving refugee assistance

Digital solutions supporting child rights and protection

Key Takeaways

UN organizations are implementing various digital innovation initiatives to improve their operations and services

Digital strategies focus on empowering beneficiaries (e.g. refugees, children) as well as improving internal effectiveness

Data protection, privacy, and responsible use of technology are key priorities across UN digital initiatives

There is a strong emphasis on collaboration and shared digital solutions across UN agencies

Digital inclusion and accessibility remain important challenges to address

Resolutions and Action Items

UNICC to continue developing shared digital platforms and solutions for use across UN agencies

UN organizations to adhere to common accessibility guidelines and standards in digital solutions

Explore creation of a joint center of excellence on digital accessibility across UN system

Unresolved Issues

How to make UN digital solutions more widely available to cities and governments

Addressing challenges of monitoring and verifying grantees/beneficiaries in remote settings

Fully integrating elderly and disabled populations into digital systems

Suggested Compromises

Balancing need for in-person verification with digital onboarding processes during pandemic

Using AI and regular biometric updates to account for aging in digital identity systems

We had to articulate and basically translate the problem into its main logical components. And the way we did this is that we identify the need to provide four proofs. One is the proof of identity at the very beginning of the process when we enroll our user, our client into the solution. And then proof of authentication every after, every time the application is utilized.

speaker

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio

reason

This comment provides a clear framework for approaching the complex problem of digital identity verification, breaking it down into distinct components. It demonstrates a systematic and logical approach to solving a technical challenge.

impact

This comment set the stage for a deeper discussion on the technical aspects of digital identity solutions. It led to further explanations about blockchain, biometrics, and AI, showing how these technologies address each ‘proof’ in the framework.

By adopting blockchain, I adopted technology that did not have any type of central control. That however, in our case utilizing a permission-based blockchain, we could determine who could participate.

speaker

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio

reason

This comment highlights a key benefit of blockchain technology in ensuring security and preventing collusion, while also explaining how it can be adapted for specific organizational needs. It shows a nuanced understanding of the technology’s capabilities.

impact

This insight sparked further discussion on the use of emerging technologies in UN systems, leading to explanations of how AI and biometrics are integrated into the solution.

We have a large cybersecurity practice. And what we do here, what I’m demonstrating here is again, that collective collaboration across the UN system where we have brought the entire UN system together to make sure we look at and analyze all the threat intelligence so that we can all make collective decisions of how best to defend ourselves from cyber risks or cyber attacks.

speaker

Sameer Chauhan

reason

This comment emphasizes the importance of collaboration and shared resources in cybersecurity, highlighting a unified approach across the UN system. It demonstrates how individual organizational efforts can be amplified through collective action.

impact

This comment shifted the discussion towards the broader implications of digital transformation across the UN system, emphasizing the importance of shared solutions and collaborative efforts.

I think when we’re talking about inclusion, we’re also talking about inclusion of elderly people who may not have the skills, or people who don’t have the access, and also make sure that that’s completely equal across the gender divide as well.

speaker

Michael Walton

reason

This comment broadens the discussion on digital inclusion beyond just connectivity, highlighting the importance of considering age, skills, and gender in digital access. It brings attention to often overlooked aspects of the digital divide.

impact

This comment led to a more comprehensive discussion on accessibility and inclusion, with other speakers addressing how their organizations consider these factors in their digital solutions.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from a general overview of digital transformation in UN agencies to a more nuanced exploration of specific challenges and solutions. They highlighted the complexity of implementing digital solutions in a global context, emphasizing the need for security, accessibility, and collaboration. The discussion evolved from technical aspects of digital identity to broader considerations of inclusion and shared resources across the UN system, demonstrating the multifaceted nature of digital innovation in international organizations.

How can we have an ethical approach to the use of tech in the humanitarian sector?

speaker

Michael Walton

explanation

This was mentioned as an important focus area for the coming year, with interest in involving other stakeholders.

How can we create a joint center of excellence for digital accessibility across the UN system?

speaker

Michael Walton

explanation

This was suggested as a way to share resources and avoid reinventing the wheel on accessibility issues across UN organizations.

How can we address the digital inclusion gap for elderly people and ensure equal access across the gender divide?

speaker

Michael Walton

explanation

This was highlighted as an important consideration in digital inclusion efforts beyond just connectivity.

How can UN digital solutions be made available to cities and governments worldwide through public-private partnerships?

speaker

Sary Qasim

explanation

This was raised as a potential way to make UN-developed systems more widely accessible and affordable for governments.

How can we create a common platform for refugees to access formal education courses at various levels across the globe?

speaker

Audience member (name not provided)

explanation

This was suggested as a way to provide more comprehensive educational opportunities for refugees.

How can we better identify and provide digital interventions for children with disabilities?

speaker

Fui Meng Liew

explanation

This was mentioned as an important area of focus for UNICEF to improve digital accessibility for children with disabilities.

Summary

This open forum focused on how digital technology can empower green and low-carbon development. Experts from various fields discussed the intersection of digitalization and environmental sustainability. The speakers emphasized that digital transformation should be people-centered and aimed at achieving sustainable development goals. They highlighted the need for coordinated efforts between digital and green transformations to address climate change and other environmental challenges.

Several key points emerged from the discussion. First, while digital technologies offer immense potential for sustainable development, they also have their own environmental footprint that needs to be managed. The lifecycle approach to assessing the environmental impact of digitalization was emphasized, covering production, use, and end-of-life stages. Second, the importance of capacity building, especially in developing countries, was stressed to ensure they can benefit from digital technologies while managing associated environmental costs.

Speakers also highlighted the role of education in promoting digital literacy and environmental awareness. Examples were shared of how AI and other digital technologies are being used in schools to foster understanding of low-carbon practices. The potential of AI in modeling clean energy transitions and improving climate models was also discussed.

The forum concluded with insights from industry representatives on practical applications of digital technologies in reducing energy consumption and promoting circular economy principles. Overall, the discussion underscored the need for collaborative efforts across sectors and countries to harness digital technologies for sustainable development while mitigating their environmental impacts.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of coordinating digital technology development with green/low-carbon goals

– The need for capacity building, education, and talent cultivation to support digital and green transformations

– The environmental impacts and footprint of digital technologies themselves

– The potential for AI and digital tech to model and support clean energy transitions

– Practical examples of using digital tech for sustainability in areas like education and data centers

Overall purpose:

The purpose of this forum was to explore how digital technologies, especially AI, can be leveraged to support green and low-carbon development goals. Speakers discussed both the opportunities and challenges of aligning digital and environmental agendas.

Tone:

The overall tone was optimistic and forward-looking, with speakers highlighting the potential for digital tech to drive sustainability. There was also a sense of urgency about addressing environmental challenges. The tone remained consistent throughout, with all speakers adopting a similar professional and solution-oriented approach to the topic.

Speakers

– Xue Lan: Senior Professor, Tsinghua University; Dean, Schwarzman College; Member of the Leadership Group, UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

– Long Kai: Deputy Director, Cyber Information Development Bureau, Cyberspace Administration of China

– Peng Gang: Vice President and Provost of Tsinghua University

– Gong Ke: Former President of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations; Executive Director of Chinese Institute for New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Strategies

– Torbjorn Fredriksson: Director of the Office of ICT Policy at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD); Head of UNCTAD’s work on performance and digital economy

– Su Jun: Dean of the Intelligent Society Governance from Tsinghua University

– Dou Guimei: Principal of Tsinghua University Primary School; Co-director of the National Experiment Base of the Intelligent Society Governance

– Eduardo Araral: Former Vice Dean and Director at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore

– Zhou Chaonan: Chairperson of Range IDC; Vice-chairman of Henggang

Additional speakers:

– Fabio Fred Dixon

– Professor Salva

– Professor D’Souza

Digital Technology Empowering Green and Low-Carbon Development: A Comprehensive Forum Summary

This open forum brought together experts from academia, government, and international organisations to explore the intersection of digital technology and sustainable development. The discussion centred on how digital innovations, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), big data, and 5G, can be leveraged to support green and low-carbon initiatives while addressing the environmental challenges posed by digitalisation itself.

Key Themes and Agreements

1. Digital Technologies as Enablers of Sustainable Development

There was broad consensus among speakers that digital technologies have significant potential to accelerate the achievement of sustainable development goals. Torbjorn Fredriksson, Director at UNCTAD, emphasised this point, which was echoed by other participants including Gong Ke, Long Kai, and Eduardo Araral. They agreed that when properly implemented and coordinated with green initiatives, digital technologies can improve environmental outcomes.

Fredriksson highlighted the potential to accelerate sustainable development goals and introduced the Global Digital Compact, a UN initiative aimed at outlining shared principles for an open, free, and secure digital future for all. Gong Ke stressed the importance of a people-centred approach to digital technology, underscoring the complexity of balancing technological advancement with human and environmental needs.

2. Environmental Impacts of Digitalisation

Speakers acknowledged the significant environmental challenges posed by the digital sector. Fredriksson pointed out that the ICT sector generates substantial greenhouse gas emissions, with the production of digital devices requiring large amounts of raw materials. He emphasised the need for a lifecycle approach to understand the full environmental impact of digitalisation, highlighting the growing energy and water consumption of data centres, as well as the increasing problem of e-waste, particularly in developing countries.

Zhou Chaonan, representing the industry perspective, discussed innovative solutions to mitigate these impacts, particularly focusing on improving the energy efficiency of data centres through advanced cooling systems and reducing Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE). This partial agreement between Fredriksson and Zhou Chaonan illustrates the industry’s recognition of the problem and efforts to address it.

3. Strategies for Green Digital Development

Several strategies were proposed to align digital development with environmental sustainability:

a) Circular Digital Economy: Fredriksson emphasised the need to move towards a circular digital economy to reduce the environmental footprint of digital technologies. This approach involves designing products for longevity, reuse, and recycling, as well as implementing effective e-waste management systems.

b) Interdisciplinary Research and Education: Peng Gang, Vice President of Tsinghua University, stressed the importance of interdisciplinary research and education on AI and sustainability. This view was shared by Su Jun, who highlighted the need to study the social impacts of AI through large-scale experiments, introducing the AIC (Artificial Intelligence Social Impact Implementation) initiative.

c) AI in Education: Dou Guimei provided insights on using AI to create smart, low-carbon campuses and enhance environmental education. She discussed initiatives such as AI-powered energy management systems and personalised learning platforms that reduce resource consumption while improving educational outcomes.

d) Energy-Efficient Infrastructure: Zhou Chaonan discussed improving the energy efficiency of data centres, highlighting the industry’s role in sustainable digital development through innovations in cooling technologies and renewable energy integration.

e) AI for Clean Energy Transition: Eduardo Araral presented on the potential of AI for complex modelling of clean energy transitions, emphasising the need for advanced computational tools to optimise renewable energy systems and grid management.

4. Policy and Governance for Digital Sustainability

The discussion also touched upon the policy and governance aspects of aligning digital and green agendas:

a) National Initiatives: Long Kai highlighted China’s efforts to promote coordination between digitalisation and green transformation, including policy frameworks that encourage the integration of digital technologies in environmental protection and resource management.

b) International Cooperation: Speakers emphasised the need for global collaboration on technology, standards, and policy to address the challenges of sustainable digital development. This includes initiatives like the Global Digital Compact and efforts to align digital standards across countries.

c) Industry Support: Zhou Chaonan discussed the importance of establishing mechanisms to support the green upgrading of industries through digital technologies, emphasising the role of public-private partnerships in driving innovation.

Thought-Provoking Insights

Several comments stood out for their ability to frame the discussion in broader terms:

1. Gong Ke posed the fundamental question: “What is the overarched goal of the digitalisation?” This prompted participants to consider the purpose of digital transformation beyond technical implementation.

2. Fredriksson highlighted the complex challenge of balancing digitalisation’s environmental costs with its potential benefits, especially for developing countries. He stated, “We need to both help countries to deal with the costs of digitalisation in terms of the environment but we also need to continue to support countries that are far behind in order for them to be able to use digital technologies to address the environmental concerns.”

3. Su Jun cautioned against becoming “slavers of technology,” emphasising the need for human-centred AI development and the importance of large-scale social experiments to understand AI’s impacts.

4. Du Guimei brought the discussion to a practical level by considering AI’s impact on elementary education, broadening the scope to include everyday applications of digital technologies in creating sustainable learning environments.

Areas for Further Exploration

The forum identified several key areas requiring further investigation:

1. Utilising AI for complex modelling of clean energy transitions and optimising renewable energy systems

2. Further reducing the Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) of data centres and exploring innovative cooling technologies

3. Improving integration of digital transformation and green development policies at national and international levels

4. Addressing the ‘double bind’ faced by developing countries regarding digitalisation and environmental costs

5. Transitioning towards a more circular digital economy, including improved e-waste management and product design for longevity

6. Strengthening interdisciplinary education in AI, digital technologies, and societal governance

7. Enhancing collaboration among stakeholders in digital and green development, including academia, industry, and government

8. Promoting global cooperation in technology communications, standards alignment, and financial integration for digital and green development

9. Expanding research on the social impacts of AI through initiatives like the AIC (Artificial Intelligence Social Impact Implementation)

10. Developing and implementing AI-powered solutions for smart, low-carbon campuses and educational institutions

Conclusion

The forum demonstrated a high level of consensus on the potential of digital technologies to support sustainable development and the need for coordinated approaches to digital and green transformations. While specific strategies and implementations varied among speakers, there was agreement on the general direction towards integrating digital and environmental agendas. The discussion underscored the growing recognition of the interconnectedness of digital and environmental issues, suggesting potential for more integrated policy approaches and research initiatives in the future. The emphasis on interdisciplinary collaboration, global cooperation, and human-centred technology development provides a roadmap for future efforts in harnessing digital technologies for sustainable development.

Xue Lan: Yes, could you help me? Channel two, right? Can you help me? Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Welcome to this open forum, Digital Technology Empowering Green and Low Carbon Development. My name is Fang Zhang. I’m an associate professor from the Institute of Intelligent Society Governance, Tsinghua University. It’s my honor to serve as a moderate for this forum today. First, on behalf of the organizers, I would like to extend warm welcome to our distinguished experts and the audience here or online. This forum focus on the critical intersection between the digital technology and green low carbon development. We are very honored to have nine speakers with us today. Seven of them will join on the site and two will join remotely. As you can see from the agenda, we have a very packed but exciting program ahead. To kick off the forum, please let me to invite Mr. Nong Kai, Deputy General Director of the Bureau of Information Technology, Development, Cyberspace Administration of China, to deliver the opening remarks. Welcome.

Long Kai: Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Welcome to the 19th IGF Open Forum on Digital Technology in Power Screen and Low Carbon Development. It’s a great pleasure to meet all of you here in Riyadh. On behalf of the organizers, the Bureau of Digitalization Development, Cyberspace Administration of China, I would like to express our gratitude for your participation. I would also like to extend special thanks to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, this year’s host country of IGF, for their extraordinary work and dedication to the success of this forum. The Chinese government places great importance on the coordination between digitalization and green transformation, and it’s committed to promoting the empowerment of green and low carbon development through the adoption of digital technologies. President Xi Jinping emphasized the need to strengthen economic and technological cooperation, accelerate the coordination of digitalization and green transformation, and advance the upgrading of energy resources, industrial structures, and consumption patterns to foster green socio-economic development. The 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China proposed that we will support enterprises in upgrading traditional industry via AI and green technologies. In July 2024, the Chinese government issued a policy document guidelines on accelerating the comprehensive green transformation of socio-ecological development, which further outlines the acceleration of coordination between digital transformation and green technology. Third, we will promote digital industry development by green transformation in the traditional industry. To achieve these goals, a set of initiatives have been implemented, including pilot projects in 10 cities in China. By so far, these efforts have gained significant progress and results, providing replicable and scalable examples. We believe that digitalization and green transformation are increasingly becoming notable trends in the global development. Practical evidence has shown that digital technologies can deeply integrate with a set of key sectors such as energy, power, industry, and technology. We believe that digitalization and green transformation can deeply integrate with a set of key sectors such as energy, power, industry, and technology. Such as energy, power, industry, transportation, and constructions in carbon reduction. This integration effectively enhances the efficiency of energy and resource utilization, playing a pivotal role in the green transformation of traditional industry. From a global perspective, this coordination has become a key driving force of sustainable global growth. On this occasion, I would like to share a few insights. To start with, innovation andEuropean development. We are pushing for international collaboration in technology innovation, research, and application. The strengthening of strategic researches and enterprises’ technology strategy and the strengthening of the company’s status as a technology innovation core encourage the application of technological achievements and keep pace with new industries, new patterns, and new urges. First, innovation drives development. We need to foster technological innovation and application and coordination between digitalization and green technology. This includes strengthening fundamental research and the deployment of cutting-edge technologies, enhancing the role of enterprises as the primary driver of technological innovation, promoting the commercialization of technology, and continuously nurturing new industries and business models. We need to focus on data centers, communication stations, electronic information products, manufacturing, and use, accelerating the development of energy-saving and carbon-reducing technologies, and promoting the green development of the digital industry. Particular focus should be placed on the development and promotion of energy-saving and carbon-reducing technologies in a set of areas such as data centers, communication-based stations, and the manufacturing of electronic products to facilitate the green and low-carbon development of the digital industry. Third, how to promote development? Digital technology can provide networkization, digitalization, and smartness for the green development of the economic society, and promote the overall energy consumption and carbon emissions of society. Second, integration leads to development. Digital technologies can provide networked, digitized, and intelligent tools for green transformation, contributing to reduce overall energy consumption and carbon emissions. Efforts should be made to accelerate the fusion of digitalization and green transformation, driving the deep integration of emerging technologies such as Internet, Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, and 5G with green and low-carbon industries. This will enable the green transformation of key sectors such as industry, energy, construction, and transportation, shifting industrial structures from high-carbon to low-carbon and from low-end to high-end. Third, open public development. Digitalization and green transformation are common opportunities for the development of countries around the world. We must continue to deepen and expand the field of bilateral coordination, multilateral dialogue and cooperation, strengthen the field of bilateral coordination, technical rules, standardization, promote policy communication, technology exchange, project cooperation, and talent training. Third, openness makes development mutually beneficial. Digitalization and green transformation are shared opportunities for countries all over the world. We should further deepen and expand the lateral and multilateral dialogue and cooperation in this field. This includes strengthening the formulation of technical rules and standards, promoting policy coordination, technological communication, project collaboration, and talent training. We hope this will become a key element in efforts to advance the shared future of humanity. Ladies and gentlemen, friends, Today’s forum has built a good platform for exchange with Sino-China Cooperation. Famous professors, experts, scholars, and business representatives from all over the world have come together. I hope we can deepen exchanges, strengthen cooperation, and develop together to discuss the best practice for future bilateral cooperation, to build a beautiful earth, and to share a green future. Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, Today’s forum provides an excellent platform for discussion on the coordination between digitalization and green development, gathering professors, experts, scholars, and industrial representatives from around the world. Let’s further deepen communication, strengthen cooperation, and provide better insights into the best practices in this field, contributing to a shared green future and a beautiful earth. Finally, I wish this forum great success. Thank you all.

Xue Lan: Thank you, Director Nongkai, for your insightful remarks. Now let me invite Professor Peng Gang, Vice President and Provost of Tsinghua University, to deliver opening remarks. Please welcome. Welcome. Distinguished guests and esteemed guests from all over the world, good morning. First of all, on behalf of Tsinghua University, as the organizer of this open forum,

Peng Gang: I would like to extend my warmest welcome to all of you. It’s a great pleasure to meet all of you here on the 19th IGF. This forum provides us a great chance to have a discussion on leveraging digital technology for green and low-carbon development, a crucial topic for today’s world. On behalf of Tsinghua University, the co-organizer of this open forum, I want to extend my warmest welcome and sincere gratitude to all the experts and guests here. The green and low-carbon development in this digital era is a focusing topic of global governments in today’s world. Chinese President Xi Jinping has emphasized that green and low-carbon transformation is a key to high-quality development. The green and low-carbon development in this digital era is a focusing topic of global governments in today’s world. Chinese President Xi Jinping has emphasized that green and low-carbon transformation is a key to high-quality development. In July 2024, the Chinese government issued guidelines on accelerating the comprehensive green transformation of socio-economic development, In July 2024, the Chinese government issued guidelines on accelerating the comprehensive green transformation of socio-economic development, advocating for deep integration of digitalization and green development to drive this transition. The convergence of these strategies greatly promote sustainable growth in China and global countries. The convergence of these strategies greatly promote sustainable growth in China and global countries. The university has played an important role in the digitalization process of green and low-carbon development. In recent years, Tsinghua University has focused on the cross-disciplinary exploration of digital technology and green and low-carbon development. Universities, as hubs of innovation and leadership in sorts, should play a vital role in advancing this agenda. At Tsinghua University, we have prioritized interdisciplinary research at the intersections of digital technology and green development. Tsinghua University is not only one of the first universities in China to carry out artificial intelligence teaching and research, but also established several research institutes such as the Carbon Energy Laboratory and the Carbon Integrated Research Institute in recent years, and established solid technologies for the research of related cross-disciplinary courses. As one of China’s pioneers in AI research and education, we have also established institutions such as Low-Carbon Energy Lab and Institute for Carbon Neutrality, laying a solid foundation for such interdisciplinary exploration. At the same time, we also pay great attention to the social issues behind digital technology applications. In 2019, we established the Institute for Intelligent Social Governance, and studied a series of issues on the basic theory and policy of intelligent society, such as the deep study of digital technology and green and low-carbon development. Over the past five years, the Institute has achieved a series of significant achievements in the field of digital technology, and has contributed to the global smart society governance. In the meantime, we also recognize the societal challenges faced by digital technology. In 2019, we established the Institute for Intelligent Society Governance, focusing on fundamental theories and policy issues related to digital technologies and low-carbon development. Over the past five years, the Institute has made significant contributions to global intelligent governance through research and policy insights. With the strong support of China’s National Internet Information Office, Tsinghua University has hosted the opening seminar on digital technology and green and low-carbon development. We have invited experts from the United Nations, China, Singapore, Australia, and many other countries and international organizations. We hope to use this opportunity to further address the issues of digital technology and green and low-carbon development, and build a high-level international dialogue and exchange balance. With the guidance from the Cyberspace Administration of China, we are proud to host this forum, bringing together experts from the United Nations, China, Singapore, Australia, and other nations and global organizations. This forum aims to foster high-level dialogue and collaboration. With the guidance from the Cyberspace Administration of China, we are proud to host this forum, bringing together experts from the United Nations, China, Singapore, Australia, and other nations and global organizations. This forum aims to foster high-level dialogue and collaboration, generating fresh ideas and advancing global practice in digitalized green development. Regarding this issue, I would like to share three key thoughts with all of you. First, we should pay more attention to the cultivation of young talents. To achieve this goal, we should strengthen interdisciplinary education in AI, which is the most important part of the digital economy. Second, we should support the development of high-quality human resources. Third, we should support the development of high-quality human resources. To achieve this goal, we should strengthen interdisciplinary education in AI, bring technologies and societal governance to cultivate outstanding talents with technical expertise and societal awareness. Second, we should further enhance collaboration among stakeholders. Second, we should further enhance collaboration among stakeholders. In the coming years, we will deepen partnerships among governments, industries, academia, and research institutions to address fundamental and practical challenges, driving innovation and application. Third, we should promote global cooperation, Third, we should promote global cooperation, Third, we should promote global cooperation, with focuses on advancing international collaboration in technology communications, standards alignment, and financial integration. We can further make the welfare brought by technological evolution more inclusive. I wish this forum great success. Thank you. I wish this forum great success. Thank you.

Xue Lan: Thank you, President Pongda, for your inspiring speech. Now let’s turn to our distinguished panel of experts to share their insights on the theme today. Our first speaker is Professor Gong Ke, former President of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations and also Executive Director of Chinese Institute for New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Strategies. Professor Gong, the floor is yours.

Gong Ke: Thank you. Thank you so much. So, may I have my slides? So, today I’m going to discuss with you two questions. First, here is an internet governance forum. We talk about internet, we talk about digital technology, we talk about artificial intelligence. So, the first question is, what is the overarched goal of the digitalization? What is the overarched goal? What is the digitalization we want? So, the second question is, how to achieve these goals? So, first, now today the world is in the course of… two transitions, transformations. First, it’s the digitalization. Let’s say, because the digital technology is a technology, generative, revolutionary, general purpose technology, they change our world, change our life in a profound way. But what is the problem for this? This transition should not be a technology-centered transition, be a people-centered transition. However, the biggest problem facing to the humanity on the earth and how to sustain the human life on the earth. So here is the 17 global sustainable goals that are common goals for the humanity. It’s a common task for all country. So the core issue of these goals is to balance the increasing of the human wellbeing and decreasing the national cost. So these goals are about human wellbeings and these goals are about the national cost. And these goals are linked to the human wellbeing and the national cost. So that’s a core issue of the sustainability of the earth. This picture from IPCC shows you since the industrial revolution in the 19th century, the average earth surface temperature is increasing. It’s increasing. However, if we move out of human activities, industrialization and so on and so forth, we have to see this change of the temperature of the earth’s surface. That means that in the average level as it’s at a worse millions of years. So the key issue is to save the conditions of the earth for the humanity. And that is the goal of the digital transition. That’s the goal of digital transition. That’s a human centered digitalization. So this is not my personal opinion. That’s a consensus of United Nations, the member states, 196 member states. Here I see the newly adopted global digital compact by the United Nations two months ago. And the first sentence of this global compact is digital technology are dramatically transforming our world. They offer immense potential benefits for the wellbeing and advancement of people and societies. And for our planet, they hold us the finest of accelerate achievement of the sustained goals. Sustainable development goals is the goals of the digitalization. And there’s some objectives. The first object, no. No. No. Anyway, the first objective of the global digital compact is to achieve, to accelerate the achievement of the sustainable. Next page, please help me. Next page. Can you go to the next page? Okay. So, however, we have the goal of the digitalization. The question is how to achieve this goal. In the narrative, as mentioned by Dr. Long, it’s a coordinated transformation of digital and green transformation. But to coordinate transformation, we need a coordinated capacity. We have to turn these digitalization to turn these technical key technologies, 17, I named 17 of them, and the 17 sustained development goals, and to turn this into so-called digital coordinated digital capacity and sustainability capacity. Only with this, we can achieve all those. Capacity building, as mentioned by Provost Pong, education, the key to achieve our goals. So, finally, because of the limitation of the time, I just conclude my presentation in three words. Understanding the digital and green transformation, and settings as redevelopment as a goal of digitalization, reaching a building capacity for the digital transformation.

Xue Lan: Thank you so much. I stop here. Thank you, Professor Gong, for your brilliant presentation. Next, I’m delighted to invite Mr. Fabio Fred Dixon, Director of the Office of ICT Policy at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTADS. He’s also the head of UNCTADS’ work on performance and digital economy. Welcome, Fabio.

Torbjorn Fredriksson: Thank you very much, Madam Moderator. And let me start by expressing my appreciation to the China Cyberspace Affairs Administration and to Tsinghua University for allowing UNCTADS to contribute to this very important dialogue on the shift to low carbon and a more digital economy and society. I’m delighted to welcome Mr. Fred Dixon to share his thoughts on this topic. Low carbon and a more digital economy and society. I’d like to share with you some findings from our recent report, the Digital Economy Report 2024. And I will seek to be very brief, but I hope that participants can also get access to the presentation afterwards. And let me see if I can get to the next slide. Yes, thank you. So the digital technologies are rapidly transforming our economy as you know, as has been said already. This is creating a much faster and much more powerful interaction between people and machines in the digital space. But at the same time, we know that we have big digital divides. Many countries are far behind in taking advantage of these digital opportunities. In addition, we have the parallel development of planetary boundaries being breached, including from climate change. But in many other areas as well. So from that perspective, it is very important to ensure that the development of the ICT sector of the digital technologies is also environmentally sustainable. In fact, we can see already that the ICT sector is generating a greenhouse gas emissions of a similar magnitude as the aviation or international shipping industry. China is of course very important in this context because China is a giant in the context of the digital economy. And we have just a few examples here on this slide showing the tremendous progress that China has made in digitalization and is now a very important force for the globe in terms of digitalization. In the report, we take a lifecycle approach to exploring the environmental footprint of digitalization. We have been talking so far a lot about how digital technologies can help with environmental concerns, but we also need to recognize that digitalization in itself is generating an environmental footprint. So we’re looking in the report at the production stage, at the use stage and at the end of life stage of the lifecycle. And we’re looking at the direct effects in terms of natural resource depletion, energy use, water use, greenhouse gas emissions and pollution and some others. If we start with the production phase, we often think about digitalization as being something virtual, something happening in the cloud. But the reality is that it has a very heavy material footprint. For example, to produce one laptop weighing around two kilos requires the extraction of 800 kilograms of raw material resources. We also see that the devices that we’re using in the digital economy are becoming more complex. For instance, when we produced telephones about 50 years ago, we needed 10 of the elements included in the periodic table. By 1990, we used 27 such elements. And now when we produce smartphones of various kinds, we use 63 of the elements in the periodic table. That is more than half of all the known elements on earth. The same minerals that we use when we produce the digital technology are also the same that we use to provide a more low carbon environment. So that means that these two transitions that we are witnessing towards a low carbon economy and towards a more digital economy is generating tremendous demands for metals and minerals. For example, the demand for cobalt, graphite, and lithium is expected to increase by 500% until 2050. At the use phase, I’m just zeroing in here on the data centers because as we shift increasingly to computing intensive technologies like artificial intelligence, the virtual reality, crypto mining, and so on and so forth, this is generating a tremendous increase in the need for electricity and water that are used by data centers. And the big… data center operators, they can no longer keep their greenhouse gas emissions stable or reduce them because of the growing demand for energy and electricity. This is having a strong impact both at the local level where the data centers are located and of course if it generates more greenhouse gas emissions it will also have global implications. The third phase is about how we deal with the waste from digitalization and here we have seen a growing amount of waste being generated over the past decade or so in an increase by more than 30 percent and we can see that most of the waste per capita is generating the most advanced economies, the most digitally ready economies. Unfortunately a lot of the waste that is generated is not collected properly, not collected formally and therefore also not managed formally and at the global level only one quarter of all the digitalization related waste is currently collected formally. In China that share is around 16 percent and in Africa it’s only one percent so we have a long way to go to improve that situation and one of the problems is that many developing countries lack proper legislation to organize the formal collection of waste and especially here digitalization related waste. An overall recommendation of the report is that we need globally to move more towards a circular digital economy. The production of digital products currently is very linear and that increases the need for raw materials and it reduces our ability to extract valuable materials from the digital devices and servers and so on that come to the end of life. So this is an area where there’s a huge potential for improvement and this is something that requires a collective effort across stakeholders and across countries. We are also in need to address what we call the double bind of developing countries. You can see that currently most developing countries have to bear a high share of the cost of digitalization from an environmental perspective but many are not very successful in benefiting from these digital opportunities so we need to both help countries to deal with the costs of digitalization in terms of the environment but we also need to continue to support countries that are far behind in order for them to be able to use digital technologies to address the environmental concerns. Finally let me say that in order for us to make progress here we need to work collectively as the previous speaker was saying we have come to an agreement at the global level to work together to build the global digital compact. We need to better integrate what we do in the digital space and what we do in the environmental space and we need to strengthen the capabilities of the poorer countries to be able to develop the right policy responses in this area and also to benefit more from digitalization. I will end that and I will just direct you to the report for those who are interested in learning more about this and I thank you again for allowing me to participate in this session. Thank you very much.

Xue Lan: Thank you very much Mr. Fred Dixon for your wonderful presentation. Now let me welcome Professor Xu Jun, the Dean of the Intelligent Society Governance from Tsinghua University. Welcome, the floor is yours Professor Xu. Thank you very much. Dear ladies and gentlemen, dear Professor Gong Ke, Mr. Wang Jianchao, Mr. Long Kai,

Su Jun: dear Professor Hun Gang and Ms. Zhou Taonan, dear friends. First of all, it’s my great honor to impress my warm welcome to all of you. Thank you for coming. Nowadays, information technology, especially AI, is being widely deployed, bringing significant improvement in productivity and allowing people to enjoy tremendous benefit. A brand new age, intelligent society is coming. But as the English novelist Charles Dickens said, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. AI also brings unpredictable risks and challenges. To focus on these risks and challenges, Tsinghua University established a platform research institute, ISG, the Institute of Intelligent Society Governance in 2019. The ISG focused on interdisciplinary research on AI social impact and its mission is to create a humanity-intensive society. Since 2021, to investigate the social impact of AI, Chinese government launched a nationwide initiative called AIC, which stands for Artificial Intelligent Social Impact Implement. There are 92 experiment base was established and more than 2,000 scenarios were set with about 30,000 people involved. To my knowledge, this initiative is the largest scale social experiment on AI application worldwide. According to our research, intelligent society has five key characteristics, including information reach, instant feedback, reshaping of cognitions, deconstruction of recognization, voice of the volunteers. We also studied some concepts such as information, token, group, polarizations, opinion, meaning, pollutions, platform, power, energy consumption, online gaming, and digital labor. All these concepts have been studied in my new book, which was released yesterday morning. We have found that it is a significant challenge to enable low-carbon development through digital technology. While consuming energy, AI also has huge potential to reduce energy consumption, promoting low-carbon development across society, especially in traditional high-energy consumption sectors, such as power system, transportation system, heavy industry, and construction business. For example, in Eidos, a western city in China which is famous for its energy industry, we have examined how AI facilitated the transportation of energy industry. Our research showed that the coordinated transformation of digital and green development can reduce energy consumption and promote low-carbon development. Ladies and gentlemen, the history of human society is the history of science and technology development. Intelligent society is an amazing age. AI is one of our greatest inventions in our history. But in the future, people must not and shall not become slavers of technology. Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist, once remarked, concern for man himself and his fate must always find the chief interest of all technical endeavors. Overcoming these challenges is a tough work. As highlighted in a UN report recently, governing AI for humanity, it is not technological change itself, but how humanity responds to it that automatically matters. Today, we gather together to show our hope and ambition for the future. Let’s work together to make sure that all nations, all people over the world, all people over the world can benefit from the coordinated transformation of digital and green development, and to build a human-centered, humanity-intensive society. We shall do it, and we must do it. Thank you.

Xue Lan: Thank you, Professor Su, for your insightful presentation. Now, let me welcome Ms. Dou Guimei, principal of Tsinghua University Primary School and also co-director of the National Experiment Base of the Intelligent Society Governance. Ms. Dou, the floor is yours. Thank you.

Du Guimei: distinguished guests and friends from around the world. I’m the principal from Tsinghua University Primary School. I would like to start from a passage from the UN 52 years ago entitled We Only Have One Earth. This is a typical case for topic-based learning practice in my class advocated for low-carbon lifestyle in the community. Finally, we expanded to the proposal for the health school. I think that topic-based learning practice is about coming out of the classroom and apply what you learn to daily practice. I’ve been working on topic-based learning for the past 30 years. After years of exploration, this practice has won the most important prize in China’s fundamental education. So, topic-based learning is the beginning of academic research to come out of the classroom and strengthen the practice. We feel that the Chinese people emphasize cultural confidence and talk about cultural heritage and culture. In this way, in the course of our research over the years, my team and I have been studying topic-based learning, which is similar to today’s concept education, to cultivate students’ core qualities. So, in the course of our research over the years, we have also won the highest honor award for the first-ever national educational achievement. Over the past 10 years, I have led a team to form the theoretical and practical results of topic-based learning. On November 1 this year, it was officially released and became a national achievement. I’ve been working on topic-based learning for the past 30 years. After years of exploration, this practice has won the most important prize in China’s fundamental education. And we still pay close attention to serializing the framework for topic-based teaching and collect a set of works. All these works were finally published on November 1 and recognized by the nation. Entering the age of intelligence, we are trying to use the method of topic-based teaching to incorporate the core values of digital education and ecological civilization into the education philosophy of Tsinghua High School, the central school of children’s standing, and to combine it with China’s ancient Japanese culture and the meaning of proximity to time. Then, through the four mechanisms of value co-creation, mutual respect, mutual incentive, digital resilience, we are trying to improve and further optimize the quality of the campus in all aspects. Now, I can take the methodology of topic-based teaching practice to digital literacy and environmental awareness education and integrate them into our philosophy of let students be the core of the school. By incorporating traditional culture elements into our classroom, we try to promote environmental education from our four main channels, namely value co-creation, class integration, compatible incentives, and digital empowerment. Taking AI-powered low-carbon campus as a case for topic-based learning, we have established four main scenarios. Scenario one, low-carbon intelligent platform. This is our zero-carbon Google campus. Scenario two, low-carbon smart platform. This is our low-carbon high-tech platform. Scenario three, low-carbon high-tech cloud. This is our high-tech cloud-based cloud platform. Scenario four, low-carbon smart cloud. This is our zero-carbon booth that monitors temperature, humidity, wind, 5MPF, wind power, and PV output. This allows us to dynamically access the school’s environmental status and become the learning material for children. Scenario two, low-carbon education. In the campus, we are setting up a solar panel. Students can use digital technology to assist students in ecological research and improve the cultivation of biodiversity. Students can use infrared cameras to observe wildlife in the protection of natural resources. This is also an important part of their learning. The scenario two is low-carbon education application. In our campus, we have installed a lot of solar flowers. We also leverage intelligent technologies for students’ ecological explorations. During the exploration, they use in-frame cameras, telephoto lenses, and AI image recognition to classify wildlife and gain firsthand experiences. Scenario three is low-carbon interaction space, carbon cycle science and technology experience. In the school, we use sand to simulate the ocean, rivers, cities, forests, oil fields, farms, farms, volcanoes, and sky scenes. The elements in the corresponding scene will move in this way to improve the students’ basic cultivation and cultivation of environmental balance. Scenario three is low-carbon interactive spaces. We also implement several carbon cycle experiences focusing on simulation in ecosystems like oceans, cities, and forests, bringing environmental science to life. Scenario four is sports in the smart playground. In the school, we have added AI rope skipping, AI 50-meter running, sunbathing, fun integrated machine, and dance. The children have accumulated data in this part and developed a tree-growing tree that is made into a sunroof. The tree continues to grow into a forest in the class’s collective activities, and we can see the students’ growth. Scenario four is intelligent physical education. We further add some intelligent applications to traditional EE education like AI-assisted running among a lot of sports activities. We also develop an intelligent system for students to keep track of their progress in physical education. So in the age of AI, how to deal with the full growth of elementary school students’ lives and the harmony of getting along with us in this era. So when we held the opening ceremony, I also brought this petition today. I think this should be a basic consensus for all citizens of the world. Finally, on behalf of all students at Tsinghua University Primary School, I would like to share the Low-Carbon Campus Initiative for a sustainable future with global friends. So finally, where are the children? Where is the AI-enabled low-carbon campus education? Let’s work together. Thank you. In short, we believe that where children are, where AI-encouraged low-carbon campus is. Let’s work together. Thank you.

Xue Lan: Thank you for such a wonderful speech on the role of education in AI and low-carbon development. Thank you again, Mr. Do. Next, I would like to invite Professor Edward Arrawa, former Vice Dean and Director at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, to deliver the speech. Welcome, Professor Arrawa. Please share your slides. Can you hear me? Yes. Wonderful.

Eduardo Araral: Thank you, Professor Fang and to colleagues at Tsinghua University for this invitation. I am honored to speak to you today on the topic of Modeling Clean Energy Transition Using AI, which is the current project of my interest. AI can help improve climate models, as the recent Economist magazine has reported. Artificial intelligence is helping improve climate models, improve prediction accuracy, improve policymaking, reduce computational cost, and to scale regional and global patterns. But my focus is not on climate prediction, but on how can we use AI to help us create better models for energy transition. So I created a model on clean energy transition. In this model, you have the… the dependent variable, clean energy adoption as a function of policies, infrastructure, fossil fuel risks, and other variables. I’m still working on this paper, but basically the idea is how to use AI to do a complex modeling of this clean energy transition. The idea here is that this energy transition depends on so many factors, and governments, and donors, and UN agencies should be able to pay attention to these variables. So one important factor to monitor is the policy support for clean energy transition, the readiness of national infrastructure in terms of the grids, storage, and offshore facilities, the fossil fuel risks, such as the volatility, supply, security, geopolitical risks, and the risk of declining investments in fossil fuel. Then, of course, you have the issue of availability of financing for clean energy, especially for developing countries. Then you have the issue of the grid, electrical grid. Are they ready to be integrated, especially for renewable energy like solar, wind? Then you need to look at market maturity. What is the level of competition and openness in the energy market? Then you have to factor in social acceptance. Do the people accept clean energy? Then you have to look at carbon pricing regulations, carbon taxes, and emissions limits, nationally determined contributions. You have to include that in the model as well. Then you have to also look at, including the model, the rate of technological innovation, such as advancements in solar panel, wind technology, the efficiency and storage of batteries, as well as developments in nuclear modular reactors. Then you also have to look at energy demand, which is a function of economic growth, and then the demand for clean energy over time. And so what I’m trying to say is that those of you who are interested in the audience to collaborate with me on this project, how can we use AI to do a complex modeling of this clean energy transition, you can get in touch with me. That’s all I wanted to say. Again, thank you to Professor Phan for this kind invitation. Thank you. Excuse me, thank you, Professor Irani. Next, I would like to invite Professor Salva from Kansas School of Business and Curriculum at the University of Texas. Thank you. And hopefully, the more outflow you have and the less inflow, the more efficient you will be. I will not go into this, but we have modeled all of this and the role of cognitive computing technologies to help you get more efficient and use lower energy. So give you just a couple of examples. We have used digital twins to be able to analyze what are the inefficiencies in moving capital from one place to another, okay? In terms of moving capital, because if you can model how capital moves, then you can increase the efficiency and use lower energy. Another way is you can actually understand what is inhibiting the movement of capital. So here, you have two different images where you just strategically relocating and using information technologies, you can increase capital intensity. Here is an example of how AI is being used to regenerate capital so that you are recycling, and it goes back to the comments made earlier about circular economy. And just one more, here is where you can map using cognitive computing technologies where your capital needs to be upgraded or maintained before it loses complete value. So how do you do that? I’m happy to share more examples of these projects we are doing across the globe. And with that, thank you very much. Thank you.

Xue Lan: Thank you, Professor D’Souza. Now, let’s welcome our last speaker, Ms. Zhou Chaonan, the chairman person of Range IDC, the last but not the least.

Zhou Chaonan: The floor is yours. Ms. Zhou Chaonan, the chairman person of Range IDC, the chairman person of Range IDC, the vice-chairman of Henggang, the chairman person of Gongke, and the guests from all over the world, good morning, everyone. I’m very honored to participate in this open forum on digital technology assistance, green low-carbon development. I’m from the Chinese Renzhe Group. It’s a high-tech enterprise that provides scale-up, green, and smart sourcing resources for the artificial intelligence industry. Here, I’d like to share a few points with you on the practical and thought-provoking development of smart technology-assisted low-carbon green. Distinguished guests and dear friends from around the world, good morning. It’s a great honor to participate in this open forum on digital technology empowering green and low-carbon development. I’m from Range Group, a high-tech enterprise dedicated to providing large-scale, green, and intelligent computing power resources for the AI industry. Today, I would like to briefly share some of our practices and thoughts on how digital technology contributes to green and low-carbon development. President Xi Jinping stressed that green low-carbon development mechanisms should be strengthened to support enterprises to use digital technology, green technology to transform and upgrade traditional industries. It can be said that the double-edged sword of digital technology and green technology has become an important issue in the transformation of today’s society. Chinese President Xi Jinping has emphasized the importance of establishing mechanisms for green and low-carbon development and supporting enterprises in upgrading traditional industries with digital and green technologies. Indeed, the integration of digital and green technologies has become a vital topic in the transformation of modern society. Since the establishment of Range Group, we have been committed to the mission of industrialization and have been committed to providing green, sustainable, and smart infrastructure for the transformation of modern society. After 15 years of development, we have deployed seven intelligent computing industry members in the seven smart industrial areas, including Changshan, Yuegang, Dawan, Chengqing, Hailan, and Gansu, to contribute to the smart transformation of all industries. Since its inception, Range Group has adhered to the mission of serving the nation through industry, and is committed to providing green and sustainable computing infrastructure to support the nation’s societies in China and global nations. Over the past 15 years, we have established seven intelligent computing industry parks in China, including Hebei Province, Pinghu in Yangtze River Delta, Foshan and Huizhou in Guangdong, Chongqing, Hainan Free Trade Port, and Lanzhou in Gansu, contributing to the intelligent transformation of a set of industries. We need to pay more attention to the decoupling technology under the existing structure. China’s data centers, green energy, and national standards for energy and power use efficiency are constantly improving. The PURE value has gradually dropped from 1.6 to 1.3. We have been working on this at the frontline for a long time, and have been working hard to explore the PURE value in public and private sectors, and to further reduce the PURE value in the population. Through our continuous efforts, our data centers have been able to solve systems such as low-carb, full-fat, and smart systems through modular and integrated devices and smart operations to achieve a PURE value of around 1.15. If we use the most advanced near-freezing mode, the PURE value can be further reduced to 1.09. The power usage effectiveness PURE of data centers in line with national green energy standards has been continuously improving from 1.6 to 1.3 in the past several years as the explorers in the frontier of the industry. We have been keeping on exploring whether there is still any gap to further reduce the PURE. Through years of effort, we developed a self-designed intelligent low-carbon cooling system for data centers which optimize energy efficiency through modular design, integrated equipment, and intelligent operations. This innovation has reduced PURE to approximately 1.15 and thanks to the commercial liquid cooling methods, it can reach as low as 1.09. This project has incurred significant demonstration impact, earning us recognition as a national green data center from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and other government agencies. In the future, we believe that green development will be the ultimate trend for intelligent society and our efforts will yield more profound socio-economic impacts. We have established the Intelligent Society Research Institute in cooperation with Tsinghua University to better utilize Tsinghua University’s multi-disciplinary research and the technical and practical advantages of Runze Group to support the development of digital green system. In addition, we have jointly launched a series of forward-looking standardized and systematic work in the field of intelligent society transformation related to standardization and other issues related to multilateral conferences to further communicate our experience and results with our friends. In the meantime, we aim to address deeper institutional challenges behind digital technology’s role in green and low-carbon development. To this end, we have co-established a joint institute on intelligent society research with Tsinghua University, hoping to better leverage both Tsinghua University’s multi-disciplinary strengths and Runze Group’s technical and practical expertise. We have initiated several forward-looking projects focusing on the coordination between digital and green development, standards for intelligent society, among other important issues. In the future, we look forward to sharing our insights on important global platforms like IGF and engaging with you all on these crucial issues. Thank you. Thank you.

Xue Lan: Thank you. Let us work together to contribute to the great cause of empowering green and low-carbon development through digital technology. We have two minutes with all of you. Turn on the voice of this video. Please switch to Channel 1. Channel 1. Channel 1. Okay. A wonderful speech and also the video. And I want to take the last chance to thank you all, our distinguished experts and also audience for your patience. We really run out of time, but I think we also had a wonderful discussion today. I hope we will keep in touch and keep our passion on this important issue in our era. In the end, I would like to claim that we are closing our events today. So please keep in touch. We will see you next year. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Digital technologies can contribute to sustainable development

Torbjorn Fredriksson

Gong Ke

Long Kai

Eduardo Araral

Digital technologies can accelerate achievement of sustainable development goals

Digital technology must be people-centered and aimed at sustainability

Digital and green transformations need to be coordinated for sustainable growth

AI and digital technologies can improve climate models and energy transition planning

Multiple speakers emphasized the potential of digital technologies to support sustainable development goals and improve environmental outcomes when properly implemented and coordinated with green initiatives.

Environmental impacts of digitalization need to be addressed

Torbjorn Fredriksson

Zhou Chaonan

ICT sector generates significant greenhouse gas emissions

Production of digital devices requires large amounts of raw materials

Data centers consume increasing amounts of energy and water

Improving energy efficiency of data centers through innovative cooling systems

Speakers acknowledged the environmental challenges posed by the digital sector, particularly in terms of emissions and resource consumption, and discussed the need for innovative solutions to mitigate these impacts.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted China’s efforts to integrate digital technologies with green development initiatives, emphasizing the government’s role in promoting this coordination for sustainable growth and industrial upgrading.

Long Kai

Zhou Chaonan

China is promoting coordination of digitalization and green transformation

Establishing mechanisms to support green upgrading of industries with digital tech

Both speakers emphasized the need for comprehensive, interdisciplinary research on the implications of AI and digital technologies, particularly in relation to sustainability and social impacts.

Peng Gang

Su Jun

Importance of interdisciplinary research and education on AI and sustainability

Importance of studying social impacts of AI through large-scale experiments

Unexpected Consensus

Integration of AI and sustainability in education

Peng Gang

Dou Guimei

Importance of interdisciplinary research and education on AI and sustainability

Using AI to create smart, low-carbon campuses and education

While most discussions focused on broader policy or technological aspects, these speakers unexpectedly converged on the importance of integrating AI and sustainability concepts directly into educational settings, from university research to primary school campuses.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around the potential of digital technologies to support sustainable development, the need to address the environmental impacts of digitalization, and the importance of coordinating digital and green transformations. There was also consensus on the need for interdisciplinary research and education in these areas.

Consensus level

The level of consensus among the speakers was relatively high, particularly on the overarching themes of leveraging digital technologies for sustainability and the need for coordinated approaches. This consensus suggests a growing recognition of the interconnectedness of digital and environmental issues, which could potentially lead to more integrated policy approaches and research initiatives in the future. However, the specific strategies and implementations varied among speakers, indicating that while there is agreement on the general direction, there is still room for diverse approaches in addressing these challenges.

Different Viewpoints

Focus of digital technology implementation

Torbjorn Fredriksson

Gong Ke

Digital technologies can accelerate achievement of sustainable development goals

Digital technology must be people-centered and aimed at sustainability

While both speakers emphasize the importance of digital technology for sustainability, Fredriksson focuses on its potential to accelerate sustainable development goals, while Gong Ke stresses the need for a people-centered approach.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific focus and implementation strategies for digital technology in sustainable development.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the importance of digital technology for sustainable development but differ in their emphasis on specific aspects or approaches. This suggests a general consensus on the overall direction, which is positive for advancing the topic of digital technology empowering green and low-carbon development.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers acknowledge the energy consumption issue of data centers, but while Fredriksson highlights the problem, Zhou Chaonan focuses on solutions through innovative cooling systems.

Torbjorn Fredriksson

Zhou Chaonan

Data centers consume increasing amounts of energy and water

Improving energy efficiency of data centers through innovative cooling systems

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted China’s efforts to integrate digital technologies with green development initiatives, emphasizing the government’s role in promoting this coordination for sustainable growth and industrial upgrading.

Long Kai

Zhou Chaonan

China is promoting coordination of digitalization and green transformation

Establishing mechanisms to support green upgrading of industries with digital tech

Both speakers emphasized the need for comprehensive, interdisciplinary research on the implications of AI and digital technologies, particularly in relation to sustainability and social impacts.

Peng Gang

Su Jun

Importance of interdisciplinary research and education on AI and sustainability

Importance of studying social impacts of AI through large-scale experiments

Key Takeaways

Resolutions and Action Items

Unresolved Issues

Suggested Compromises

So the first question is, what is the overarched goal of the digitalization? What is the overarched goal? What is the digitalization we want?

speaker

Gong Ke

reason

This question frames the entire discussion by pushing participants to consider the fundamental purpose of digitalization, rather than just its technical aspects.

impact

It set the tone for subsequent speakers to address not just how to implement digital technologies, but why and to what end, particularly in relation to sustainability goals.

We need to both help countries to deal with the costs of digitalization in terms of the environment but we also need to continue to support countries that are far behind in order for them to be able to use digital technologies to address the environmental concerns.

speaker

Torbjorn Fredriksson

reason

This comment highlights the complex challenge of balancing digitalization’s environmental costs with its potential benefits, especially for developing countries.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include global equity concerns and the need for a nuanced approach to digital development that considers both environmental and economic factors.

AI is one of our greatest inventions in our history. But in the future, people must not and shall not become slavers of technology.

speaker

Su Jun

reason

This statement encapsulates both the promise and potential pitfalls of AI, emphasizing the need for human-centered development.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards the ethical implications of AI and digital technologies, prompting consideration of how to ensure technology serves humanity rather than the reverse.

So in the age of AI, how to deal with the full growth of elementary school students’ lives and the harmony of getting along with us in this era.

speaker

Dou Guimei

reason

This comment brings the discussion to a practical, grassroots level by considering how AI impacts education and child development.

impact

It introduced a new perspective on the application of AI and digital technologies in everyday life, particularly in education, broadening the scope of the discussion beyond high-level policy considerations.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by expanding its scope from technical implementation to broader considerations of purpose, global equity, ethics, and practical applications in areas like education. They encouraged a more holistic view of digitalization and its impacts on society, environment, and human development. The discussion evolved from focusing solely on how to implement digital technologies to critically examining why and for whom these technologies should be developed, emphasizing the need for a human-centered, sustainable approach to digital transformation.

How can we use AI to do complex modeling of clean energy transition?

speaker

Eduardo Araral

explanation

This is important to better understand and predict the factors influencing clean energy adoption, which could inform policy decisions and strategies for accelerating the transition.

How can we further reduce the Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) of data centers?

speaker

Zhou Chaonan

explanation

Continuing to improve energy efficiency in data centers is crucial for reducing the environmental impact of digital infrastructure as demand for computing power grows.

How can we better integrate digital transformation and green development policies?

speaker

Torbjorn Fredriksson

explanation

Improved policy integration is necessary to ensure that digitalization supports rather than hinders environmental sustainability goals.

How can we address the ‘double bind’ faced by developing countries in terms of digitalization and environmental costs?

speaker

Torbjorn Fredriksson

explanation

This is important to ensure that developing countries can both benefit from digital opportunities and manage the environmental impacts of digitalization.

How can we move towards a more circular digital economy?

speaker

Torbjorn Fredriksson

explanation

Transitioning to a circular model is crucial for reducing the environmental footprint of digital technologies, particularly in terms of resource extraction and e-waste management.

How can we strengthen interdisciplinary education in AI, digital technologies, and societal governance?

speaker

Peng Gang

explanation

This is important for cultivating talents who can address the complex challenges at the intersection of digital technology and sustainable development.

How can we enhance collaboration among stakeholders (governments, industries, academia, and research institutions) to address challenges in digital and green development?

speaker

Peng Gang

explanation

Improved collaboration is necessary to drive innovation and practical applications in sustainable digital development.

How can we promote global cooperation in technology communications, standards alignment, and financial integration for digital and green development?

speaker

Peng Gang

explanation

International cooperation is crucial for ensuring that the benefits of digital and green technologies are inclusive and globally distributed.

Summary

This discussion focused on the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) and digital health technologies to replace or augment doctors in healthcare delivery. Participants explored how AI could address healthcare shortages, improve quality of care, and enhance patient experiences. They discussed the advantages of AI, including 24/7 availability, personalized care, and the ability to process vast amounts of medical knowledge. However, concerns were raised about the digital divide, potential loss of human touch in healthcare, and the need for proper regulation and ethical considerations.

The panel highlighted successful implementations of digital health solutions in low-resource settings, such as MomConnect in South Africa, which provides maternal health information via mobile phones. They emphasized the importance of building trust in AI systems and ensuring they are culturally appropriate and accessible to all populations. The discussion touched on how AI could liberate healthcare workers from administrative burdens and allow them to focus on more complex cases.

While some panelists believed AI could largely replace primary care visits and certain specialties like radiology, others argued for a hybrid model where AI augments rather than replaces human doctors. The importance of training future healthcare professionals to work alongside AI was stressed. The panel concluded that while AI will significantly transform healthcare delivery, human touch will likely remain valuable in certain aspects of care. They emphasized the need for continued research, careful implementation, and addressing equity concerns as AI becomes more prevalent in healthcare.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The potential for AI and digital health technologies to augment or replace doctors, especially for primary care

– Challenges around trust, quality, and equity in implementing AI/digital health solutions

– The changing relationship between patients, doctors and technology in healthcare delivery

– The need to address the digital divide and ensure access to digital health tools in rural/underserved areas

– The importance of human touch and empathy in healthcare, even as technology advances

Overall purpose/goal:

The discussion aimed to explore how AI and digital health technologies are reshaping healthcare delivery, and to what extent they may replace or augment the role of doctors, especially in resource-constrained settings.

Tone:

The overall tone was optimistic about the potential of technology to improve healthcare access and quality, while also being thoughtful about challenges and ethical considerations. There was a mix of excitement about technological possibilities and caution about potential downsides or unintended consequences. The tone became more speculative towards the end when panelists were directly asked if AI would replace doctors.

Speakers

– Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Chairman of the board for HIMSS India, moderator of the discussion

– Peter Preziosi: President of CGFNS Global, a nurse by training

– Mevish P. Vaishnav: Leader of the International Patients Union

– Zaw Ali Khan: From the American University of Barbados

– Debbie Rogers: Runs Village Outreach in Africa

– May Siksik: Runs the Innovation Network Canada

Additional speakers:

– Melody Musoni: Works for a think tank called ECDPM

– Sakshi Pandita: Moderating online questions

AI and Digital Health: Transforming Healthcare Delivery

This discussion, moderated by Rajendra Pratap Gupta, explored the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) and digital health technologies to reshape healthcare delivery, particularly in resource-constrained settings. The panel, comprising experts from various healthcare and technology backgrounds, examined how AI could address healthcare shortages, improve quality of care, and enhance patient experiences.

Historical Context and Potential Impact

Rajendra Pratap Gupta opened the discussion by reflecting on his predictions from 10 years ago about technology eliminating middlemen in healthcare and bringing services closer to users. This set the stage for exploring how AI and digital health are now poised to revolutionize healthcare delivery.

The panelists generally agreed that AI and digital health technologies have significant potential to augment and transform healthcare. Peter Preziosi highlighted his work in Rwanda, where remote patient monitoring devices and nurse-led primary care models are being implemented. May Siksik, from the Innovation Network Canada, suggested that AI could provide more personalized and empathetic care than time-constrained doctors, especially for cultural minorities like First Nations.

Debbie Rogers, who runs Village Outreach in Africa, emphasized the potential of digital health tools to improve access to care in underserved areas. She cited successful implementations such as MomConnect in South Africa, which provides maternal health information via mobile phones and has significantly improved maternal health outcomes. Another example mentioned was the use of AI-powered sonograms in Ghana.

Mevish P. Vaishnav, leader of the International Patients Union, introduced the Patient Centricity Index, a tool developed to measure and improve patient-centered care. Interestingly, both Vaishnav and Rogers noted that patients, especially youth, may trust and engage more with AI-powered health services, particularly for sensitive topics like sexual and reproductive health.

Challenges and Considerations

Despite the optimism, the panel identified several challenges in implementing AI in healthcare:

1. Digital divide: Rogers emphasized the need to address inequitable access to digital health tools in rural and underserved areas.

2. Cost and infrastructure: Preziosi highlighted barriers in low-resource settings, while Rogers provided specific cost comparisons (20 cents vs $10.20 per user per year for different AI solutions).

3. Cultural context: Rogers pointed out the need for localization of AI solutions, noting that current large language models are primarily trained on Western culture and medicine.

4. Regulatory and ethical considerations: Zaw Ali Khan stressed the importance of these factors in AI adoption.

5. Maintaining human touch: An audience member raised concerns about preserving empathy and in-person care options.

6. Misinformation: Melody Musoni, an audience member, brought up concerns about quality control in digital health information, particularly around fad diets and miracle cures.

Future Role of Healthcare Professionals

The panel had differing views on the extent to which AI might replace doctors:

– Khan suggested that AI may replace primary care centers and some specialized roles.

– Rogers proposed that doctors who use AI will replace those who don’t.

– Siksik envisioned AI as part of interdisciplinary healthcare teams.

– Preziosi maintained that human touch would remain important for some aspects of care.

– Vaishnav and Siksik believed that AI could replace the majority of doctor visits, particularly in primary care.

There was agreement on the need to train a new generation of doctors to work effectively with AI, as highlighted by Khan. This suggests a future where healthcare professionals work alongside AI technologies rather than being entirely replaced by them.

Key Takeaways and Emerging Trends

1. AI has the potential to reduce medical errors and address healthcare worker burnout.

2. The cost of implementing AI solutions is decreasing while computational power is increasing, as noted by an audience member.

3. AI may provide more transparent explanations for diagnoses and treatment recommendations compared to overworked healthcare workers.

4. There’s a need for academic institutions to adopt digital health solutions and train future healthcare professionals in their use.

5. Despite the rise of digital solutions, there may still be a continued need for human doctors, analogous to the resurgence of physical bookstores despite e-books (as pointed out by Rogers).

Conclusion

The discussion highlighted both the transformative potential of AI in healthcare and the complex challenges that must be addressed for its successful implementation. While there was general optimism about AI’s ability to improve healthcare access and quality, particularly in resource-constrained settings, the panelists also emphasized the need for careful consideration of ethical, regulatory, and cultural factors. As healthcare continues to evolve with technological advancements, finding the right balance between AI-driven efficiency and human-centered care remains a critical challenge for the future of healthcare delivery.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: conversational AI and low income and source settings. The whole idea was to check the level of awareness people have on the word conversational AI and what is the relevance. To most of us who are in this field, it is chatbots. But trust me, despite asking people, we couldn’t get a speaker from our vast network on LinkedIn. When we wrote we need speakers on conversational AI, so-called president of the associations in digital health said we do not know this field. Actually, it is chatbots. We had a very good panel with us that time, the head of AI at WHO, the president of humans.ai, Sabin Dima, Dinu, who is the CIO of the United Nations Staff Pension Fund, and Dr. Olubosa from Nigeria. We ran a good session. And a year now, we are actually talking about, will AI replace doctors? But let’s go back 10 years into history. I think I need to check. Can you move the slides, please? So as the chairman of the board for HIMSS India, 10 years ago, I told doctors that the future is tech, please, tech, IGF. Tech, please, tech, IGF. This is what the slide was. The technology eliminates middlemen. Today, if your doctors don’t need technology, technology would not need them in the future. And 10 years fast forward, we are in 2024, heading into 2025, which is just a decade after. And look at what has happened. And let me also go back to share what I presented at that point in time. I think I need more. Some issue with the presentation, we’re just going to sort it out. I think whenever we talk about doctors and AI, some technological glitch comes in, which I’m not very surprised because they are a very powerful stakeholder in this discussion. Can we manually move the slides, please? Can we? So let me talk to you, technology moves faster than I can. I’m sorry about that. That’s the way it is. Sorted out? So, no, no, no. So look at this slide. You know, those of you who have used the PCO booths to go and make calls and the long distance trunk calls. And what happened when the cell phone moved analog to the technology move from analog to digital? You know, we can make calls from cell phones wherever we want, whenever we want. And now you can use your watch to make phones. So effectively, technology has progressed. And what it has done is eliminated the middle person. You know, you don’t need to go to a PCO booth. You don’t need to use. Lines for a trunk call, you can use it from your cell phone. I use my cell phone. I sometimes don’t carry my phone at all. Next slide, please. Next. And this is another interesting slide on the entertainment sector. We had this huge antenna. Sometimes it was 70 feet. You need to connect to get to watch maybe seven, eight channels. What happened when it moved? Entertainment moved from analog to digital. You moved to a set-top box. And now, anything you want to watch, you just pay for it. And it’s at your convenience. So what it does, technology is taking that middleman away. Again, it took the middleman away. There is no need for antenna. I don’t need a set-top box. You don’t need a provider of that service in your area. You are connected globally through the satellite system. Next slide, please. This is my most favorite slide. At one time, Kodak and Fuji were fighting for the color of the prints. And they were talking about the quality. Digital photography came in. And Canon actually is the one which came in. And what appeared was both of them literally became bankrupt. But that was not the end of the story. We have now mobile phones which have the camera. So you can look at what has happened is we have moved a whole lot of generation moving analog to digital. Now, in everything you will see is that we eliminated the middleman. Same happened with libraries and the bookstores. Today, you have your Kindle or your e-book reader. And you can actually read whichever book you want. I carry hundreds of books on my Kindle. And what effectively happens is technology gets you closer to the user and eliminates the connector. Now, if I take these slides back to my health, what I believe is that when a product, service, or a sector undergo the digital transition, analog to digital, intermediary goes off. And health care has a lot of intermediaries right now. So I think the fate of clinicians is a foregone conclusion. And this is what I’ve been saying for over a decade. I’m going to stop here and look at asking my expert panel, which is with me, is like, what do we feel about the future? Are we going to have a day where AI will see you now is going to happen instead of the doctor will see you now? So I’m going to put this question to Dr. Peter Pezziosi. Dr. Peter, thanks for joining us. I think it’s too early in the morning or too late in the night for you to join us. I’m sorry for the dot R. But thank you for taking our time. Peter Pezziosi is the president of CGFNS Global. And he’s done extensive work in terms of trying to provide relief to people where clinicians are in short supply through nurses. Dr. Peter Pezziosi, what’s your experience of working in Rwanda? Would you want to share with us?

Peter Preziosi: Sure, definitely. And I’ll be very brief. But, Rahendra, I agree. I think it’s here and it’s even coming. And I agree with you about the displacement as we look at these medical brains that are coming that are powered by AI and AI engines that are looking at technology. Just for background, I lead a 50-year-old global assessment and certification organization supporting the mobility of nurses and allied health professionals worldwide. Earlier this year, we began searching for the right partners to evaluate some technology-enabled new models of care in the primary care and public health space. Working with the Society for Family Health in Rwanda and a remote patient monitoring device manufacturer, Medwand, what we did is we set out to establish a model of nurse care. nurse-led primary care that would be easily replicated across the globe, cost-effective, co-dependent on technology, and one that promotes access to care and prevention. This model will contribute to already existing task-shifting initiatives that help to bring care closer to the communities. The Society for Family Health is Rwanda’s premier organization for providing health to rural communities throughout Rwanda by constructing and equipping health posts operated by nurses. Under our protocols that we’ve developed, we’ve embarked on a journey that we believe will impact health prevention, health promotion and preventive care around the globe. We see this by empowering nurses, community health workers, and other allied health professionals by equipping them with the right technology tools to provide care. And to seek for a second opinion when they have to. So this is still emerging that we’re looking at. We believe this care solution will reduce the number of referrals that are transferred to upstream health facilities that are already crowded and lack adequate resources, and make the model for an integral part of primary healthcare. The model will also contribute to job creation by allowing nurses to increase their healthcare portfolio and entrepreneurship. So far, we’re in five remote locations that have been identified in rural Rwanda that center around designated health posts and district hospitals. Healthcare workers at those locations have been trained on the MedOne device that captures all vital signs and some more functionalities critical in providing primary care. So within this remote patient monitoring device, it includes a thermometer, stethoscope, ECG, EKG, pulse oximeter. a high-definition camera that can be used to view inside the ear, nose, throat, and skin, as well as integrate with any blood pressure monitor, glucometer, and spirometer. The device is synced with a tablet, which is used to capture, store, and transmit information, and also make it possible to have real-time consultations via video conference. Early indicators have been very positive. The health post workers have shown the ability to adapt to the technology and have communicated the anticipated decrease of time needed for diagnosis with the ability to send data real-time to advanced practice nurses. The community has shown an increased receptiveness and indications of better compliance when diagnosis is accelerated. Travel times and distance are reduced significantly. The physician staffs receiving information in hospitals in the major hubs are less burdened to have to track data, and their response time is reduced on their behalf as well. So, overall, we’re confident that our original intent will have the strong empirical data needed to impact the lives of many by reducing cost, improving health, increasing reach, and empowering a new up-skilled health workforce. Over the next few months, we’ll be gathering hard data to prove that the nurse-led primary healthcare model can have an impact in rural communities in Africa and then also beyond in other continents. Thanks, Rajendra.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you so much, Peter, and I think you made very important points of moving from a doctor-centric system to a lot of health professionals like nurses. And we have a work which we are doing with nurses and pharmacists, and we believe that the future of healthcare lies in digital health plus nurses or digital health plus pharmacists and not necessarily just doctors. That being said, I think we have to move forward. you also leveraging artificial intelligence and empowering nurses to take on-spot decisions with regard to patients’ queries, needs, and serving them?

Peter Preziosi: We have a new initiative actually funded through Johnson & Johnson that will be started in Ghana. It’s AI-powered sonograms to detect hypertension in pregnant women to prevent the maternal child deaths that are so prevalent in Ghana. So we’re looking at that. There are other initiatives, some point-of-care solutions that we want to test in other areas. And actually, we started to talk with you and love to work with you on looking at various primary care providers that could really help. I think nutrition, registered dieticians will be very useful. And I’m pleased to see that the International Patients Union is on this panel because I think that that’s an important role to really look at this from a consumer perspective. Because I think what we are going to have to look at is helping to provide self-care solutions to the patient community before they even need to get to nurses, allied health professionals, and others.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you so much, Peter. And I think it makes my job easier to switch to the Patients Union representative here. Mavish, you run the International Patients Union. And is there something that you want to share with this panel on the prospects of replacing the need for doctors in settings where you didn’t just need OTC-based medications or acute care problems? And what are you doing in that area for the patients?

Mevish P. Vaishnav: Good morning, everyone. This is Mavish from India. And I lead the International Patients Union. In the health care sector, if you see, everybody is organized, be it doctors, nurses, pharmacists. but patients are the one who are unorganized. Nobody hears them. So, at International Patients Union, we have a platform, the Patients Union, where we provide a platform for the patients to voice their opinions, their concerns, and share their views. They can share their views with other patients so that they can get well-managed for their diseases. If you see at Patients Union, we are making artificial intelligence, the authentic intelligence. Medical science is a science. So, if you say, I have a fever, I’ll give you a paracetamol. If you say, I have a cold, I’ll give you the medicine for cold. If you have a pain, I’ll give you the medicine for pain. That’s a painkiller. But, if all these things can be put into a system, which is AI-backed, it can actually help doctors as well as patients. Patients doesn’t need to travel from 40 kilometers or 30 kilometers to just visit a doctor for primary care. The doctors can be saved from their timing to see the secondary care and tertiary care, the surgeries. And through this system, we at Patients Union are developing a program. We have launched the Patient Centricity Index, through which every system has been put, like the symptoms of the diseases. If you just open your app and say, I have following symptoms for my knee pain or something like that, it will throw you with the diseases, the right prescription for it. And this way, we can actually save time for doctors. So, yes, AI is important and can be helpful in the primary care.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: So, you’re saying, Mehwish, that patients in India will be able to get their information about healthcare needs, not from the net, which is unverified, but from Patients Union without even meeting a doctor, is that right? Yes. So, effectively, this will be probably the first experiments of its kind where patients can get information about primary care from an artificial intelligence-backed system.

Mevish P. Vaishnav: Yes, it is an authentic data that will help them.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Fantastic. Zaw Ali Khan is with us from the American University of Barbados. Zoh, you run an academic organization, but you also are a tech czar in terms of bringing new tech to healthcare. Given what’s going around the world, do you think it’s time for us to prioritize where do we invest clinicians’ time and how much of their role we replace with technology? What’s your view on that?

Zaw Ali Khan: Thank you, Dr. Rajan, for inviting me to this session. I feel that there are certainly many use cases where the clinician’s role can completely be… eliminated, not just for the sake of providing convenience to the patient, but also for reducing the workload of the doctors themselves. So there are plenty of use cases that would see the replacement of doctors with technology altogether. But there are certain, I feel, you know, challenges where it’s a softer approach which will help. Because, you know, as far as the regulatory issues are concerned, you need to have doctors on board to approve these tools. And in order to have them on board, you need to make them feel safe and give them the confidence to use these tools. So for that, I feel that the role of academic organisations is paramount. Because, you know, the doctors that have already practised their whole life in a certain way, asking them to change, asking them to adopt a new thing, means you’re basically telling them that whatever you were doing so far was inadequate. There were some limitations in that. And that’s a very hard or very bitter pill to swallow. And instead of that, if you were to highlight their own challenges and how tools and technologies are sorting those issues, then they’d be more on board with this idea. And this is what I’m talking about, the more experienced doctors who are at the tail end of their career. But of course, they are the stalwarts. If they were to, you know, join these pioneering efforts, then everyone else will follow. At the same time, you also need a new generation of doctors who are capable of navigating these digital tools. So over there, again, the academic organisations have a role of making sure, first of all, these academic organisations any of the teaching hospitals, they themselves need to adopt more and more digital health solutions so that they can demonstrate to the students. Unless they adopt themselves, they won’t be able to demonstrate. Secondly, once they have demonstrated all of that, they need a structured course for that. And we have been fortunate enough to partner with the Digital Health Academy for providing our students with an elective for digital health. So that’s a structured course which is delivered by experts from around the world. And lastly, so first thing I said, more adoption of health tools by making sure that the health care workers don’t feel threatened, at least at the get-go. And actually, it is not a threat. Because the main problem that you’re trying to solve is the shortage of health care workers. And a related problem that you’re trying to solve is health care worker burnout. So if you’re solving burnout, every health care worker would help you achieve that goal. So focus on burnout. Focus on, from the perspective of health care workers, focus on burnout. From the perspective of patients, focus on medical errors. From the perspective of health care organizations or health care systems, focus on the shortage of health care workers. It’s the same problem, but just with three different angles. And once you’ve done that, then all the stakeholders will come together to adopt more of these solutions. And ultimately, of course, everyone, once they start seeing the benefits, I’m sure that one or two generations down the line, they’d be surprised that, oh, we used to have PHCs. So that’s the future that I envision. And I hope that we’re able to accelerate that.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: So this is very interesting, the point that you make. And at the Academy of Digital Health Sciences, where we run courses on doctors, our experience has been very different. The doctors who take courses are like 30 years, 40 years experience. And when they pass the course after one year, they’re as excited as kids, sending what they created to their sons, grandsons. And the unfounded fear becomes forces that help them. So that’s what we have seen in doctors. So we’re going to see a competence divide. But what is a worrying and probably a call to action for clinicians, everyone, I guess, is like the slides that I showed. The technology didn’t wait for the sector to evolve. It just disrupted it. So the fact is that whether doctors adopt it or not, technology is going to invade that. That’s a fact of life. Our studies show that some of the specialties will get totally replaced, which is a very, very strong statement to make. But when I look back at the statements made 10 years back, that actually come true. I think fields like radiology, dermatology may not be doing well with just doctors. AI can do a phenomenal job out there. But there are surgeries where robotics plus surgeons are needed. Specialists may be needed for neurology and other cardiology sector. But AI is getting matured with time. I mean, that’s what we’ve been seeing. And now let me get to Debbie Rogers, who joined us from Africa. Debbie, you run Village Outreach in Africa. And countries like India, Africa, and other LMIC countries face a huge shortfall of doctors. What do we do? Do we wait for doctors to get prepared and be MBBS, MDMS? Or do you bring technology? Because there’s nothing that exists. What do you say?

Debbie Rogers: I definitely am a proponent of bringing technology into the mix to relieve some of the burden on the health care system. In sub-Saharan Africa, we have 14% of the world’s population. but 25% of the world’s disease burden and only 3% of the health workers. So if you look at those stats, it’s very easy to see that if we just keep trying to train more and more health workers, we’re not going to get anywhere. We have to be using technology to be able to augment the work of health workers. And the way we think about this is we think about moving care from the facility. A lot of work has happened to move care into the community with community health workers. But with a mobile phone, you can move care from the facility to the community to somebody’s own home. And so we use very simple technology, technology like SMS and WhatsApp to communicate directly to citizens and to help them from a self-care perspective, but also to access the right services at the right time. An example of this is a program we’ve been running for 10 years in South Africa called Mom Connect. And basically every mother who goes into a clinic for her first ANC visit is signed up to the platform. And throughout her pregnancy and up until the baby is 10 years old, she is able to receive messaging, which will help her to care for herself and to understand better how to care for her baby as well. And we’ve seen really great results both on self-care. So things like better nutrition and uptake of breastfeeding to access to services like uptake of family planning after birth, improved attendance of ANC visits. So we can really see that something as simple as an engaging platform delivered directly to a mobile phone. You don’t have to have any training. It’s exactly what you do to communicate to your friends and family that can have a huge impact on health and it can relieve a lot of the burden on the health care system. So that the health workers can be doing the work that they really need to be doing and not the work. that can be taken over by technology. I think for me, I don’t know if we can say necessarily that we will replace doctors, but I certainly believe that doctors who use AI and use technology will definitely be replaced by those who don’t. I mean, the other way around, those who don’t use it will be replaced by those who do. Because I think it’s going to make their work so much more efficient and effective. It’s going to make patient experience much better and people are going to vote with their feet and they’re going to go where the patient experience is better. And I think that’s definitely where I see things going is very much more task shifting, different tasks going to different caters of health workers. And those who use AI and use technology are definitely going to be replacing those who don’t.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: David, do you think, you know, we have been always saying that doctors who use digital health replace those who don’t, but do you think there could be an extension of this saying that the healthcare workers who use digital health will replace doctors who don’t? You know, because I can tell you, you know, this is not coming just because I’m sitting on this dais on IGF and I’m saying, there’s a hospital where they segregate the high-risk pregnancies with normal pregnancies. And I was told by the chairman of that hospital, who is a doctor, this hospital has been around for 76 years, that in normal pregnancies, the mother does not see a doctor even after delivery. It is the nurses who handle it. So, and they use technology. So just imagine how much precious time of the doctor, the gynecologist or obstetrician is saved because the delivery happens only through nurses. And this is not a small number. I mean, this is, I’m talking of India and this hospital has been doing it. So, I mean, I’m, you know, getting to the stage to conclude, that India has been an evangelist of technology. I was skeptic, you know, in the beginning, you know, thinking that it will not happen. But as I see over the last few decades, I think technology has been showing itself with great confidence. commitment and accuracy now. So do you think that other healthcare professionals like, you know, our friend, Dr. Peter Preziosi is doing in Rwanda and Ghana, will other clinicians who use technology replace doctors? Because given, I mean, I see your numbers, India has the same problem. You have 25% of disease burden, 3% of workers, no way on earth you’re going to match them over the next few decades. No way. So do you think technology will be…

Debbie Rogers: I agree, there’s gonna be massive task shifting and things that were previously deemed as only able to be done by certain specialists are going to be, is going to be able to be done by somebody who does not have the same amount of training plus technology. So I do think the task shifting and moving from one cater to another is definitely gonna happen. And we see it happening already because just out of necessity, I mean, in Sub-Saharan Africa, there aren’t enough doctors to reach everybody. So a huge amount of the care is already on nurses. I do think though, we have to think carefully about the fact that we still have too few nurses and we still have too few community health workers and we still have a problem of burnout, which means that as fast as we’re training people, we’re losing them. And I think we have to think very carefully about, and I do believe this is an important role of technology, removing the burden from healthcare workers so that they can do what they really need to be doing rather than things that can be done by technology. And I think that’s gonna help an enormous amount to relieve that huge dearth of healthcare workers that we have worldwide, not just in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thanks, Debbie. You know, I’ll add to that, we are very lucky to have one of the leaders in India who is the president of the Indian Nursing Council, Dr. Dilip. You know, what we have done as Academy of Digital Health Sciences, we have partnered with him to train 2 million nurses on digital health. And same thing we have now done with pharmacists, we’re going to train 400,000. on digital health. I think these could do phenomenal work and I think by next year, IGF, we’ll be able to show the impact we have created training of most like, I think within now and then, we should aim to touch half a million of them trained. Eventually we’ll train maybe three million of nurses and pharmacists to take on some of the frontal roles. But having said that, now I have with me Dr. May Seksek. She runs the Innovation Network Canada. May, you have been leading the Innovation Network and you’re building a new healthcare model. Where does technology fit in the model? Is it going to be more dominant than the clinicians or it’s going to be just again back to the same old model? And going by the fact that Canada is among the handful of countries which pioneered digital health. My very dear friend Richard Alvarez was the President and CEO of Canada Infobae which was the first government organization to implement digital health. What’s your take on that?

May Siksik: I want to say sorry Thanks Rajendra. I wanted to say that Debbie has brought up really important statistics and some critical information here. The demand for healthcare is rocketing and supply is still a space. The system is destined to crash at some point. From my perspective, it’s again going back to these stats, we really need to have technology that is able to support the healthcare system We really need to have technology take care of what’s on doctors and nurses. I think that’s really important. So in the system that we’ve developed, one of the main concerns right now based diagnosis and so on is the fact that large language models will not hallucinate. This is one of the things that we’re working on. You can hear me? Okay, perfect. So one of the things that we really need to address is hallucination. Right now, AI-based diagnosis cannot be working on right now. I think we really need to address that. And we’re working actively at Innovation Network with academic organizations to address this issue so that we can actually have an AI-based system that can be qualified to do such tasks without a human supervising it. And I think that’s really important because then we can save a massive amount of time from healthcare professionals. Doctors, for example, in Canada, they get paid by every 15 minutes. And I mean, most of the time, it’s very difficult to actually address a medical case, especially with complex medical cases, within 15 minutes, which means that they’re not really able to do their job as well as they can and they should. So having, I mean, the way I think about it is that it’s having, for example, medical AI-based medical diagnosis is like having a co-pilot for doctors. You know, you wouldn’t set foot on a plane if you don’t know that there’s a co-pilot that’s for redundancy. Yet we go to doctors and who, I work with a lot of physicians and I hear from them that mistakes are often made and often they get buried with doctors. So it’s important to have these tools for doctors to not just empower patients, but also empower doctors as well. Another aspect I wanna bring is the fact that I don’t think they’ll ever be able to, AI will ever be able to completely eliminate doctors. I think we’ll always have, but we’ll save tremendously in terms of the time that’s needed from doctors. I think there are two aspects here. One of them is the fact that we’re always, you know, we are human beings and. We often, we need that interaction and assurance from doctors. We also need to understand for, especially complex medical issues where we need to look at different factors like ethnic background and culture and so on. You need to have that contextual understanding. Now, having said that, this has been a huge source of medical errors that actually literally led to fatal issues for patients. So it’s a double-edged sword. We need, doctors can be really good at understanding contextual context for medical cases, but at the same time, they can also make mistakes because of context, because they’re drawing patterns and so on. So again, going back to having that co-pilot from technology is really important.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: May, and I would ask you that if you were to start moving from your driver driving you versus a car which is driven autonomous, would you do that?

May Siksik: Would I use an autonomous driving vehicle? Yeah. So in fact, I mean, I have actually worked in compliance for a safety standard for autonomous driving vehicles. I’ve worked very closely on this field and I can tell you, so my job was actually to really oversee where mistakes can happen and the system could result in fatal issues. And because of that back, and it was quite a complex process so I worked with all, so, and you can see that mistakes could happen and compliance is extremely important. So you really need to have a standard where you actually have to check things. So, and this is going back to, we really need to qualify AI.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: So May, in this May, this is the month of May, I will. in U.S. delivering the opening address at ADA and I decided to use an autonomous vehicle, PIMO. I didn’t have a problem. It’s the worst thing. To a doctor, you go once in a year, probably twice in a year. If you’re a chronic patient, multiple times. But in heavy traffic in the United States, in the morning or evening, you won’t drive and take the risk. But I decided to do that. Let me tell you, it was pretty safe. If I can trust a driverless car and reach there, again, going back to the presentation I made 10 years ago in Hames, what essentially this technology is doing is taking the middleman away. There’s no driver in the car. I reached my destination on time. The driver doesn’t, you know, fleece me by taking a longer road, charging me more. I’m just charged. I go to my destination. So if you trust a driverless car, why won’t we trust a doctorless surgery with a robot?

May Siksik: So I totally agree with you, but driverless cars have a standard that they must be compliant with. And I can tell you, it’s a very, very complex and big process. So you’ve got auditors that come and make sure that it’s compliant. And we can do that, Rajendra, with medical-based diagnosis. And I think we’re getting close to there. We’re not 100% there yet. We’re not, we’re not, we can’t qualify yet, but we need to get there. We need to have a standard and we need to be able to say we’re compliant with the standards.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Yeah. And I agree. And going to Mavesh, you know, you’re talking of patients. Are patients ready to accept this kind of technology? I mean, Mavesh, I want to throw this question that you run Patients Union. Are patients ready to accept AI as a doctor? So if you say AI first, doctor later, would they accept it?

Mevish P. Vaishnav: Yes. So there is a study where it states that six out of 10 patients know digital health, but two out of 10 doctors know digital health. So awareness, that is important. And doctors are more prone towards, you know, when a patient, I can share an experience with you. family member went to a doctor and she asked her can you prescribe me DTX she was like what is that so she’s not aware about DTX so it gives a thought or maybe a doubt for a patient that if a doctor doesn’t know about this technology how will she be able to help me in my managing diabetes so yes patients are more prone and they are more accessible to AI they would love to be a part of AI where there are zero errors I would not say zero errors but negligible errors.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: thanks my wish and this brings me to a very important point that may 6 I grades you know about the empathy so may today my social media knows more about me than my doctor you know they tracked me what I do using my phone it tracks me what I do using my computer what I like what I do like the tone through my phone when I talk so it could be more you know personable to me in terms of personalizing the content the way I speak the way I like and how many seconds I need a response so if I have a doctor that AI doctor would be more empathetic won’t get angry because I get angry very often so do you see that technology is better in terms of empathy than a human doctor.

May Siksik: Actually yes so but having said that I do think that technology can be better than doctors at in terms of empathy but having said that sometimes a patient at a hospital will need for certain cases they will need humans so all I’m saying is that we can’t eliminate doctors in terms of empathy and I want to say that I mean using AI based tech for medicine is is critical actually right we actually are losing lives right now because people can go to a clinic and not have access to the right diagnosis and so I talked about I talked about the tiny bit of hallucination that an AI system does does, but humans make way more errors, way more errors than, than, than doctors. I just, just to be making my job easier.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you.

May Siksik: It’s true. I just, I mean, I need to, uh, we need to talk about all aspects of this. Right.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: So that’s a reality check. So going to ZAW, that’s all running an academic organization where you do research and you work across multiple countries, what do you think about AI being more empathetic, being more accurate, because there’s a two challenges that will come in the way of creating trust for technology.

Zaw Ali Khan: Yeah. Thank you, Rajenji. Uh, so as far as AI, uh, knowing more about me than I know about myself, I would frame it that way. Uh, I recently got to know that, uh, you know, if you ask chat GPT, uh, uh, how would a typical day, uh, based on what you know about me, if you give a chat GPT prompt prompt saying that, uh, based on what you know about me, what would my desk look like, or what would my workplace look like? So it’s able to recreate that quite accurately based because of the, uh, frequency and detail of interactions that we are having with these, uh, AI models. So, uh, imagine if we were to have health, uh, related, uh, interactions with these AI models, uh, as frequently as we are having work related, uh, uh, interactions, uh, that would be, uh, many times more, um, I mean, in terms of magnitude, I would say exponentially more personalized than any, what any doctor or healthcare worker can provide. Uh, it’s of course not physical. It’s not a physically or humanly possible for doctors to provide that level of personalization as. Ms. May said that doctors are getting 15 minutes with the patient and in UK I’ve heard that they get 7 minutes or 8 minutes on average. So it’s impossible to even diagnose many of the conditions in that short amount of time let alone give a personalized empathetic care to the patients. So I agree that digital tool has that potential.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Some countries they get 34 seconds. If I remember correctly it was Bangladesh you know where doctor gets 34 seconds or so. So even if it is any other country 34 seconds one minute you can’t even pronounce the name and the problem of a patient you know how will you diagnose. That means you have made up your mind to prescribe something and the patient has just come in on time. Yeah so that’s another that technology won’t do by the way because there will be a digital footprint of what you do. So Peter coming to you given your global experience and you are a nurse by training. That’s correct. And I think you are closest to the patient than the doctor. That’s why I call it like doctor says still close to God doctor and nurse is closest to the patient. How do you see this relationship between technology patient and the clinician evolving?

Peter Preziosi: I agree with many many of the comments that were stated earlier. I think the challenge is that we tend to be focused throughout the world on a medical model and the challenge that we face we face in communities is that clinicians are not working at the top of their capabilities and for a variety of different reasons. Many times if you’re talking about you know physicians, nurses, pharmacists, they’re they’re struggling with the morass of administrative paperwork that’s not necessary for them, takes them away from clinical direct clinical care. As a number of the panelists were mentioning, these AI-enabled tools, digital health tools, are partners to really enable people, clinicians, to be able to work at the top of their capability. But there’s so much more that happens, and it’s very different based on the jurisdictions that you’re talking about, the different countries that you work in. From a regulatory, legislative perspective, there are professional turf battles. And why I’m so thrilled to see the patient’s union here is that we talk a lot about patient-centered care, but we’ve got to really bring that patient involved and engaged in the services that are being provided because they should be much more empowered in terms of what it is that they need to do. Because if you look at it, just take the issue of obesity. Obesity is rampant now around the world because people are not eating properly. They’re not exercising properly. Aging is a challenge that there’s no cure for, really. Maybe there will be a digital cure into the future. But the issue is that there are many health issues that don’t succumb to a traditional medical model. So we just have to start to begin to turn some of that upside down and look at the appropriateness of care. I think it was Debbie that said earlier, looking at the right care at the right time, right place. These are the issues that we have to get better, and I do believe digital health solutions will help to augment and assist us in moving more into those areas.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you, Peter, so much. And to those who have joined online, I would say put your questions in the. we’re going to take questions, we’re going to dedicate substantial amount of time for questions. But you know, this brings me to Debbie and Debbie, you know, that countries like Africa, India with billions of population, and there’s so much less resource in terms of doctors, of course, India in the last few years has done phenomenally in terms of adding doctors, we add now 175,000 doctors every year, which effectively means that in next five years, we would double the number of doctors we already have. Having said that now with technology taking dominant role, and number of doctors coming up more. And now going back to Africa as a region where some patients may not have seen a doctor in their lifetime. How will they understand the difference between technology and a doctor? I mean, if I present them, hey, look, there’s a doctor you’re talking to. And you know, I’ll put a disclaimer, there’s a doctor is AI based doctor, they haven’t spoken to a real doctor. What do you feel would be an opportunity or a challenge for a country like Africa where someone gets addressed empathetically through technology? How will they differentiate? What will be their response on this? I mean, they have not seen a doctor, they get their talk very well. They don’t get 30 seconds, they get 30 minutes if they want, they can chat, they can tell all the problems and the AI will tell them, look, this is your thing. And if they get the right advice, I think, as you said, as Dr. May said, and as Dr. Zaw said, if they get the right advice, they would come back to this for more because they would start trusting that voice that talks to them and it will be the voice that they probably like the most. What do you think about that, Debbie?

Debbie Rogers: I think you bring up an incredibly important topic of trust. And I think we provide digital health solutions and we work very, very hard on making sure that they are trustworthy, that people love the services, that they understand that the service is there to support. And in doing so, we are able to get them to change their behavior in a way that they wouldn’t be able to if they didn’t trust the source that it was coming from. Now, I don’t know whether people, I don’t have the knowledge or have done the research around whether people will trust AI or doctors more. I think it’s probably going to be down to a personal perception. But I do believe that people can trust AI and people can trust digital health solutions. And I think that’s incredibly important when you’re building these solutions. As an example, we integrated a diagnosis engine into MomConnect. It’s a diagnosis engine that we didn’t develop. It’s called Ada Health. And we integrated it via WhatsApp into MomConnect. And we had a higher completion rate of going through diagnoses on MomConnect than on the Ada Health app. And the best we can put that down to is that mothers actually trust the MomConnect service. Another example of trust is we get inundated on Mother’s Day with pictures of people’s babies and messages thanking us for the support that they’ve been giving. And good morning MomConnect and good night MomConnect messages. Whether it’s a piece of technology at the end or it’s a person at the end, you can build trust and you can get people to engage with them. And sometimes they believe that there is a person on the other end. And sometimes they believe that it’s AI on the other end. And that depends on the usage and the person as to what you want to try and encourage. For example, in our sexual reproductive health and rights platforms, we find that youth want to speak to AI and not to a person because they’ve been judged so much by people. And so in that instance… for example, it actually is very helpful for us to have AI. And so I absolutely believe that people will be able to engage with AI, trust AI, knowing that it is AI, they may trust it even more than doctors sometimes, depending on what their experience has been in the past.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: You bring that very important point of the world called engagement. I think technology with no denominator of money at the point in time and not being a human, it could actually spend time probably the patient wants to spend with and engagement would lead to maybe better outcomes if the advice is right based on standard clinical protocols, which means, as you said, AI could be trusted more. I mean, as they send you pictures, I’ve seen your work and I really admire what you have done is that people feel that there is someone with them when they want it. And that’s what is missing in health care today. And I think Peter Presuzzi would allude to this, but Peter, given the fact that we have nurses and there are success stories of the nurses and how they touched and transformed lives, do you think that the future of health care lies with leveraging this workforce, nurses and technology together and somewhere maybe technology? What is your take on this?

Peter Preziosi: Yeah, that’s a great way of putting it around is is liberating all clinicians, nurses, given that there are twenty nine million worldwide, the largest profession. Absolutely. We need to you know, we start with them, but there there’s so much more out there like the work that you’re doing with pharmacists and others. You know, we’ve got you know, we’re doing much work around rehabilitation care with the World Health Organization. And we’re actually in Ethiopia looking at rehab care, driving that into primary care. A quarter of the world’s population needs some form of rehab care. Yet so many clinicians are ill prepared. to tackle this. And when you’re taking a look at the challenges around war and conflict and working in these zones where you’ve got traumatic amputees and trying to reintegrate people into a quality of life, rehab care is incredibly important. But yes, liberating through, I mean, there’s no magic bullet. Are these digital health and AI solutions the magic bullet? Absolutely not. As many people have talked about here, engagement. There are a variety of issues that need to help. But there’s nothing, obviously, to be afraid of with the technology evolution and emerging that as true partners. Again, I’ll just emphasize, it’s also as important to liberate the consumer, the patient, and their families equally with these technologies.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Peter, I think this is a very important point of liberating the clinicians from their too many tasks that can be handled and also the consumers. Let me now jump and open this to questions from the audience. Then I have some questions, which I will ask back the panel again. So if there are questions from the audience, we’ll be very happy to take that. Can someone please provide the mic to the audience? And Sakshi, if you have online questions, please read out to us. Sure, sir.

Audience: So everyone, that was a very nice discussion. We have a few questions online. I’ll just read them out for you. First one is from Ms. Arushi Negi. She asks, if we are planning to replace doctors with digital health tools, how do we make sure they are not compromising quality of care?

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Peter, over to you.

Peter Preziosi: Well, this is exactly one of the reasons why we’re going slow and really testing these point of care solutions. Many, you know, and there are countries, high-income countries, Canada, the US, India has done, you know, a great deal of this kind of work where you’re looking at, you know, testing out these solutions, integrating that into clinical workflows. I don’t think replacing is the right word, but, you know, really augmenting. And, you know, there are AI-powered medical brains now that are helping to augment 92% of the workloads of clinicians and practices. And most of this is administrative burdens. Rohindra was saying before, when you’ve got a physician that has only 34 seconds to go in and they don’t even have time to pronounce the patient’s name and the diagnosis. So it’s that, it’s looking at, it’s looking at the work differently and testing those solutions out and seeing what’s best with the consumer to be able to optimize human potential.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you, Peter. In fact, I would very much agree with you on that point. You know, recently in our office building, we had a plumber who always came and told us that his wife has low weight and she’s coughing. And, you know, we said, okay, why don’t you get a tuberculosis check done? So he went and got a check done and the sputum was negative, but the x-ray showed that it was tuberculosis. And the doctor would not start the treatment because the sputum was negative. So we did a telemedicine consultation through a tertiary care facility. And he said, just start the treatment. It is abundantly clear that, you know, there is tuberculosis. So it was technology that came to the rescue, but the conventional system of diagnosis and treatment or consultation didn’t work. But sometimes it is augmentation, sometimes it is replacement, and sometimes it- would be just the doctor. So having said that, Zaw, what do you feel will create that trust that is missing in technology for now?

Peter Preziosi: I want to comment on one thing, Rehendrik, because you’re right. Trust and engagement is so critically important. I was, prior to being at CGFNS International, I was the World Health Organization, actually during the pandemic. And there was a lot of vaccine hesitancy around the world. A lot of individuals don’t trust the treatments that are out there, the vaccines that will prevent the spread of infectious disease and pandemics that are cropping up. This is a real challenge that we have. It’s not just around digital health. It’s around the entire value chain that we see across the health care system. Because as it was said earlier, health care is very contextual and highly personal. And these are the things that we have to focus on. And to your point earlier, AI really understands us in a lot of ways that maybe other humans might not. And what Debbie was saying around sexual and reproductive health issues, where teenagers might feel more comfortable, less judged by talking to a bot. So these are really important issues that happen. But you can’t just make these blanketed statements around the world, because there are a lot of different cultural nuances. Over.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you. Zao?

Zaw Ali Khan: Yeah, Rajenji. So about the issue of trust, I feel in the context of communities where doctors are not available at all. So in that vacuum, of course, any solution would be taken very spontaneously by the patients. But as far as systems where people are used to doctors, if you’re able to emphasize the advantages of technology which they are already seeing, like in India, there used to be next day deliveries used to be considered very fast. And now we have same day deliveries and even 10 minute hyper fast deliveries. So there’s this convenience that consumers are getting used to. And if you see patients as the consumers in the health care system, then eventually they’re going to demand that same kind of convenience in health care as well. Along with that, of course, they would also want high quality. For high quality, they would want to spend more time with doctors. They would want more counseling and coaching. But of course, since that’s not physically possible, then the next best thing would be technology. And technology can actually build more trust because it’s capable of counseling and coaching patients in a much more personalized manner, as we already discussed. But more importantly, it comes with the added advantage of being potentially very transparent about where they’re getting the information from, why they’re recommending a specific course of treatment, why they have concluded a specific diagnosis. So the technology can actually explain all of that much more better than any of our overworked health care workers can. And it can also provide the evidence-based data to support their recommendations. And I’ll just stop right here. Just one more point. Lifelong learning. Even if we train our doctors, our nurses, health care workers to be very good at lifelong learning, we don’t have to be good at lifelong learning. we can’t expect them to absorb the huge oceans of knowledge that is being created continuously in the medical science sector. Whereas AI can effortlessly absorb all of that, assimilate it, and always be up to date with the latest evidence.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you, Zou. And the question is very important that how do we maintain the quality without compromise? I was on the accreditation committee of the government of India for hospitals. And of course, we still agreed on the same parameters of number of doctors to bed, nurses to bed, and what we do. But there was no objective parameter. So in technology, at least, I can say for sure that you will be having a digital footprint of all that you do. So I can see exactly at what readings did the patient enter the system, when did they exit, and when did they get readmitted. So maybe we would redefine what are the parameters of quality. In an AI system, I think the number of hallucinations per patient’s life journey would be an important quality yardstick. And to me, if you ask me, I am not saying I’m overexcited about it, but I believe that technology will be able to manage quality better than the conventional care delivery model because it tracks everything in the process. Everything you do has a digital footprint. I will definitely ask my colleague, Dr. May, what she feels about it.

May Siksik: Yeah, I completely agree, Rajendra. And this kind of reminds me of the empathy point that we brought up a little bit earlier, which is I want to mention that one of the projects that we’re working on is with First Nations. And First Nations have an issue with the way the medical system is set up in Canada, for example, because you can only go to the doctor with one issue. But the way their culture is, when you go in, you need to talk about the full picture, and they have multiple things that they talk about. It’s just a very cultural thing. And this is something that can be completely taken care of with an AI-based system. So I completely agree with you that this completely be helpful in this regard and develop that trust with populations who normally would not would avoid going to doctors which creates like I know in Canada that creates big problems because it means that conditions get worse and manifest into something serious and it cost the system in terms of you know not just dollar value but also societal impact and cost lives.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: May I remember in one of the books I wrote that in one of the province in Canada they run a lottery to be attended by doctors. Lottery system you know by doctors so if that’s the seriousness you know it’s really tough for me to ignore not giving technology to such populations. Mavish from a patient standpoint how would you see quality in technology versus a conventional doctor?

Mevish P. Vaishnav: So if you see I feel patient would be more happy to get time from a doctor but a doctor should be able to understand my condition well my history he should know my history and if I don’t get that much time how will I trust the doctor but if I go to AI and I say okay these are my symptoms and what best options or what treatment you can provide me I would get better outcomes from that because it has as you said it has a complete standard operating protocols and the treatment guidelines from where it can take out the data collate it and share it with me so I would trust the AI more than a doctor.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Debbie what’s your take on on the quality that we’re talking of in the technology age?

Debbie Rogers: I absolutely believe that quality from a technology perspective could be better than, could be better than individuals and in many cases have been. One thing I do just want to point out is that we need to be very careful on technology increasing the digital divide. For example, LLMs at the moment are primarily trained on Western culture, medicine, languages, intonations, cultural context. And that is not going to be appropriate for rolling out in Rwanda, for example. And we need to spend a lot more time ensuring that the quality is not just high quality for certain communities, but high quality for all communities, particularly those who are underrepresented at the moment. So while I think that it’s possible that it will get to that point, I think we need to be conscious in how we are approaching improving quality within these things to ensure that we do it in an equitable way.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you, Debbie, so much. We have a question from the audience, please. Please tell about yourself and ask the question.

Audience: Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, my name is Melody Musoni. I work for a think tank called ECDPM. So the medical field at all, but I was happy with the conversation that we were having here and I learned a lot. I guess mine are more of concerns. And I think Debbie have already touched on one issue when it comes to digital divide, because my fear is the more we digitalize the healthcare system, we are going to leave so many people behind. Even just to give the MomConnect example that Debbie was demonstrating and showcasing, you have to have a phone for you to be able to register and to use it. And if you don’t have that phone already you’re automatically excluded. So I think as we start thinking more about how we are incorporating AI in digital healthcare we also need to bear in mind the issues of digital divide and marginalization. That’s the first point I wanted to make. And then the second point I also wanted to make is perhaps we also need to think about the option of opting in to a digitalized service and opting out because I think you mentioned the other speaker about the importance of human to human interactions. Personally, I think I would still want to go to a human doctor if I have the opportunity to do so instead of relying on a technology. So I think as we are advancing in our innovation on healthcare, we also need to make room for people who may still want to have access to physical doctors or real doctors. And the third point I also wanted to mention I think the speaker online kind of touched on it. I think now with generative AI there’s a lot of misinformation and fake news that is flying, especially around fat diets. So people I know, especially they use Oprah a lot and they have generated so many videos where they’ll be like, Oprah, you think it’s Oprah. We say, I was using this product and after using it in two months, I lost weight. And a lot of people are falling for that misinformation and a lot of people are buying these products. So I think we also need to find ways in which we can address the issues of misinformation and fake news. And I think the example you gave about patients going to doctors and requesting for a certain medication and the doctor is not aware is a good example of that because they are seeing all these things on social media and they expect all doctors to know. So there should be a way in which we address issues on fake information. information, especially around use of certain healthcare services, for example, and I’ll stop there. Thank you. I think he also had a question.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Yeah. Very important points raised. And I think this is what Peter and others were alluding to, you know, that while we get to implement technology at scale, we should be careful about the don’ts more than dos, because that’s something that we need as frameworks to implement. Yes, you have a question.

Audience: Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah. So more than a question. I think it’s just some comments I had written it down so that I don’t forget it. But I think an important point that we missed upon was basically how doctors are limited. That has been addressed, of course. But compute is growing at a larger scale than ever. So it was Moore’s law before where it was, you know, it grows two times every two years. Now it’s four times and the cost is going down with GPUs and, you know, multiple compute systems. But at the same time, you have compute systems that can run AI models on a system that is as cheap as $20, but give you an accurate response in six seconds. So this has been, you know, still not been implemented. And I think this would help a lot of places where you need instant care. And the compute cost is a lot for running these large models. So I see them as superpowers. And also touching upon the point of the empathy that we discussed, you know, I remember the movie Wall-E. I’m not sure if everyone has watched it. But basically, you know, they learned everything from what they saw. So I think empathy is a social model, because now what you see is what you believe in. So if you start seeing an AI doctor, you won’t probably go to a normal doctor eventually thinking, oh, I think that’s a human that won’t be as accurate as an AI, although that’s very dystopian. But I think that’s just how it comes to be, you know, with new technologies. And one interesting point that I noted, Mr. Zoh, you said that you addressed at GPT as him. Now we have started, you know, addressing AI models as a person instead of, you know, just being on the cloud or somewhere else. So that’s something that we’ve already started, you know. started doing and it’s in the matter of two years so I think you know that’s something we need to consider as well yeah.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you so much it’s a very important point you know that and I keep concluding you know with the way world is changing that this is not a technology change it’s a societal change society is changing you know don’t think that we need to adopt technology the society has already adopted adopted technology we are all learning without barriers today a teacher is not the main custodian of the information to deliver to the student it’s a YouTube any lecture you want on any topic you want you can go and watch same way patients watch Instagram they go and ask their doctors hey I looked at a star I saw actually a India’s world’s top cricketer talking about a CGM why would someone believe their doctor they would believe the best Batman who is like icon role model talking that I use CGM my sugar is controlled not tell me who is making a choice we used to say in healthcare doctor is the customer and patient is the consumer now technology is changing that role and relationship from customer to consumer directly which was never thought of for centuries it was doctor who decided not today as a patient I know more about my treatment than my doctor knows I mean it’s a real experience I am telling you being in healthcare being an advisor to my health minister of my country my doctor didn’t know about digital therapeutics I decided not to go to her she was a young doctor I mean very experienced very famous known for controlling but she didn’t know when I use a CGM I was told showed the readings I said why do I show to her she didn’t prescribe me you will have patients like me too I mean you’ll have patient who will believe the doctor so all kind of things will exist but I think it’s a big societal change now this brings me to I would still take one online questions actually it is before I want to go back to my panelist again based on what we have discussed sure so so the next question is how can we ensure the accessibility of digital tools in rural areas? I think I would go to Debbie first.

Debbie Rogers: There are a lot of things that we still need to address from an infrastructural perspective and from a cost perspective in order to ensure that digital health can be used in rural areas. Just the fact that what the previous audience member mentioned that even MomConnect, you have to have a phone, there are still major barriers to access to digital health technology. These include things like electricity. If there’s no electricity where you can charge a device, you’re not going to be able to have a digital health solution. If you don’t have any mobile penetration in that area, it’s going to be very challenging. You can do offline, but it’s very challenging. The other thing from a cost perspective, just thinking about AI, for example, we on MomConnect, it’s 20 cents per user, 20 US cents per user per year to run the program. If we were to shift that completely over to generative AI, it would be $10.20. The cost at the moment, and I hear the other previous audience member around the cost of compute going down. The cost at the moment is also prohibitive for a lot of these technologies. Things will go down, access to various things like electricity will go up. But we have to be more conscious about this in ensuring that those who need the services most are not left behind. Because unfortunately, just market forces alone have not actually solved all of these problems.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Bringing this point of cost of technology, of course, not what I’m saying may apply now, but when cell phone came in, at least in my country, I used to pay a very heavy cost of called airtime and cell phone usage. Today, you only pay for data. You don’t pay for calls. It’s free. We’re the cheapest data. So I think technology, not only the computing power goes up, the cost goes down, but I think you have raised an important point of the digital divide. Within the IGF, I also lead three dynamic coalitions. So one of the goals that I’m putting to my overall 31 dynamic coalitions is that still 2.7 billion people are not connected to the internet. That means one out of third person on this planet has no access to internet. We are very privileged people to be talking about all these things. And we should always understand that we are privileged and that’s what we are supposed to deliver. And these forums is talk the real issues and not ignore anything that matters. So I totally understand what you’re saying is very important. And as IGF community, you know, which is responsible for putting its views to the UN on this matters, this is a very important bond given that health is a determinant for living. You know, it’s not something that is a choice that you have. It’s a right health is a right. And technology makes that right possible. So that being said, I would move this to Peter. Peter, you working in Rwanda and now Ghana, what is your take on this?

Peter Preziosi: Yeah, I think what has been said, I would close by saying, look, technology, it’s exciting. It’s a new horizon of opportunity. But we have to be conscious of the unintended consequences, the ethical dilemmas, the digital divide issues, the challenges that we continue to see worldwide as as as we’re looking at governments around the world taking money from health education and welfare into defense spending. We’re seeing a sweeping shift in looking at, you know, that, you know, isolationism and that will be a challenge. if we think about not just the health worker being mobile, the work is becoming mobile. So it’s going to really democratize in many ways opportunity for access to good care if we pay attention to the digital divide discussion that was talked about. And here I would go back to all my panelists on a very important point. I have seen all the discussion that you all made in a very important element point, including questions from the audience.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: What came out is that technology is going to move from a doctor-dependent model to a non-doctor-dependent model. It could be any clinician. It could be a non-clinician. It could be a citizen doctor. But having said that, when all of us agree on a few points, cost is going to come down because of technology. It’s going to be convenient. You can have it when you want. It’s going to have better engagement, better empathy, better quality, a better experience, and a better repository of knowledge. My question to each of my panelists is to justify why will technology not replace a doctor? I mean, starting with Dr. Peter Petrosi, please.

Peter Preziosi: Yeah, I think the human touch is critically important. I think that we’re going to find so many other types of technologies. Looking at precision medicine, I’ll just bring that up as well. We haven’t talked about really treating people at the molecular level, the cellular level, which is going to transform care delivery. And again, looking at the divide that exists between those higher resource countries to the lower resource countries, and how do we begin to democratize that? So I think that having the future health professional will succeed. and evolve with technology, not without it. Those will be the individuals and the patients that will be able to succeed and to do much better in the world.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you, Peter. Mavish, from the patient standpoint, will technology replace doctors?

Mevish P. Vaishnav: If you see, it’s been years for me that I’ve gone to bank. So if bank is on mobile, why not AI doctor on mobile? So yes, I am for it. AI will actually help doctors to enable treatment. So yes, AI will replace doctors.

May Siksik: I think that AI will replace the majority of doctor visits.

Zaw Ali Khan: So as far as the title of this panel discussion is concerned, I feel yes, AI will definitely replace PHCs, first and foremost, and perhaps some of the other specialized use cases as well. But PHCs, because over there, it’s not actually replacing doctors. I mean, if I were to rephrase this, to make it more satiable for our health care workers, it’s not that the technology is replacing them. Rather, it’s making room for them to do their job more effectively. So that way, I feel it’s a win-win for doctors, patients, health care systems around the world. And one more thing that I’d like to add in that is about the regulatory standards and the need to define them with the participation of all stakeholders, particularly because one of the audience members mentioned about the risks of AI, particularly about generative AI. But I think there would be risks in other use cases as well. well. And over there, I would emphasize that the role of academic organizations, academies like the Academy of Digital Health Sciences or AUB, American University of Barbados, we need to make sure and other organizations need to make sure that we are training the next generation of doctors and our faculty members, our stalwarts, in a way that they’re not cynical when it comes to technology. Because if our experts are cynical, then they will, they might advocate for harsher standards and that might decelerate this transition from doctor-centric healthcare to a non-doctor-centric healthcare. Thank you.

May Siksik: I just wanted to add that, to clarify that they will replace the majority of hospital, of doctor visits, but even for the visits that they cannot replace, they need to be at, AI will need to be at the table as part of that team, interdisciplinary team. And it’s, that’s quite, going to be quite important.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Previously, have you seen the AI before doctor? Yeah. Debbie, your take?

Debbie Rogers: I’m going to use an example that you used of Kindle and how, you know, libraries and bookstores have been replaced by the Kindle. In recent years, there’s actually been a resurgence of bookstores and there’s a huge growth in that market. I personally, even though I’m a technologist, I like to read physical books because I like the way they smell and I like the way they feel. And I’m quite happy to carry around a big tome with me in order to get that advantage. And so I don’t think that even if something is possible, even if it does make these things easier, I don’t think we’re going to replace human touch entirely. And there are definitely going to be. people who prefer human touch. And it may even be that for a while, we have a drop in the number of people who are accessing doctors, but that it will resurge again when people realize the advantages that you can get from the human touch that you just cannot get from technology. So I don’t believe there’ll be entirely replaced. I do believe that it’s going to make the lack of health workers a far smaller problem. And I do believe that it’s going to be critical that AI is a part of the team, as you mentioned, May, but I don’t believe it’s going to replace doctors entirely, despite being a technologist.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you so much, Debbie. And it was a great discussion. And every year at IGF at Digital Health, we discuss how technology is shaping healthcare and how healthcare is shaping technology, it’s both ways. I really thank Dr. Peter Preziosi for being awake late night and joining us and sharing his valuable insights, which are going to shape the way we look at health. This is Zohr Ali Khan from the American University of Barbados. May, Dr. May Siksek, Mavish and Debbie Rogers. Thank you all so much. And Sakshi Pandita, who’s been moderating us online and for all the panelists who joined us, all the viewers who joined us and asked those important questions. Next year, we’re going to present you the findings of what AI did to healthcare. Thank you so much and wish you a very happy holiday season. Merry Christmas and a great year ahead. Thank you. Bye, thanks. Thank you.

Agreement Points

AI and technology can augment and assist healthcare workers

Peter Preziosi

Zaw Ali Khan

Debbie Rogers

AI and technology can augment and assist healthcare workers

AI and technology can reduce administrative burdens on clinicians

Digital health tools can improve access to care in underserved areas

The speakers agree that AI and technology can enhance healthcare delivery by supporting healthcare workers, reducing administrative burdens, and improving access to care in underserved areas.

Need to address digital divide and ensure equitable access

Debbie Rogers

Peter Preziosi

Need to address the digital divide and ensure equitable access

Cost and infrastructure barriers in low-resource settings

Both speakers emphasize the importance of addressing the digital divide and ensuring equitable access to AI and digital health solutions, particularly in low-resource settings.

AI will play a significant role in future healthcare delivery

May Siksik

Zaw Ali Khan

Mevish P. Vaishnav

AI can provide more personalized and empathetic care than time-constrained doctors

AI may replace primary care centers and some specialized roles

Patients may trust and engage more with AI-powered health services

These speakers agree that AI will play a significant role in future healthcare delivery, potentially replacing some traditional roles and offering more personalized care.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers suggest that technology and AI have the potential to disrupt traditional healthcare delivery models by eliminating intermediaries and bringing services directly to users.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Zaw Ali Khan

Technology eliminates middlemen and brings services closer to users

AI may replace primary care centers and some specialized roles

Both speakers emphasize the importance of healthcare professionals adapting to and effectively utilizing AI technologies in their practice.

Debbie Rogers

Zaw Ali Khan

Doctors who use AI will replace those who don’t

Need to train new generation of doctors to work with AI

Unexpected Consensus

Potential for AI to provide more empathetic care

May Siksik

Mevish P. Vaishnav

AI can provide more personalized and empathetic care than time-constrained doctors

Patients may trust and engage more with AI-powered health services

It’s somewhat unexpected that AI is seen as potentially more empathetic than human doctors, challenging the traditional view that empathy is a uniquely human trait in healthcare.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the potential of AI and technology to augment healthcare delivery, the need to address the digital divide, and the significant role AI will play in future healthcare. There is also consensus on the importance of adapting to these technologies and the potential for AI to provide more personalized care.

Consensus level

There is a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the transformative potential of AI in healthcare. This implies a shared vision for the future of healthcare that integrates AI and technology, while also recognizing the challenges that need to be addressed. The consensus suggests a likely acceleration in the adoption of AI in healthcare, but with careful consideration of equity and access issues.

Different Viewpoints

The extent to which AI will replace doctors

Peter Preziosi

Mevish P. Vaishnav

May Siksik

Debbie Rogers

I think the human touch is critically important.

AI will actually help doctors to enable treatment. So yes, AI will replace doctors.

I think that AI will replace the majority of doctor visits.

I don’t believe there’ll be entirely replaced. I do believe that it’s going to make the lack of health workers a far smaller problem.

The speakers have differing views on the extent to which AI will replace doctors. Peter Preziosi emphasizes the importance of human touch, while Mevish P. Vaishnav and May Siksik believe AI will largely replace doctors. Debbie Rogers takes a middle ground, suggesting AI will significantly reduce the burden on health workers but not entirely replace them.

Unexpected Differences

Trust in AI vs. human doctors

Mevish P. Vaishnav

Audience

Patients may trust and engage more with AI-powered health services

Importance of maintaining human touch and option for in-person care

While it might be expected that patients would prefer human doctors, Mevish P. Vaishnav suggests that patients may actually trust and engage more with AI-powered health services. This contrasts with the audience member’s emphasis on maintaining the option for human-to-human interactions in healthcare, highlighting an unexpected difference in perspectives on patient preferences.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the extent to which AI will replace doctors, the challenges in implementing AI in healthcare, and patient preferences for AI vs. human doctors.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there is general agreement on the potential benefits of AI in healthcare, there are significant differences in opinions on how much AI will replace human doctors and how to address implementation challenges. These disagreements have important implications for the future of healthcare delivery, medical education, and health policy. They highlight the need for continued research, ethical considerations, and careful planning in the integration of AI into healthcare systems.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need to address challenges in implementing AI in healthcare, but they focus on different aspects. Debbie Rogers emphasizes the importance of addressing the digital divide and ensuring equitable access, while Zaw Ali Khan focuses on regulatory and ethical considerations. They agree on the goal of responsible AI implementation but differ on the primary challenges to address.

Debbie Rogers

Zaw Ali Khan

Need to address the digital divide and ensure equitable access

Regulatory and ethical considerations in AI adoption

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers suggest that technology and AI have the potential to disrupt traditional healthcare delivery models by eliminating intermediaries and bringing services directly to users.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Zaw Ali Khan

Technology eliminates middlemen and brings services closer to users

AI may replace primary care centers and some specialized roles

Both speakers emphasize the importance of healthcare professionals adapting to and effectively utilizing AI technologies in their practice.

Debbie Rogers

Zaw Ali Khan

Doctors who use AI will replace those who don’t

Need to train new generation of doctors to work with AI

Key Takeaways

AI and technology have significant potential to augment and transform healthcare delivery, especially in underserved areas

AI may replace or significantly change the role of doctors in some areas, particularly primary care

There are important challenges to address in AI adoption, including the digital divide, quality control, and maintaining human touch

The future of healthcare likely involves interdisciplinary teams that include AI alongside human professionals

Patients may come to trust and prefer AI-powered health services for some types of care

Resolutions and Action Items

Continue testing and implementing AI and digital health solutions, especially in underserved areas

Work on developing regulatory standards for AI in healthcare with input from all stakeholders

Focus on training the next generation of healthcare professionals to work effectively with AI

Unresolved Issues

How to fully address the digital divide and ensure equitable access to AI-powered healthcare

How to balance AI adoption with maintaining human touch in healthcare

The extent to which AI will ultimately replace human doctors versus augment their capabilities

How to effectively combat health misinformation in the age of AI and social media

Suggested Compromises

Implement AI gradually, starting with administrative tasks and primary care, while maintaining option for human doctors

Develop AI solutions that work alongside human healthcare professionals rather than fully replacing them

Focus AI adoption on areas with greatest shortages of healthcare workers

Today, if your doctors don’t need technology, technology would not need them in the future.

speaker

Rajendra Pratap Gupta

reason

This comment provocatively frames the relationship between doctors and technology as potentially adversarial rather than complementary, challenging the traditional view of technology as simply a tool for doctors.

impact

This set the tone for the discussion to explore how AI and technology might replace or fundamentally change the role of doctors, rather than just augment their existing work.

We believe this care solution will reduce the number of referrals that are transferred to upstream health facilities that are already crowded and lack adequate resources, and make the model for an integral part of primary healthcare.

speaker

Peter Preziosi

reason

This comment introduces a concrete example of how AI and technology could reshape healthcare delivery, particularly in resource-constrained settings.

impact

It shifted the discussion from theoretical possibilities to practical applications, prompting others to consider specific use cases and implementations of AI in healthcare.

At International Patients Union, we have a platform, the Patients Union, where we provide a platform for the patients to voice their opinions, their concerns, and share their views.

speaker

Mevish P. Vaishnav

reason

This comment brings the patient perspective into the discussion, highlighting the importance of considering end-users in the development of healthcare technology.

impact

It broadened the conversation to include patient empowerment and engagement, leading to discussion of how AI might directly serve patients rather than just assisting doctors.

For example, in our sexual reproductive health and rights platforms, we find that youth want to speak to AI and not to a person because they’ve been judged so much by people.

speaker

Debbie Rogers

reason

This comment provides a surprising and counterintuitive example of how AI might be preferable to human interaction in some healthcare contexts.

impact

It challenged assumptions about the necessity of human touch in all aspects of healthcare, leading to a more nuanced discussion of when and how AI might be more appropriate than human doctors.

LLMs at the moment are primarily trained on Western culture, medicine, languages, intonations, cultural context. And that is not going to be appropriate for rolling out in Rwanda, for example.

speaker

Debbie Rogers

reason

This comment highlights an important limitation of current AI technology in healthcare, particularly for global applications.

impact

It introduced considerations of equity and cultural appropriateness into the discussion, prompting reflection on how to ensure AI healthcare solutions are truly global and inclusive.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from abstract possibilities to concrete applications and challenges of AI in healthcare. They broadened the conversation to include patient perspectives and global equity considerations, while also challenging assumptions about the necessity of human doctors in all healthcare contexts. The discussion evolved from whether AI would replace doctors to a more nuanced exploration of how, where, and for whom AI might be most beneficial in healthcare delivery.

How can we ensure the accessibility of digital health tools in rural areas?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This is important to address the digital divide and ensure equitable access to healthcare technology.

How can we address issues of misinformation and fake news in digital health, especially around fad diets and miracle cures?

speaker

Audience member (Melody Musoni)

explanation

This is crucial for maintaining trust in digital health solutions and protecting patients from harmful misinformation.

How can we develop AI models that are culturally appropriate for diverse communities, particularly those underrepresented in current training data?

speaker

Debbie Rogers

explanation

This is essential for ensuring AI-based healthcare solutions are effective and equitable across different cultures and contexts.

How can we define regulatory standards for AI in healthcare with the participation of all stakeholders?

speaker

Zaw Ali Khan

explanation

This is important to ensure safe and effective implementation of AI in healthcare while addressing concerns from various perspectives.

How can we reduce the cost of implementing AI-based healthcare solutions in low-resource settings?

speaker

Debbie Rogers

explanation

This is crucial for making AI-powered healthcare accessible in developing countries and rural areas.

How can we integrate AI into medical education to prepare future healthcare professionals?

speaker

Zaw Ali Khan

explanation

This is important to ensure future healthcare workers are equipped to work alongside AI technologies.

How can we balance the use of AI in healthcare with maintaining the human touch in patient care?

speaker

Multiple speakers (Peter Preziosi, Debbie Rogers)

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring that the implementation of AI doesn’t compromise the empathetic aspects of healthcare.