Uncategorized

Summary

This forum focused on deepening cooperation in digital governance to bridge the global digital divide. Speakers from various organizations and countries discussed strategies for promoting digital inclusion and leveraging technology for sustainable development. The discussion emphasized three key themes: inclusiveness, innovation, and international cooperation.

Several speakers highlighted China’s efforts in expanding digital infrastructure and services, including nationwide 5G coverage and programs to bring connectivity to rural areas. Representatives from ICANN and Huawei Cloud shared initiatives to make the internet more accessible through internationalized domain names and cloud-based solutions for underserved regions. The importance of cloud computing as a foundation for digital infrastructure was stressed, with examples from Saudi Arabia’s investments in cloud services.

Speakers also addressed the challenges of digital inclusion for elderly populations, sharing strategies like simplified interfaces and training programs. The need to accelerate digital transformation across sectors was discussed, with emphasis on quantifying both tangible and intangible benefits of digital technologies. Participants agreed on the importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation in global digital governance.

The forum concluded by calling for collaborative efforts to seize opportunities in the digital era and build a shared future in cyberspace. Speakers emphasized that bridging the digital divide requires ongoing innovation, inclusive policies, and international partnerships to ensure the benefits of digitalization reach all populations.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Promoting digital inclusion and bridging the digital divide through infrastructure development, emerging technologies, and international cooperation

– China’s efforts and achievements in expanding digital access and capabilities, especially in rural areas

– The importance of cloud computing infrastructure and AI in accelerating digital transformation

– Addressing the digital divide for elderly populations through accessible design and education initiatives

– The need for multi-stakeholder cooperation in global digital governance

Overall purpose:

The goal of this forum was to discuss ways to deepen international cooperation on digital governance and bridge the global digital divide, with a focus on promoting digital inclusion and leveraging emerging technologies for sustainable development.

Tone:

The overall tone was collaborative, optimistic and forward-looking. Speakers shared positive examples and experiences from their countries/organizations, while emphasizing the need for continued cooperation to address remaining challenges. The tone remained consistent throughout, with all participants expressing a shared commitment to creating a more inclusive digital future.

Speakers

– Liu Yue: Moderator from China Academy of Information and Communications Technology

– Wang Jianchao: Deputy Director-General, International Corporation Bureau, Cyberspace Administration of China

– Theresa Swinehart: SVP of Global Domains and Strategy at ICANN, expert on global internet governance

– Echo Li: Vice President of Marketing and Solution at Huawei Cloud Saudi Arabia

– Talal Albakr: General Manager for Digital Advisory and Strategic Programs at Saudi Cloud Computing Company

– Dai Wei: Deputy Secretary General of the Internet Society of China, Deputy Director of China IGF

– Saad Haj Bakry: Professor from the College of Computer and Information Sciences at King Saud University

– Dai Lina: Deputy Director of the Journalism Institute of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences

Additional speakers:

– Long Kai: Deputy Director-General, Information Development Bureau, Cyberspace Administration of China

– Huang Chengqing: Vice President of Internet Society of China and Director-General of China IGF

Expanded Summary of Digital Governance Forum

Introduction

This forum focused on deepening cooperation in digital governance to bridge the global digital divide. Speakers from various organisations and countries discussed strategies for promoting digital inclusion and leveraging technology for sustainable development. The discussion emphasised key themes of inclusiveness, innovation, and international cooperation.

Key Discussion Points

1. Digital Infrastructure and Inclusion

The importance of digital infrastructure as a foundation for development and bridging the digital divide was a central theme. Wang Jianchao, Deputy Director-General of the International Corporation Bureau at the Cyberspace Administration of China, stressed the need for global cooperation to address this issue. Theresa Swinehart from ICANN highlighted her organisation’s role in coordinating global internet infrastructure, emphasising the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance.

Echo Li, Vice President of Marketing and Solution at Huawei Cloud Saudi Arabia, showcased Huawei Cloud’s global presence and shared specific cases of digital transformation. These included a weather prediction model for fisheries in Africa and an education cloud in the UAE. Li emphasised the critical role of cloud computing as a foundation for digital infrastructure and innovation.

Talal Albakr, General Manager for Digital Advisory and Strategic Programs at Saudi Cloud Computing Company (SCCC), highlighted Saudi Arabia’s investments in cloud infrastructure. He explained how SCCC is accelerating digital transformation in the Saudi market, stating, “Cloud allows agility and quick time to value… for any AI use case, you need three months to implement. Imagine with the legacy stuff, with the legacy you need at least 18 months.”

2. Emerging Technologies and Innovation

The discussion also focused on the potential of emerging technologies to drive innovation and development. Echo Li spoke about AI and big data applications across various sectors, while Talal Albakr emphasised how cloud computing enables the adoption of AI and other emerging technologies.

Professor Saad Haj Bakry from King Saud University provided insights on digital benefits and technology transfer. He raised a thought-provoking question: “Are we doing enough or are we utilising enough the beautiful digital technology for our benefits?” This self-reflective query encouraged a more critical examination of current digital transformation strategies.

3. Digital Inclusion for the Elderly

A significant focus of the discussion was on addressing the digital divide for elderly populations. Dai Wei, Deputy Secretary General of the Internet Society of China, discussed efforts to promote information accessibility and improve digital literacy among the ageing population. He highlighted initiatives to make websites and mobile applications more accessible to elderly and disabled users.

Dai Lina, Deputy Director of the Journalism Institute of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, shared Shanghai’s comprehensive efforts to help seniors cross the digital divide. She stated, “Shanghai prioritises the elderly and disabled in the digital transformation of the city and strives to turn itself into a city with a better human touch.” Specific initiatives included:

– Establishing digital literacy classes for seniors

– Creating elderly-friendly versions of popular apps

– Providing one-on-one assistance for seniors at government service centers

– Maintaining traditional service methods alongside digital options

4. International Cooperation on Digital Governance

The need for international cooperation in digital governance was a recurring theme. Wang Jianchao highlighted China’s participation in global digital governance initiatives. Theresa Swinehart emphasised the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach, stating, “We need to remember that the inclusive Internet involves all of us, and it should continue to be one that considers and hears the voices of all stakeholders who are involved and maintain and operate and use the Internet.”

Areas of Agreement

There was broad consensus among speakers on several key points:

1. The critical role of digital infrastructure, including cloud computing and internet governance systems, in fostering development and bridging the digital divide.

2. The importance of making digital services accessible and user-friendly for elderly populations.

3. The view of cloud computing as a crucial foundation for digital infrastructure and enabler of emerging technologies like AI.

4. The necessity of international cooperation and involving multiple stakeholders in addressing digital governance challenges.

Areas of Difference

While overall consensus was high, there were some differences in approach and emphasis:

1. Approaches to bridging the digital divide varied, with some speakers emphasising global cooperation (Wang Jianchao) while others focused on specific technological solutions like cloud computing (Echo Li and Talal Albakr).

2. There were differences in focus regarding the role of stakeholders, with Theresa Swinehart emphasising internet governance while Saad Haj Bakry stressed the general societal benefits of digital technologies.

Key Takeaways and Action Items

1. Continue efforts to expand internet access and digital infrastructure globally.

2. Develop more elderly-friendly versions of digital applications and services.

3. Increase investment in cloud computing infrastructure, especially in developing countries.

4. Provide more digital literacy training programmes, particularly for elderly populations.

5. Strengthen international cooperation on digital governance issues.

Unresolved Issues

Several important issues remained unresolved, including:

1. Balancing data sovereignty concerns with the benefits of global cloud infrastructure.

2. Establishing specific metrics or targets for measuring progress on bridging the digital divide.

3. Determining funding mechanisms for expanding digital infrastructure in underserved regions.

4. Addressing potential job displacement from increased AI and automation.

Conclusion

The forum concluded with a call for collaborative efforts to seize opportunities in the digital era and build a shared future in cyberspace. Speakers emphasised that bridging the digital divide requires ongoing innovation, inclusive policies, and international partnerships to ensure the benefits of digitalisation reach all populations. As Wang Jianchao aptly summarised, “To ensure everyone could avoid the express train of digital economy and share its benefits, it is urgent to deepen cooperation on development and governance, bridge the digital divide, and work together towards a brighter digital future.” The event concluded with participants gathering for a group photo, symbolizing their shared commitment to these goals.

Liu Yue: Afternoon, I’m Liu Yue from the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology, and I’m honored to be the moderator of this workshop. On behalf of the organizer, I would like to extend the warmest welcome and the most sincere thanks to all the guests attending the 2024 ICF Open Forum on Deepen Cooperation on Governance Bridges the Digital Divide, so you can choose Channel 3 for listening to our voice. Currently, a new wave of technology revolution and industrial transformation is rapidly unfolding, with the rising importance of digital governance at international, regional, and national levels. Last year, during the ICF in Japan, we hosted an open forum on digital governance, hoping that all parties would share responsibility and foster cooperation. Today, we gather again under the theme of Deepen Cooperation on Governance Bridges the Digital Divide, promoting the digital inclusion and the digital technology for good, as well as UNSDG. Today, the guests attending the forum include Mr. Wang Jianchao, Deputy Director-General, International Corporation Bureau, Cyberspace Administration of China, and Mr. Long Kai, Deputy Director-General, Information Development Bureau, Cyberspace Administration of China, and Huang Chengqing, Vice President of Internet Society of China and Director-General of China IGF. Also, we have representatives from the international organizations, think tanks, associations, and enterprises to make presentations at this forum. At the same time, we have colleagues hosting this forum online. Now, I’d like to invite Mr. Wang Jianchao, Deputy Director-General, International Corporation Bureau, Cyberspace Administration of China, to deliver his opening address. Please take the floor. Mr. Wang Jianchao, Deputy Director-General, International Corporation Bureau, Cyberspace Administration of China

Wang Jianchao: Distinguished SVP Mrs. Wayne Hart, distinguished DDG Mr. Long, VP Mr. Huang, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. First, on behalf of the Bureau of International Corporation, Cyberspace Administration of China, the organizer of this event, I would like to extend a hearty welcome and a warm greeting to all the participants. Currently, the digital economy, driven by emerging technology like AI, cloud computing, and big data, has become one of the fastest-growing, most competitive, and most innovative sectors in national economy development. To ensure everyone could avoid the express train of digital economy and share its benefits, it is urgent to deepen cooperation on development and governance, bridge the digital divide, and work together towards a brighter digital future. Under this background, we look forward to hearing the insights from all the delegates. It is well known that Chinese President Xi Jinping has put forward the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative. The three initiatives echo and reinforce each other, fostering widespread consensus and strong support within the international community for enhancing cooperation, tackling challenges, and creating a shared future. Guided by President Xi’s thoughts and visions, the Chinese government has continuously strengthened the top-level design and made overall arrangements and systematically advanced its efforts. Being committed to the people-centered approach featuring open operation, mutual benefits, and a living solution, we have made positive efforts to encourage in-depth involvement of government, industry, academia, and research sectors in global digital governance. Fostering the building of a community with a shared future in cyberspace. In recent years, China has committed to promoting connectivity as a crucial way to bridge the digital divide. At present, every city in China has achieved 5G network coverage, and we have brought fiber broadband and 4G-5G networks into deep mountain areas, historically enabling convenient Internet access in both urban and rural areas. China also has carried out 10 rounds of telecommunication universal services efforts, supporting the construction of fiber optical networks in 130,000 administrative villages nationwide and 89,000 4G and 5G base stations in rural areas. China persistently views innovation applications as a crucial driving force for development, positioning digital technology as a leading force in technological revolution and industrial transformation. China has been accelerating the development and application of the next generation digital and information communication technologies such as 5G, big data, and AI, while optimizing computing infrastructure layout and continuously strengthening the foundation for digital development. Significant strides have been achieved in expanding telecommunication universal services, narrowing the digital divide between urban and rural areas, and accelerating communication infrastructure development in rural areas. China has formulated and implemented information and communication industry development plans, driving network quality improvements and upgrades. Additionally, China has also supported enterprises actively participating in international infrastructure development to promote interconnectivity of digital facilities. China upholds solidarity and cooperation as a fundamental principle for advancing digital governance. We are committed to promoting global digital governance with the UN as the main channel, working with all parties to seek solutions for prominent issues in digital development and global digital governance and building international consensus. China has constructively participated in the whole process of the global digital compact negotiations. The GDC follows the prevailing trends of promoting digital development and cooperation in the world reflects the urgent call of all countries, especially global south countries. For efforts to narrow the digital divide and wipe out governance deficits and demonstrate the common aspiration of the international community to respond to digital communities of opportunities and challenges and build an inclusive, open, fair, and secure digital future through joint efforts and cooperation. The GDC also provides fresh impetus for global digital governance. Nowadays, changes of historical significance across the world are unfolding in ways like never before. Deepening digital governance and bridging the digital divide requires collaborative participation from all the countries and all the parties. On this occasion, I would like to put forward three points. Firstly, we need to pursue a common development. We should make joint efforts to advance openness and cooperation in digital governance and reach the dimensions of opening up and enhance the level of opening up. Efforts should be made to foster collaborative innovation in infrastructure development and digital technology, cultivate new driving forces through digitalization and propel new development with these driving forces. Secondly, we need to meet shared responsibilities. We should be committed to multilateral and multi-party participation, giving full play to the roles of various entities, including governments, international organizations, internet companies, and tech NICO communities, civil society, and individual citizens. We should work together to improve the international governance mechanism shared and governed by all, and facilitate the building of a fairer and more equitable global internet governance system. Thirdly, we need to share the benefits. We should stay committed to a people-centered approach, promoting tech for good and bridging the digital divide to increase people’s sense of gains from internet development, thereby accelerating the effective implementation of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Global Digital Compact. Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, we’d like to take this forum as an opportunity to strengthen dialogue and communication, deepen understanding of policies, share practical experiences, and seek extensive cooperation. Let’s join hands together and promote collective efforts to boost the healthy development of global digital economy, and advance the building of a community with a shared future in cyberspace. Wish the forum a complete success.

Liu Yue: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wang. His opening address highlight Chinese key concepts and share the Chinese practice and achievements. And also, he proposed three recommendations to pursue common development to meet shared responsibility and to share the benefits. And his recommendation give us a very good reference and guidance. Now, we will move to the presentation segment with the first topic being Accelerating Digital Infrastructure Development and Fostering Global Digital Inclusion. In this session, we are honored to invite three distinguished speakers. And reminded to all speakers, each person will have eight minutes to speak. First, I’d like to introduce our first speaker, Mr. Teresa Swinhart, SVP of Global Domains and the Strategy at ICANN. As a leading expert on global internet governance, Teresa collaborates with community, contracted parties, stakeholders, and the policy makers to ensure broad and inclusive participation. And Teresa will present on working towards a more inclusive intent. Please take the floor. Welcome.

Theresa Swinehart: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. And thank you for having me and inviting me to this session. You can hear me okay? Yes, fantastic. Very good. So, the introductory remarks were excellent because they really touched on so many of the areas that we need to be working on. And accelerating the construction of digital infrastructure and promoting digital inclusiveness and development requires cooperation and it requires that we all work together on that. The internet has evolved and it keeps evolving. And it’s truly become the foundation for the digital society that we live in today and that we rely on. We have people who are participating remotely to these sessions as well and everything. This foundation allows us to build on the internet to implement initiatives that seek to ensure that the benefits of the digitalization are felt by all of its users. And we’ve seen over the years, and we saw during all the years, education online, health online, all these different initiatives and communicating with family members. So there’s opportunities on multiple levels, of course, plus the business opportunities. So ICANN’s role is limited in this area, in the inclusive nature of the internet, in the accelerating the construction, but we play an important role. And that is around the Global Unique Identifier System or how the addressing system works, how we communicate with each other, how your email is coming across. We coordinate, as we said, the Global Unique Identifier System that includes the DNS, the Domain Name System, IP addresses, and protocol parameters. And those comprise the components of the internet infrastructure and how we communicate with each other. We’re a nonprofit, public interest-driven organization, and we’re committed to building a globally unique, secure, interoperable, and inclusive internet. And there’s some things that we’ve been doing recently and over time and also through the contribution of many of the stakeholders, also in China and in many different parts of the world, who have technical expertise, governance expertise, business expertise that have contributed to all of this work. The few areas I’d like to highlight is the active involvement by the community in what is being referred to as the next round of new top-level domains. That is the introduction of new top-level domains, either to the right of the dot or for other scripts to the left of the dot, in that case. The new TLD program aims to expand the domain name space by introducing more generic top-level domains, or gTLDs, and affording that opportunity. The important aspect of this next round, though, is as the evolution of internationalized domain names, there is exceeding opportunity to introduce domain names in their own script, which is an important element to inclusivity. These new top-level domains are gonna serve a diverse culture, geographic language, and professional communities, and provide various communities and organizations the opportunity to create their own space online, which means, then, the ability for platforms to connect to that and have that. The other area I want to highlight is the area that is referred to as internationalized domain names. That is new top-level domains, not only in ASCII or Roman character sets, but supporting various language and various scripts, and that’s very important to an inclusive internet and the ability for people to use the language of their choice with a full experience of using that language on the internet. I also want to highlight that the program is paying very strong attention to the underserved and underrepresented regions and communities so they can obtain the necessary support if they want to run a desired TLD. So we’ve recently launched the Applicant Support Program. We’re tracking the applications that are coming in for that that will provide support for the whole experience. Another area of work is around universal acceptance, and what that means is when one has a top-level domain which exceeds more than two or three letters to the right or to the left of the dot, or is in a script that is not an ASCII script, the ability for that communication to be seamless across the system so the platform providers can provide that. Again, an important aspect of inclusivity. Next year, ICANN and UNESCO, United Nations Education, Science, and Cultural Organization, are gonna collaborate on the annual universal Acceptance Day to create awareness around this, and it’s an opportunity to mobilize local, national, regional, and global communities and organizations to become more aware of what needs to be done to undertake this. This collaboration is intended to support and encourage Internet inclusivity and aims to continue the momentum surrounding awareness of what needs to undertake to have universal acceptance. We need to remember that the inclusive Internet involves all of us, and you pointed that out very kindly, and it should continue to be one that considers and hears the voices of all stakeholders who are involved and maintain and operate and use the Internet. It’s the only way we can make it work. Everybody has different expertise, different ideas. We need to do that. When all the relevant experts are at the table, having a say in decisions that are affecting the Internet, the solutions that are identified have a much, much higher chance of succeeding without inadvertently either fragmenting the Internet or not being possible to implement because one hadn’t thought about one aspect or another. None of us have all the expertise. We need to have a shared experience. So I encourage you to follow, participate, and spread the word about these projects in your regions and communities, and we’d like to work together with all interested parties to build a more diversified, multilingual, and inclusive Internet for all of us to benefit from. And I will apologize in advance. I do need to leave before the session ends. So I am very grateful. Thank you for accommodating us. Thank you very much, Teresa, and we hope to work with you and with your team and also the technical community to construct a more inclusive Internet.

Liu Yue: Thank you again. And next, let me introduce our second speaker, Mr. Echo Lee, Vice President of Marketing and Solution at Huawei Cloud Saudi Arabia. And Mr. Lee is playing a crucial role in planning and executing the public cloud region in Saudi Arabia, and he will present on leap to the intelligence with a better cloud. Please take the floor. Thank you. Hello. Can you hear me? Thank you.

Echo Li: So, first of all, thank you very much for CAC to host this forum, and thank you very much for Deputy General to invite me to come to this event. And today, I would like to share some of Huawei’s practice to how we can bridging the gaps for the digital services and bridging the gap between different countries, the digital capabilities. And so, first of all, I would like to give a short introduction about Huawei, what’s our current marketing progress for Huawei. Since it was born in 2017, Huawei Cloud has been expanding the territory in different industries, including the governments, the FSI, and the Internet industry, and it’s growing faster based on the support by our customers and partners and global individuals. I believe that this is one of the foundations for Huawei to achieve in the current stage. It is by the support by the different parties’ support. And if you look at Huawei’s global practice for accelerating the digital foundations, the first, I think, it is to building the regions globally. That’s a foundation how the Huawei Cloud can serve different clients in different countries. So, in the current stage, Huawei Cloud has been building our regions in global, 13 regions, and totally sum up, have 93 availability zones. And just in Saudi last year, we launched Huawei Cloud regions with three availability zones. By leveraging this region, we can provide the most advanced cutting technology by the cloud, the big data, AI, to serving different industrial needs. So, later on, I will share some of the cases where we are utilizing the data and AI technology to bridging the gaps between the countries, as well as to bring the benefit to individuals to different industries. One of the cases we want to share here, it is in one country in Africa. In that country, there are many fisheries that need to go to the seas. You know the climate is changing, the climate is changing a lot, and there’s a huge danger if they go to the sea without knowing what the climate is. And what we do is by providing the notice, the larger models, we call it Pangu Weather Larger Models, which is developed by Huawei, and we’re using that model to train and predict and to focus on the climate change or the weather changes, so that for the fishers, they will know one week ahead what the weather looks like, and they will plan their fishing activities. And the beautiful thing is, this kind of technology doesn’t like, in the old days, you need to set up a very hybrid, like HPC, like Hyper Cluster Computing, which is a huge investment, requires a huge investment from the government and from the companies. It just requires a few GPU servers, and then you can set up this larger model and ROM, and to serve the fishing industry. Another case I want to share here is about education. So we have been working together, like just now the lady, Ms. Teresa mentioned about, we partner with different partners globally to bring in the newest education technologies, and by leveraging the remote learning and online learning technology to serving the students in the Egypt and serving the students in the Africa, so that even though they are studying in the rural areas, but they still can enjoy the latest technologies and enjoy the latest education resources. Another case here I would like to introduce is in the UAE. So we work together with one of the entities, which is called AMCABO in the UAE, together to build an education cloud. So by this cloud, it consolidates all the necessary resources, and the platform, and the application, and also the up-to-date online courses. So to serve the students, the university students, as well as the basic education students. Sorry. Okay. So there’s another case, maybe some problem for the controller. There’s another case I would like to share here. It is one case for the FinTechs. As we know that financial inclusion is a very big topic nowadays, and we have been working together with the local partner in Myanmar, which is considered one of the most undeveloped countries in the world. We together to build up the payment platform, which from the 2018 to set up this platform, which is called KBZPay. And I’m personal to leading that system development. We work with a local partner to start from zero to develop this payment platform, so the users and the citizens in Myanmar, they can leverage the smartphone to do the cash-in and to do the cash-out and transfer money. Just in the pandemic period of time, that everything was shut down. So the people leveraging that application to transfer money to his relatives, to his family, and do the business. So now this platform become a national platform in Myanmar, which is serving more than 17 million users, and the day-to-day value transaction is huge. So we believe that this new technology can be really bridging the gaps between the most advanced countries and the undeveloped countries. Another case I want to share here is one case on the agriculture. As you know, China is also one of the large agricultural countries. So we have some of the advanced technology on the monumental IoT or advanced systems. devices, so we bring this application and devices in Africa, in other Americas, to implement by hosting on the cloud and provide this application to monitoring the crop by weekly, by hour, and we leveraging the AI technology to keep monitoring the growth status, so in case there’s any, I would say that there any disease happens at the crops, the farmer can immediately take actions to clean the diseases by leveraging this technology, and the beautiful thing is this technology will be hosting on cloud with the cost-effective cost to let the farmer have easily to enjoy the technologies. The final case I would like to share here is we know that with the vision of 2013 that Saudi is trying to develop different kind of the new industry, new economy, so one of the cases it’s in in Saudi that Saudi, one company in Saudi called Abax, they are trying to build a platform for the e-commerce, but they are not of the capability to build the platform, and we, together with the partners, to help them to build a whole e-commerce platform by leveraging the latest e-commerce technology of China and setting up the platform successfully in Saudi, and by leveraging the cloud that you can achieve very low latency, so the people in Saudi can enjoy the internet experience similar in other countries, and they can enjoy the latest way how to do the online shopping, they can even do the shopping by the online streaming. Yeah, that’s all for my presentation. At the end, I would like to emphasize the mission of the Huawei, that is to provide the digital to every person, every home, and every organization by building an intelligent world and an intelligent connection. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Liu Yue: Thank you, Mr. Eko Lee, and for your wonderful sharing several cases on the cloud infrastructure and this application for the digital area, and also we are sure that a good cloud for good. So I will introduce our third speaker, Mr. Mo Zhibai, and he comes from the Saudi Cloud Computing Company, and he is the general manager for digital adversary and the strategic programs. In this role, he provides executive adversary on digital and the cloud strategy, and oversees Alibaba cloud strategy program in the region, and he will present on accelerate the construction of digital infrastructure, promote a global digital inclusiveness and the development. Please take the floor, Mr. Mo.

Talal Albakr: Hello everyone, and thank you again for hosting me here. So I’d like to start with making a bold, if you like, statement that I really think that cloud is the way to build the foundation for the digital infrastructure, and the cloud is the only way actually to do that. And why am I saying this? Because as we go through what I’m going to present, you will see that cloud services and cloud platform become like electricity in a country, electricity in an economy, where there are fundamental needs for enterprises and for businesses. So if we look at the spend on the cloud, I’ve been going through different studies and different research, and one of the most conservative figures I found that cloud spending by 2030 is expected to reach 1.35 trillion dollars. I’ve seen studies that take it to 3 trillion and more. 40% of these will be from emerging markets. 40% of the spending will be from emerging markets. And when it comes to emerging technologies, 80% of emerging technology of AI will be actually run on the cloud. I’m just looking and figuring out that you’re not seeing my slides. So while they’re fixing the slides, I’ll just go through the material and not assume you’re seeing it. So the other part, what if a country or economy does not invest on cloud? I see there three risks. First, there is an opportunity risk, opportunity loss risk, because from what we’re seeing in research, and again conservative numbers in research, that for every one dollar invested in cloud infrastructure, the return on GDP is five times, five dollars. So imagine no investment. No investment will lead to a significant opportunity loss. The other part is the international impact, the international investment impact. As you know, countries today, cities today, are like companies. They compete. We compete for international investment everywhere, and countries who do not have the right investment in the digital infrastructure will have investment runaway. And we’ve seen examples of this. We’ve seen positive examples where we’ve seen investments going to Singapore, to Malaysia. We’ve seen recent announcements just because of the availability of the cloud infrastructure and the digital infrastructure. The other part of the investment and potential investment loss is the investment loss that is led or resulted by not having the cloud infrastructure, the disadvantage for the enterprises on the country. The disadvantage will be the enterprises in a specific country where there is no investment, they will not have access to the B2B, B2C, B2BC infrastructure that will allow them to compete in a cross-border commerce. The third one is the digital divide. So imagine a country or economy that does not invest on a digital infrastructure and having the disadvantage of not having the access to some of the cases my colleague mentioned on the digital health, the digital education, digital sports and others. So the hypothesis here, can you run this, that’s the right slide now, so can we run this, actually we’ve just gone through this so you can go to the next one, can we run all of this on legacy setup? And really it cannot be because by the time you put a digital infrastructure using legacy methods, by the time you go live, the infrastructure will be out of date. So cloud allows agility and quick time to value and the other thing cloud allows is the ease of investment. So when we talk about AI and cloud today, normally I would say to customers, enterprises or public sector entities that for any AI use case, you need three months to implement. Imagine with the legacy stuff, with the legacy you need at least 18 months, I would say, to build a data center, let alone to acquire infrastructure that sits on the data center. Then the other aspect is the data sovereignty. So 75% of today’s population are governed by some kind of regulation around data and personalized data. So this is something else that we need to take into account because when we say there is an enterprise advantage or economy advantage for the cloud, also we need to take into account the regulations that come with it. If we go to the next slide, so what did we do in Saudi taking into account all of this? So SCCC, the Saudi cloud computing company, came about there’s two slides ahead please. So Saudi cloud computing company came about with an investment it’s a joint venture. It’s a Saudi-Chinese joint venture that made us bring hyperscaler cloud capabilities to the kingdom. And towards the end of last year, as we saw calculated, we were able to capture more than 70 to 80 percent of the workload by having the cloud in-country, adhering to data sovereignty, but allowing the quick time to value. We go to the next one. So how did this joint venture work? And the reason I’m presenting this, because this is I think a significant experience that could be taken elsewhere as well. So there were three pillars to this. So the first pillar is the effective partners of this joint venture. So STC being the leader, the ICT leader in Saudi Arabia, with a huge enterprise and public sector reach. And the second part is Alicloud with a significant know-how and IP that we took into the market. The second pillar on this is being able actually to conform to all of the Saudi regulations, whether it’s the national cybersecurity or the CST regulation. And the third one, which is very important in there, is by having the right solutions tailored for the Saudi market, the right innovation to bring to the Saudi market. The other approach to add to this, to what we’ve done in this, that we looked at this with a holistic view. So we’re not bringing an infrastructure alone. We’re bringing with it the know-how, the ideation part, the implementation part, the tailoring and the customization part. So customer can realize the value of the investment they make. And add to this now AI. And we believe with AI we’re able to deliver more timely value by having the solution empowered by or powered by AI. Let’s go to the next one. So when we look at Saudi market, in Saudi we looked at key priorities. So as an emerging player in tourism, in sports, in the financial services, as a leader in e-government, we focused our investment around these industries, providing these solutions to these industries. And there we looked at use cases and there’s so many use cases that we tailored to the Saudi market across all of these. Covering quality of life, covering e-government and public sector, and covering the financial services, manufacturing and others. So my call to action, three points. Clouds provide agility and it provides the right time to value. Secondly, investment with the right partnerships and collaboration to lead the right results. And this is a timely investment that required so we leave no country behind and no economy behind. Thank you very much and we’re happy to share, we’re happy to discuss and we’re happy to talk about the experience and also share insight and also welcome any partnership that will help us enrich our offerings in Saudi Arabia. Thank you.

Liu Yue: Okay, thank you for your sharing on cloud, an important infrastructure in the digital world and its development with AI in Saudi market and its benefit the government and also the people here. And thanks all the three speakers in their brilliant presentation in the first topics. Now we will move into the second topic. Strength the innovation and the application of emerging technologies, bridge the global digital divide. In this part we also have three distinguished speakers. Please allow me to introduce our first speaker, Mr. Dai Wei, Deputy Secretary General of the Internet Society of China and he has extensive professional experience in Internet governance and the Internet based public welfare initiatives. And he also serves as the Deputy Director of China ITF and he will present on joint efforts for an aging-friendly and inclusive digital society. Please take the floor. Okay, thank you for the organizer for inviting me to this session. It is my

Dai Wei: honor. I’m Dai Wei from the Internet Society of China and today, this afternoon, I will share with you what the Internet Society of China has done for an inclusive and aging-friendly digital society. The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Places the goal of inclusion at the heart of all efforts in order to achieve the promise to leave no one behind. China is a major Internet country with a wide coverage of Internet infrastructures and user forming an exclusive digital society. Additionally, China also has a substantial elderly people. There are nearly 297 million people aged 60 and over by the end of 2023. Among this big number, there are about 170 million aging people using the Internet. So the digital technologies brought the convenience to our daily life and it changed our life and works so we can enjoy the services like online entertainment, online shopping, and online education and so on. However, please bear in mind that some digital divides still exist in the reality. For example, the elderly people cannot use the Internet as smoothly as the young people does because there are so many websites or apps. The interface looks very complex or the font is too small to read. To solve the issue of digital divide, it’s not only about access to the Internet but also how to make it easy to use. Therefore, achieving the goal of building an age-friendly digital society and narrowing the digital divide is not just a simple slogan but presents both formidable challenges and far-reaching significance. In recent years, the Chinese government has implemented a package of policies to tackle issues related to aging population, especially the law on the construction of a barrier-free environment enacted last year is the first legislation to address the importance to promote information accessibility. In line with the policy instruction, different stakeholders of the community had launched a series of approaches to improve the digital literacy of the aging group or facilitate the technical innovation of the related products. As the Internet Industry Association, the Internet Society of China started to reach to research and did a lot of works and things for the information accessibility from the year 2004. We are one of the organizations who firstly introduced the concept of information accessibility to the Chinese community and by follow-up conducted work and some such as a standard formulation and public education and training and the policy-making advice extra. In 2003, we launched the China Public Services Information Accessibility Action Plan to promote online voice reading assistance for keyboard operation and the virtual assistance technology to be used and deployed on the public services websites. The service platform won the champion of 2017 WSIS prize presented by ITU. From 2021, the Internet Society of China undertook technical guidance for the public service websites in nationwide to up… the interface or functions more easily to use for the elderly. Furthermore, we stress our cooperation with professional organizations such as China Association of Persons with Viral Disabilities and the China Association of Volunteers Helping Persons with Disabilities and the China Silver Industry Association. Because we take a lot of efforts and make some cooperation to take joint efforts to facilitate the program. Till now, we have promoted more than 30,000 public service websites to finish the information accessibility functions updated. Ladies and gentlemen, with the deepening of the global digital society and the development of aging society, it is commitment to let no one behind in the digital world. So in the future, we would like to work with you together and make more efforts and make more some cooperation in the future to promote an inclusive digital society for all.

Liu Yue: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dawei. It’s sharing ideas on how to build a friendly and inclusive digital society and the experience from China and the Internet Society of China. Next, our next speaker is from the university, Mr. Saad Haji Bakri, a professor from the College of Computer and Information Sciences at King Saud University. He will present on promoting digital transformation toward development. Welcome.

Saad Haj Bakry: Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah. I am glad to be here with you, this beautiful collection that we are thinking together about the future of the digital world. The question I want actually to address is that are we doing enough or are we utilizing enough the beautiful technology, the beautiful digital technology for our benefits? I don’t want to ask you all this question. I’ll ask myself and say no, we are not. Why? Let’s go into the problem here and gradually from having a view of the digital world, digital benefits, digital transformation. If we start with the digital world, the digital world has a certain issue that we have to recognize. It is accelerating. The growth is not linear. The growth is accelerating. And we are now reaching to what we call the fifth industrial revolution. The cyberspace, of course, is serving us with all the information that we need worldwide. No borders. We need actually to utilize this for our benefits so that we can build what we call digital economy. Of course, the digital world, the digital technology provides us with storage, provides us with transfer of information, but the most important, it’s not only processing now, it’s also intelligence. So we have to use all of these because they provide us all the services, all information services with smaller devices, faster, cheaper, more intelligent, more secure with new opportunities. If we look at the governance of the digital world, we have various levels, starting from the personal level, from how I use the digital technology, how is there standards for that, is there rules for that. Organization level, of course, organization level, we have the ISO 27001002 for the security. We don’t have enough for the actual governance, the detailed governance. There is a small, of course, standard, but not widely known as the cybersecurity one. The national level, global cybersecurity index, the international level, the competition into that, we have all of these levels for the governance of the Internet. Now we move to the benefits. If we look at the benefits of the digital technology, we can see tangible benefits, we can see intangible benefits. Intangible benefits may save us some health problems. Like avoiding tension, avoiding something. And we have also, within these tangible and intangible, recursive benefits and non-recursive benefits. If we look at an example of a tangible benefit, of course, these benefits are for all. For individuals, for government, for business, for the whole society. But if we try to compute, for example, these with regards, for example, the remote work. Remote work, we can estimate the saving for one million employees working for 230 days per year. We can calculate the transportation cost from and to the work. And we can also calculate the saving of time, especially with the crowded areas of all cities of the world. If we do that, we can save approximately 38 billion Saudi Riyal per year, only for one million employees. Are we doing that? We are not doing enough. Maybe we should do something about that in the future. If we look at the technology transfer, technology transfer is not a matter of technology. It’s not a matter of having beautiful cloud computing. It’s not a matter of providing a new artificial intelligence that provides us with many answers. It’s important to look at a broad view. A broad view at the technology, the people using the technology, the organizations using the technology, the environment, the culture of all of these, the culture of the society, in other words, in addition to having a strategy for doing so, together with a time domain to do the improvement. How are we going to do the improvement? We can have all of these dimensions, the technology, organization, people, environment, into a strategy and try to develop over time using, for example, something like Six Sigma stages for continuous improvement. Finally, I would like to recommend that we need to do more about technology transfer. We need to do more about utilizing the technology for our benefits. Our benefits are going to be great. So please think technology, organization, people, environment, and have a strategy for development for the future.

Liu Yue: Thank you very much. Thank you, Professor Saad, for your insight on the digital world, the digital benefits, and the digital transformation. I think we will work together to promote digital transformation toward development. Our final speaker is Mrs. Dalina, Deputy Director of the Journalism Institute of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. She is an active expert based in Shanghai, China. Her primary research interests include international governance of cyberspace, digital policies, and the political economy. She will present on how to help seniors cross the digital divide and adapt to a smarter society. sharing their practice and experience in Shanghai. Welcome, Ms. Tan. Okay, thank you.

Dai Lina: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I’m Lina Dai from Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. It’s my great honor to be here with you at Riyadh IGF. First of all, please allow me to express my sincere gratitude to the organizers for inviting me to share a few thoughts on digital divide. Today, I would like to talk about the digital divide facing the senior citizens and our experience empowering the elderly with AI in Shanghai. As digitization accelerates, our life relies more and more on the online apps. But these seemingly convenient tools can also bring digital barriers to the elderly, such as mobile payments, online appointments, and hailing taxis with a mobile phone. This has sincerely eroded the rights of the elderly people to enjoy the benefits of digitalization as much as other age groups. Shanghai is one of the cities with the highest degree of digitization and the smart application in China. At the same time, it is also the country’s first group of cities to enter an aging society. And it is the city with the highest ratio of the elderly in China. In recent years, the ratio of the elderly in the population has continued to increase year by year. At the end of 2023, the number of elderly people aged 60 and above has accounted for 37.4% of the total population. Chinese government has released three important plans to bridge the elderly digital divide. To enforce these plans and help the elderly overcome the digital divide, Shanghai has accelerated the pace moving from helping the elderly with digital technologies to helping the elderly with AI tools. The AI era has widened the digital divide for the elderly. This includes the issue of access, use, and the knowledge gap. In 2021, under the guidance of Shanghai Municipal Office of Digital Transformation, the Shanghai Approach Digital Partnership Program was jointly initiated by local government departments, enterprises, citizens, and social organizations to address the problem of digital divide. The details are as follows. In order to address the issue of access, the plan requires software deployers to meet the needs of special groups and make applications more user-friendly. Shanghai issued the design specification for adapting Internet applications for the elderly and improving barrier-free facilities in Shanghai. Specific programs were initiated to develop senior citizen-friendly applications that cater to their needs, such as large screens, big font, voice guidance, simplified versions, one-click access, and so on. The application example is Shanghai Residence’s elderly-friendly version. In order to make applications more senior-friendly, the plan encourages equipment manufacturers to develop more programs and devices that are easy to use for the elderly. For example, services such as the one-click service for the elderly, which provides a one-stop service for medical care, car-hailing, and government policy information. The elderly can contact call centers in various districts through one-click phone calls, smartphones, television, and portable terminals, among other ways. By pressing one button, they can contact call centers and access corresponding service resources. To close the knowledge gap, the government has mobilized social forces through the Mutual Aid Partner Initiative to help elderly people who are not familiar with smartphones but have the ability and desire to learn. There are community information service assistants who are trained to provide relevant information services. The elderly people can attend training courses, hobby classes, close to their homes on the use of smart products. Young people, especially their children, are encouraged to help the elderly familiarize themselves with new equipment and technologies. A number of AI experience testers are selected, and opinion leaders are nurtured among the elderly to give full play to their roles and influence. The Shanghai Elderly Education Working Group Office directed the completion of a study manual entitled Digital Partnership Program, How to Use Smartphones as a Mac City with a High Ratio of Aged Population. Closing the digital divide is the call of the times and a brand new issue for the city’s digitization efforts at the same time. It is also a systematic project that concerns all aspects of the city and the well-being of all citizens. Shanghai prioritizes the elderly and disabled in the digital transformation of the city and strives to turn itself into a city with a better human touch. Above all, it’s a short, brief introduction from Shanghai. Thank you for your attention.

Liu Yue: Thank you, Mr. Dai. Dear guests, experts, ladies and gentlemen, our forum today is about to come to a perfect conclusion. Due to the limited time, I will have a very short ending. Thank you for all the valuable insight and the spirit of cooperation. Today’s discussion and speech can summarize to three key words, inclusiveness, innovation, and international cooperation. Finally, let’s work together to seize the opportunity presented by the Digital Network and the Intelligent World, contributing to the building of a community with a shared future in cyberspace, making the Internet better for people and the world, and stepping into a bright digital future. Thank you. This forum has now concluded. I think we are just a new start to the digital governance and to bridge our digital divide. Thank you. I will invite all the speakers and our distinguished guests to the stage. We will have a group photo. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of digital infrastructure for development

speakers

Wang Jianchao

Theresa Swinehart

Echo Li

Talal Albakr

arguments

Global cooperation needed to bridge digital divide

ICANN’s role in coordinating global internet infrastructure

Cloud computing as foundation for digital infrastructure

Saudi Arabia’s investment in cloud infrastructure

summary

Speakers agree on the critical role of digital infrastructure, including cloud computing and internet governance systems, in fostering development and bridging the digital divide.

Need for inclusive digital services

speakers

Dai Wei

Dai Lina

arguments

Policies and initiatives to improve digital literacy of aging population

Shanghai’s efforts to make digital services elderly-friendly

summary

Both speakers emphasize the importance of making digital services accessible and user-friendly for the elderly population, highlighting specific initiatives in China.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers view cloud computing as a crucial foundation for digital infrastructure and enabler of emerging technologies like AI.

speakers

Echo Li

Talal Albakr

arguments

Cloud computing as foundation for digital infrastructure

Cloud enabling AI and emerging tech adoption

Both speakers emphasize the importance of international cooperation and involving multiple stakeholders in addressing digital governance challenges.

speakers

Wang Jianchao

Theresa Swinehart

arguments

Global cooperation needed to bridge digital divide

Multi-stakeholder approach needed for internet governance

Unexpected Consensus

Focus on elderly population in digital inclusion efforts

speakers

Dai Wei

Dai Lina

arguments

Policies and initiatives to improve digital literacy of aging population

Shanghai’s efforts to make digital services elderly-friendly

explanation

The strong focus on addressing the digital divide for the elderly population was an unexpected area of consensus, highlighting a growing recognition of this demographic’s specific needs in digital transformation efforts.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the importance of digital infrastructure for development, the need for inclusive digital services (especially for the elderly), the role of cloud computing in enabling emerging technologies, and the necessity of international cooperation in digital governance.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers on the fundamental importance of digital infrastructure and inclusion. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of key priorities in addressing the digital divide and promoting digital transformation. However, speakers approach these issues from different perspectives (e.g., global governance, national initiatives, specific technologies), indicating a multifaceted approach to tackling digital challenges.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to bridging the digital divide

speakers

Wang Jianchao

Echo Li

Talal Albakr

arguments

Global cooperation needed to bridge digital divide

Cloud computing as foundation for digital infrastructure

Saudi Arabia’s investment in cloud infrastructure

summary

While Wang Jianchao emphasizes global cooperation, Echo Li and Talal Albakr focus on specific technological solutions like cloud computing to bridge the digital divide.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific approaches to bridging the digital divide and the role of different stakeholders in digital development.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is relatively low. Most speakers present complementary rather than conflicting views, focusing on different aspects of digital inclusion and development. This suggests a generally aligned perspective on the importance of addressing the digital divide, with variations in proposed solutions and focus areas.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for broader involvement in digital development, but Swinehart focuses on internet governance while Bakry emphasizes general societal benefits.

speakers

Theresa Swinehart

Saad Haj Bakry

arguments

Multi-stakeholder approach needed for internet governance

Need to better utilize digital tech for societal benefits

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers view cloud computing as a crucial foundation for digital infrastructure and enabler of emerging technologies like AI.

speakers

Echo Li

Talal Albakr

arguments

Cloud computing as foundation for digital infrastructure

Cloud enabling AI and emerging tech adoption

Both speakers emphasize the importance of international cooperation and involving multiple stakeholders in addressing digital governance challenges.

speakers

Wang Jianchao

Theresa Swinehart

arguments

Global cooperation needed to bridge digital divide

Multi-stakeholder approach needed for internet governance

Key Takeaways

Global cooperation is needed to bridge the digital divide and promote digital inclusion

Cloud computing and AI are seen as foundational technologies for digital infrastructure and innovation

Efforts are needed to make digital services more accessible and user-friendly for elderly populations

Multi-stakeholder approaches involving government, industry, and civil society are important for effective internet governance

Countries need to invest in digital infrastructure to remain competitive and avoid falling behind economically

Resolutions and Action Items

Continue efforts to expand internet access and digital infrastructure globally

Develop more elderly-friendly versions of digital applications and services

Increase investment in cloud computing infrastructure, especially in developing countries

Provide more digital literacy training programs, particularly for elderly populations

Strengthen international cooperation on digital governance issues

Unresolved Issues

How to balance data sovereignty concerns with the benefits of global cloud infrastructure

Specific metrics or targets for measuring progress on bridging the digital divide

Funding mechanisms for expanding digital infrastructure in underserved regions

How to address potential job displacement from increased AI and automation

Suggested Compromises

Partnering between international tech companies and local entities to develop country-specific cloud infrastructure, as seen in the Saudi Arabia example

Developing simplified versions of digital applications alongside full-featured versions to cater to different user needs and abilities

To ensure everyone could avoid the express train of digital economy and share its benefits, it is urgent to deepen cooperation on development and governance, bridge the digital divide, and work together towards a brighter digital future.

speaker

Wang Jianchao

reason

This comment frames digital development as both an opportunity and a challenge, emphasizing the need for global cooperation to ensure equitable benefits.

impact

It set the tone for the discussion by highlighting the importance of international collaboration in addressing the digital divide, which was echoed by subsequent speakers.

We need to remember that the inclusive Internet involves all of us, and it should continue to be one that considers and hears the voices of all stakeholders who are involved and maintain and operate and use the Internet.

speaker

Theresa Swinehart

reason

This insight emphasizes the multi-stakeholder nature of internet governance and the importance of inclusivity in decision-making.

impact

It broadened the conversation beyond technical solutions to include governance structures and stakeholder participation, influencing later speakers to address inclusivity in their remarks.

Cloud allows agility and quick time to value and the other thing cloud allows is the ease of investment. So when we talk about AI and cloud today, normally I would say to customers, enterprises or public sector entities that for any AI use case, you need three months to implement. Imagine with the legacy stuff, with the legacy you need at least 18 months.

speaker

Talal Albakr

reason

This comment provides a concrete comparison between cloud and legacy systems, illustrating the practical benefits of cloud technology in accelerating digital transformation.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the practical implications of cloud technology for businesses and governments, prompting other speakers to share specific use cases and implementation strategies.

The question I want actually to address is that are we doing enough or are we utilizing enough the beautiful digital technology for our benefits? I don’t want to ask you all this question. I’ll ask myself and say no, we are not.

speaker

Saad Haj Bakry

reason

This self-reflective question challenges the audience to consider whether current efforts to leverage digital technology are sufficient, encouraging a more critical examination of digital transformation strategies.

impact

It introduced a more critical perspective to the discussion, prompting subsequent speakers to address not just the potential of digital technologies, but also the challenges in fully realizing their benefits.

Shanghai prioritizes the elderly and disabled in the digital transformation of the city and strives to turn itself into a city with a better human touch.

speaker

Dai Lina

reason

This comment highlights a specific approach to addressing the digital divide, focusing on vulnerable populations and emphasizing the human aspect of digital transformation.

impact

It brought the discussion back to concrete, local-level initiatives and the importance of considering specific demographic needs in digital inclusion efforts.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by progressively broadening its scope from high-level principles of international cooperation to specific technological solutions, governance structures, and local implementation strategies. The conversation evolved from emphasizing the need for global collaboration to addressing practical challenges in leveraging digital technologies, and finally to considering the needs of specific populations in digital transformation efforts. This progression allowed for a comprehensive exploration of the multifaceted nature of bridging the digital divide, encompassing both global and local perspectives, as well as technological and human-centered approaches.

How can we further promote universal acceptance of internationalized domain names and new top-level domains?

speaker

Theresa Swinehart

explanation

This is important to ensure a more inclusive internet that supports various languages and scripts, allowing diverse communities to fully participate online.

What are the best practices for implementing cloud-based solutions to bridge the digital divide in developing countries?

speaker

Echo Li

explanation

Understanding successful implementations can help accelerate digital infrastructure development and promote inclusiveness in underserved regions.

How can we quantify and maximize the economic impact of cloud infrastructure investments on a country’s GDP?

speaker

Talal Albakr

explanation

This research could help policymakers and investors make more informed decisions about digital infrastructure investments.

What are the most effective strategies for improving digital literacy among the elderly population?

speaker

Dai Wei

explanation

As the population ages, ensuring that older adults can effectively use digital technologies is crucial for an inclusive digital society.

How can we better measure and evaluate the intangible benefits of digital technology adoption?

speaker

Saad Haj Bakry

explanation

Understanding these benefits could help justify and prioritize digital transformation efforts.

What are the most successful AI-powered tools and applications for helping seniors overcome the digital divide?

speaker

Dai Lina

explanation

Identifying and replicating successful AI solutions could accelerate efforts to make digital technologies more accessible to older adults.

Summary

This discussion focused on the protection of minors online and the challenges of balancing regulation with digital rights and innovation. The panel, comprising European Parliament members, European Commission representatives, and youth leaders, explored various legislative efforts and their global impact.

Key topics included the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which mandates online platforms to assess and mitigate risks to minors, and the proposed regulation on combating child sexual abuse online. The discussion highlighted the importance of age verification measures and the need for effective enforcement of existing regulations.

Participants debated the merits of self-regulation versus legislative approaches, with some advocating for mandatory rules and others emphasizing the importance of preserving innovation and freedom of expression. The potential global impact of EU regulations, known as the “Brussels effect,” was noted, along with the need for international cooperation and consultation.

Youth representatives stressed the importance of including young people’s perspectives in policy-making, given their unique experiences as digital natives. They also highlighted the positive aspects of internet access for education and economic opportunities, particularly in the Global South.

The discussion touched on emerging challenges, such as the use of AI in content moderation and the need for human oversight. Participants also explored the potential for new tools like AI blockers to empower users in managing their online experiences.

Overall, the panel emphasized the need for a balanced approach that protects minors while preserving the benefits of the digital economy. The discussion concluded with a call for ongoing dialogue and global cooperation in addressing these complex issues.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Balancing protection of minors online with digital rights and innovation

– Age verification and content moderation on social media platforms

– Addressing issues like cyberbullying, exposure to inappropriate content, and mental health impacts

– The role of AI and technology in content moderation and age verification

– Incorporating youth perspectives in developing internet regulations

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore approaches to regulating the internet and social media to protect minors, while still preserving digital rights and innovation. It aimed to gather perspectives from EU policymakers, youth representatives, and other stakeholders on existing and proposed regulations.

The tone of the discussion was generally collaborative and solution-oriented. There was an emphasis on hearing diverse viewpoints, especially from youth. The tone became more urgent when discussing the need for global cooperation and youth involvement in policymaking. Overall, participants maintained a constructive approach while acknowledging the complexity of the issues.

Speakers

– Yuliya Morenets: Moderator

– Tsvetelina Penkova: Head of the European Parliament delegation, S&D group

– Ivars Ijabs: Member of European Parliament, ITRE Committee

– Eszter Lakos: Member of European Parliament, ITRE and AFET Committees

– Fulvio Martuscielo: Member of European Parliament, ECON and ITRE Committees, Head of Italian delegation in EPP group

– Pearse O’donohue: Director for Future Networks, European Commission

Additional speakers:

– Brando Benifei: Member of European Parliament (mentioned but not in speakers list)

– Vlad Ivanets: Internet Society Youth Ambassador

– Fatou Sar: Youth IGF Ambassador, MAG member of Africa IGF

– Dana Kramer: Internet Society Youth Ambassador, Coordinator of Youth IGF Canada

– Peter Kinkway: Representative for Youth IGF Liberia

– Chris Junior: Audience member from Zimbabwe

– Wouter: Audience member from Netherlands

Expanded Summary of Discussion on Protecting Minors Online

This comprehensive discussion brought together European Parliament members, European Commission representatives, and youth leaders to explore the complex challenges of protecting minors online while balancing digital rights and innovation. The panel delved into various legislative efforts, their global impact, and the crucial role of youth perspectives in shaping internet governance.

Key Regulatory Frameworks and Approaches

The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) emerged as a central topic, with Tsvetelina Penkova, head of the delegation from S&D in the European Parliament, and Pearse O’Donohue highlighting its mandates for online platforms to assess and mitigate risks to minors. O’Donohue emphasized that the DSA requires platforms to implement age verification measures, which are seen as critical for protecting youth from inappropriate content. He also noted ongoing investigations into platforms like TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram regarding age verification and potentially addictive features.

Penkova mentioned the proposed EU regulation on combating child sexual abuse online, further demonstrating the EU’s commitment to addressing online harms to youth. Brando Benifei discussed the AI Act and its role in combating cyberbullying, particularly regarding deepfakes and transparency measures.

However, Ivars Ijabs cautioned that regulation should balance protection with digital rights and innovation, reflecting a nuanced approach to legislative solutions. Vlad Ivanets echoed this sentiment, warning about the risks of over-regulation and emphasizing the importance of self-regulation by platforms.

Dana Kramer provided insights into Canada’s Online Harms Act, stressing the importance of intersectionality in understanding and addressing online harms. This perspective highlighted the need for comprehensive approaches that consider diverse experiences and vulnerabilities.

Global Impact and Regional Considerations

The potential global impact of EU regulations, known as the “Brussels effect”, was a significant point of discussion. Speakers noted that EU policies could influence internet governance worldwide, raising questions about the implications for digital economies in other regions.

Peter King emphasized the need for youth-centric internet regulation in Africa and the broader global context. Chris Junior from Zimbabwe provided a poignant example of the internet’s positive impact, noting that during the COVID-19 pandemic, much of their education relied on platforms like WhatsApp. This highlighted the importance of internet access for education and income generation in the Global South, underscoring the need to consider diverse global contexts when crafting regulations.

Technological Solutions and Challenges

The role of artificial intelligence in content moderation emerged as a contentious topic. While some speakers highlighted the potential of AI to combat issues like cyberbullying, audience members emphasized the continued need for human review in moderating potentially harmful content. This debate underscored the complex balance between leveraging technological solutions and ensuring fair and effective content moderation practices.

Dana Kramer proposed the development of AI blockers similar to ad blockers, allowing users more control over their online experiences. This idea sparked discussion about novel technological approaches that could empower users while addressing online harms.

Youth Perspectives and Inclusion

A recurring theme throughout the discussion was the critical importance of incorporating youth perspectives in policy-making. Youth representatives stressed that as digital natives, they offer unique insights into the realities of online experiences. This led to challenging questions about whether policymakers are sufficiently equipped to represent youth perspectives in the legislative process.

Wouter, an audience member from the Netherlands, directly questioned the panel on their readiness to incorporate youth viewpoints, highlighting a potential gap in the policy development process. This prompted reflection on the need for more direct engagement between young people, policymakers, and tech industry leaders in shaping internet governance.

Balancing Protection and Opportunity

A key challenge articulated by Pearse O’Donohue was the need to protect children from age-inappropriate content without excluding them from the positive opportunities the internet offers. This delicate balance framed much of the discussion, with participants grappling with how to create safe online environments that still allow for learning, creativity, and digital skill development.

Unresolved Issues and Future Directions

While the discussion made significant strides in exploring the complexities of protecting minors online, several issues remained unresolved. These included finding the right balance between protection and freedom of expression, ensuring global coordination on internet governance, addressing the reliance on internet platforms for education and income generation in developing countries, and determining the appropriate role of AI in content moderation.

Tsvetelina Penkova concluded with a warning about the potential shrinking of the digital economy without a common approach to regulation, emphasizing the need for ongoing dialogue and global cooperation in addressing these complex issues. Suggested compromises included developing user-controlled AI blockers, combining voluntary platform actions with mandatory regulations for sensitive areas, and creating more opportunities for direct dialogue between youth, policymakers, and tech company leaders on internet governance issues.

In summary, this discussion highlighted the multifaceted challenges of protecting minors online in a globally connected digital landscape. It emphasized the need for nuanced, inclusive approaches that consider diverse perspectives, leverage technological innovations, and balance protection with the preservation of digital rights and opportunities for youth worldwide.

Yuliya Morenets: All right, yes, so obviously with the European Union Digital Services Act and the priorities outlined in Executive Vice President Hannah Birken and mission letter dedicated to advancing digital and governance policies, the discussion takes on critical importance. So drawing on insights from recent legislative developments in Australia and ongoing discussion in Canada, our idea today is to discuss if we need a different regulation and that if the existing regulation can address issues like cyberbullying, mental health impacts and platform accountability. So once again, I will be moderating this session and we have a number of guests present in the room with whom we will be discussing, members of the European Parliament delegation that we would like to thank for accepting this invitation for being with us today. We have Svetlana Penkova, head of the delegation from S&D. I don’t know if you would like just to, yes. We have Esther Lakos, I hope so, in the room, Fulvio Martucello, Silvia Sardone, Dominic Tarsinski, Tobias Baschenski, Ivar Yarps and we have Brenda Benefe that I hope is present together with us today, this afternoon. We have, of course, with us, Piers O’Donoghue, director for the Future Networks Directorate of TG Connect. Together with the European Parliament delegation that we thank to be present today, we have a number of young leaders that will be helping us to understand the three cases we prepared for you today for the discussion. We’re supposed to have Denia Psarou online from the Greece IGF. By the way, we have a solid number of people present online and following this discussion. We have Vlad Ivanis, apologies, from the youth community present on site, Peter Kinkway from the Liberia Youth IGF, Fatou Sar from the youth community, Levi Sianseki helping us from the youth IGF Zambia, and a number of other young people that we hope will participate in the discussion. So as we know, Australia passed the world’s first law banning under 16 years old from being present on social media. We know that at the beginning of this year, Canada introduced the Online Harms Act with enhanced protection on social media services. Probably the very first question we would like to bring to the members of the European Parliament, but also to the youth community, we do know that EU is quite often seen as a kind of Silicon Valley for regulation, right? Will the European Union follow the example of Australia, or will take another route and lead in this area of protecting kids and children online, but at the same time balancing with digital rights? I would like to give the floor to the head of the delegation from the European Parliament. The floor is yours. Perfect, thank you. I hope you can all hear me.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Thank you, thank you, Julia, for the short introduction. We are having a packed room here in Riyadh, and there are a lot of topics that we are going to be happy to discuss, but we also want to hear the young people’s perspective that we have here in the room. Around me, I have my colleagues from the European Parliament, and I’ll give them the floor to introduce themselves briefly, because we’re all coming from different political groups, and we’re coming from different member states, and of course, the national and the political perspective does matter when we’re having those debates, because as you know, a lot of the legislations that we are passing, they are on a consensus basis at the European Parliament, but still, it’s important to hear who we are exactly. And also we have with us the European Commission. I mean, if you say that the Silicon Valley of regulation is the European Union, probably the rules are starting from the European Commission, so that’s why they would also have an active role in this debate. So before we jump into the topic, because you’ve already very specifically presented that, I would just ask my colleagues to present themselves. And also a remark, because I know that you’re referring specifically to Brando, he’s joining us in a bit, he’s just participating in another debate on AI, because AI seems to be one of the main and the key topics of this IGF, but as the main expert in the EU at the moment, he’s going to join us shortly. So don’t be afraid that you’re going to miss the insight from the originator of the legislation. And now I’m going to start from my left with introducing my colleagues from the European Parliament.

Ivars Ijabs: Thank you very much, Tvetelina. My name is Ivar Sijaps, I’m a second mandate MEP. I work with energy, industry, technology in the EITRE Committee in the European Parliament. I’m looking forward to have a fruitful debate with you tonight.

Yuliya Morenets: Thank you.

Eszter Lakos: Nice to meet you, my name is Eszter Lakos, I’m Hungarian, first term MEP, and as two of them I’m a member of the ITRE, so Industry, Research, Energy, etc., and also AFET which deals with foreign policy.

Fulvio Martuscielo: I am Fulvio Martuscello from Italy, I am a member of the European Parliament from 2014, now I am a full member in ECON committee and ITRE committee, and I am also the head of the Italian delegation in FPP group.

Pearse O’donohue: Good afternoon, I am not a member of the European Parliament, I am an official of the European Commission, my name is Pierre Sadanahu, Director for Future Networks, and my work brings me into direct involvement in the next generation Internet, including particularly in this case the governance of the Internet, which is why I am here at the IGF, thank you.

Yuliya Morenets: Perfect, I hope this mic is working, can you hear me, I see the nodding in the room, perfect, so we can use the other one for the rest of the people here, do you’d like to say a few words about yourself and introduce yourselves please?

Speaker 1: Sure, hello everyone, good evening, thank you for being here, for joining us on site as well as online, my name is Vlad Ivanets, I am this year Internet Society Youth Ambassador, but during this session I hope I will be able to present my personal opinion on the legislation that affects children and youth population, and I will pass the mic to my colleagues.

Speaker 2: Good evening everyone, I am happy to be there with all of you, my name is Fatousa, I am a current Youth IGF Ambassador, and I am an engineer in Green Hydrogen and Energy, and one of the MAG members of the Africa IGF. Thank you.

Speaker 3: Hello, my name is Dana Kramer. I am an Internet Society Youth Ambassador, and I’m also the coordinator of Youth IGF Canada. And in Canada, and our Youth IGF in particular, we’ve been collaborating a lot on the Online Harms Act with our parliamentarians, and that was actually our keynote speech within our Canada Youth IGF in September. And I’ve been very fortunate to have lots of communication on that specific type of legislation.

Speaker 4: Okay, thank you so much. My name is Peter Kinkway. I’m the representative for the Youth IGF in Liberia. Basically, we’ve been involved in the space of youth, I mean, IGF space in the Mano River Union, which make up all countries, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Africa.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Perfect. Thank you so much. It was important to know who are we speaking with. So the question that was posed initially by Julia, I will start making some initial remarks, and then I’ll ask my colleagues also from the parliament and from the commission to jump in at any point. And of course, after you’ve heard the legislator’s stand on all those matters, we would like to hear your feedback, or how do you see those topics developing or evolving, or what do you expect more from us? Because I know that you are the people who would have the most impactful and important insights of what is working and what is not. So as you know, in a lot of those digital policies and regulations we are working on, one of the main challenges we are facing at the European Parliament and the European Commission is basically to balance the protection with the digital rights, because we want to foster innovation, but at the same time, we don’t want to limit it with too many restrictions. So as you know, in a lot of the topics, this is probably gonna be one of the most challenging aspects of how to do this and how to achieve it. So in her speech in July this year, The President of the European Commission, Madame von der Leyen, she did underline as one of the main priorities that we need to work more in order to tackle social media addiction and cyber bullying. So in a lot of the legislations we’ve been doing in the last five years and in the ones upcoming for this new mandate of the European Parliament and the European Commission, we’re going to try to take into account this premise. I’m briefly going to give an idea about three specific legislations and examples that are either already finalized or we’re in the process of finalizing them to set the ground for some specific conversations here with the audience and with all of you. So the first one is the EU proposal on combating child sexual abuse and exploitation. So this was proposed by the European Commission as a regulation two years ago, like already two and a half in the spring of 2022. So it does provide some very specific proposals and mandates when it comes to online, to detection of online sexual abuse related to minors and children. So at the moment, the stand of this regulation is currently under the discussion between the European Parliament and the Council. So we still have a lot to say on that matter. But as I said, some of the subjects are very sensitive. So that’s why they’re taking a while. So this is the first one we put on the floor. Brando has just joined us. Everyone was expecting you with relation to the AI, which is probably going to be another topic we’re going to discuss later on. The next the next file, which I’m going to emphasize is the Digital Services Act. I’m sure that quite a lot of you have. Heard about it like as Europe being the Silicon Valley of regulations So in in that’s in that one. We have quite specific obligations on the online platforms to To respect some of the users fundamental rights I’m not gonna list all of them, but just a few of them like the the right of freedom of expression Expression it is there of course, but we have the right of protection for children the right not to face discrimination the right to protection of personal data And the best interests of children principle so as you see we are trying in a regulatory Framework, which is restrictive to a certain extent to still protect the rights of all the users with a special Accent like with a special emphasis on minor and on minors and children and Last but not least the ADA’s regulation, which is the age verification without data disclosure This is again very much targeted for to avoid any violation of the rights of children and minors So we are trying to to touch upon every aspect that could that could help us prevent from harmful behavior Against people who might not be that well informed I will stop here now because as I said if we go into the depth of all those regulations We might take too much time And I’ll ask if any of my colleagues including the European Commission if you want to jump in

Pearse O’donohue: Wow, thank you Apart from the protocol I swore I wasn’t going to speak first because I know that the members of Parliament have a very strong view on this and By the way, I don’t intend to speak with regard to the child sexual abuse proposal online, for the reason that it is, as you’ve said now, in the hands of the co-legislator. This is for parliamentarians to discuss with the Council and the Commission takes a backseat role at that stage. But thank you for your very quick run-through of some of the key issues. I would like to focus a little bit on the Digital Services Act, because particularly as we’re here in a global environment, we do like to learn from others, and we particularly want to hear from the youth community today, but also hopefully we can have some experiences and examples that will help other regions to address this specific issue of the protection of minors, but also creating an environment in which younger people can effectively operate online in the environment which will be their environment after I’m long gone. And the protection of minors is, of course, a key enforcement priority for the Commission, for the European Parliament, and of course for the… It doesn’t work. Yeah, sorry, I’ve been in this room a few times. I will cut out regularly, so we’ll just keep going. But with that consensus, however, there was quite a discussion about how to do things. Now, already, the Chair has given you a quick list of what the DSA does in terms of ensuring a high level of privacy, including the bans on what platforms cannot do, the bans on what they should not do, as well as responsibilities with regard to flagging illegal content and banning dark patterns. But we also have created a situation in which online platforms and search engines, they have to take responsibility. So they have to assess systemic risks that arise from the design and the use of their services. And that’s increasingly what we will see across all of the… a range of new technologies, but also new platform services as they come online. And that is a way of not over-regulating through principles which are agreed and in many cases corrected and drafted by the European Parliament, which if they are not respected, then there is enforcement action, then there is a mandatory action that steps in. But in this case in particular, they have to look carefully at the features and the use of the services with risks that affect children, the physical and the mental well-being of the users. And that includes foreseeable negative effects, not just those that may already have occurred. So it has to be forward-looking and again, looking at the mental as well as the physical well-being of this particularly vulnerable group, which we have a duty to protect. And when those risks are identified, the platforms have to put in effective mitigation measures. So we’ve already started implementation. I’ve got a long list, it’ll take me a quarter of an hour to read the entire list of all of those measures, but no, I won’t. But we have started for investigations, which once they reach a certain maturity, are then published. The early stages are not, because of the secrecy of instruction. But it is our intention under the DSA to move as quickly as possible to move to the publication and the information, the transparency of those proceedings, because in some cases, it’s in the interest of the platforms if they can show that they have rapidly addressed a problem, but also to the community at large, this is a function or a feature that has been identified as just not acceptable. And therefore, this is part of their forward-looking work. If one of your competitors has been told to stop a practice, well, then you should be sure that that same practice is not acceptable on your platform. So that’s another way of reinforcing it. We have, for example, opened cases against TikTok, two cases, one against Facebook, one against Instagram. We’ve expressed our doubts about the way that the platforms assure themselves of the age of their users. So age verification, and I’ll come back to that in a moment, is essential. And we’ve even gone to further proceedings against TikTok, for example, on what was called or is called the Light Rewards Program, which was, in our view, something that could aggravate the addictive character of their service. And TikTok is actually committed to permanently withdrawing the program from the EU, commitments that we have made legally binding. Now here, I just opened a parenthesis, and I’d love to hear the members of Parliament, but also our Youth Forum representatives. Is it acceptable that it’s only stopped in the European Union? Is there a different threshold for the protection of children in other regions? I wouldn’t think so. We don’t want to impose solutions on anyone. This is where cooperation, exchange, and learning lessons from one another is very important. Maybe I’ll stop there. But there is another area that I won’t touch specifically on the CSAM. But of course, there are also provisions with regard to age-inappropriate content, in particular pornographic content, which can have a very significant effect. Of course, here, I’m not talking about pedo-pornography, which is quite simply illegal. There is no question. What I’m talking about here is the facility with which any user, without the proper safeguards, can access what is considered to be legal, which is perhaps available to, and who knows, appropriate for adults. But it is certainly, in our view, not appropriate for minors and children. And that is, therefore, another element which is addressed in the DSA. So I’ll just stop here. We’re moving on to guidelines on the protection of minors under Article 28 of the DSA. One of the many areas in which we introduce these guidelines, and where, of course, we will have reviews, we will no doubt have discussions with the European Parliament. If they’re not working, we will then have to move on to stronger measures. I’ll stop there. Sorry if I’ve been too long.

Yuliya Morenets: No, perfect. Thank you. Thank you, Piers, a lot. In terms of outlining a few more very specific parts of the legislations or what is in the pipeline, I would be also curious to go back to our youth panel and hear what they think about the application and what we have already in place. Is it understandable? Is it reachable? Does it come to you? But before that, before we move there, I’m sure Brando is going to put, did you want to take the floor?

Speaker 5: Yeah, I can add one topic on the floor. I don’t want to take too much time. In fact, I arrived late because I was in another seminar talking about the same topic. So it’s very much under the spotlight, this discussion on protection of minors, empowerment of children’s presence in the digital space. So just one thing on the AI Act, because it was already touched, the protection of minors, how it interacts with the Digital Services Act, the child sexual abuse material legislation, et cetera. But I want to highlight one point, which I want to be sure we put it on the table, which is the fight against the cyberbullying, which is crucial. And that’s where the AI Act can give a further support, because it’s for sure we use the Digital Services Act to act against materials that can provoke instances of cyberbullying. But we also have the issue of material that can be in a more difficult way identified as offensive or violent, which can anyway provoke mental health issues and cyberbullying in a more subtle way, by showing people doing things or saying things they could be ashamed of in a way that is very specific to that situation. And that’s difficult to catch with the existing norms. So that’s why I think it’s important to underline that the AI Act… which I want to underline was supported very broadly, I see political groups here, different political groups that supported our work on AI, because on this we have given more transparency that can be used to prevent cyberbullying. I give you the example and I stop. If you produce a deepfake that shows a person, a children, a minor, that is doing or saying things that can be mentally damaging for them, because they are not doing these things, they are not saying these things that they are shown, they are sending this material around, this can be dealt with with the Digital Services Act, but not necessarily, it depends. So it’s very important that we have basic transparency so that a deepfake of this kind, we disencourage, in fact, the generative AI systems to develop some kind of materials that can be offensive, but also we want that to be labeled with a so-called watermarking so that people can say, okay, this is fake, this is not real. And then it can be removed, then it can be treated. But we also say from the beginning, this is not real and it can be helpful to avoid forms of mental health problems, of cyberbullying, of offensive material in different ways. So this is another safeguard the AI Act puts in place that I think it’s important to underline in the context of the generative AI that has created new challenges that we need to tackle. Thank you. Hello, thank you.

Speaker 3: Dana Kramer for The Record. First off, I want to just say thank you for including youth in this discussion, especially from you because, and youth from different areas of the world outside of your jurisdiction, because with the Brussels effect that we know occurs in a digital area, it’s really important for us to be able to say, It’s a real power to have and requires global consultative efforts. And so I just want to extend that. Thanks. With that said, I think probably with some of these policies and putting on deliberating on them that they require immense levels of reflection about how they would impact the rest of the world. For instance, in talking about access to porn, pornographic material for minors in Canada this past year, we actually had a bill that came through that was proposed in our Senate to then move to different chambers that would limit adolescents from being able to access porn. However, in so doing, there were concerns that through that age verification, it would have privacy implications for understanding what an age for somebody was. As well, if certain business models from an infrastructural perspective were built in having cached content at internet exchanges or content deliveries, that that caching could then result in different businesses out of fear of regulation pulling out of our market. Netflix is a really good example of this. And so if, for example, for certain policies to take that on, if the Brussels effect hit us in Canada as an example, and we had to create different legislation for that, we could legitimately see our digital economy shrink because of poor implementation for that. And so this global consultation effort I think is really important for ensuring that such issues do not arise for third countries just in an effort to have positive business and economic relations with Europe. I also want to touch on the issue of child sexual exploitation online. And in Canada, of course, we’ve had the Online Harms Act that was mentioned by the opener. And we actually just in the past week have separated it now in two acts for political reasons. And that act was specifically designed to have a child safety element, and also to hate speech element, both of those because online harms to a four year consultative effort. So lots of engagement for it. We’re seeing that we needed to apply in Canada what we call a GBA plus analysis or gender based analysis and a plus was added to recognize groups that would have intersectionalities. So intersectionality is broadly understood that different social stratification levels, gender is one of these, racism is another, ableism can be another, gender, sexuality, if you’re LGBTQ plus, another for these, that in those intersections, it could cause it that a youth who might receive some type of exploitation online would then have that expanded so hate had to be included in that. So I wanted to address that as well, the importance of taking intersectionality approaches to understanding how a bill can, or any type of legislation can impact a young person, because for example, a young white man is going to have a very different experience than a black Muslim girl on the internet. Thank you.

Ivars Ijabs: Thank you very much. And this is really a pleasure to have you all here. Because I think this topic is really an extremely important one, first of all, dealing with youth and children as a possible identity group. I mean, there is also a problematic dimension of that because we are growing up and meaning that also the current generation which is growing up right now is of course digitally much more skillful, much more native. And we actually expect from the next generation that they are as digital natives much more skillful, and they are capable of doing things that my generation, I’m 52, I’m just not used to. And that’s why I think that we should look at this issue of regulation also from the perspective of learning. And this applies not just to the digital sphere, but also to the physical sphere, because there are strong parallels, because in all digital legislation, those things that are prohibited in the real life, like sexual exploitation, bullying and so on and so forth, they should be also banned or prohibited in the digital life. But if we look at that learning dimension, I think this is really an important thing to create safe learning environment for our younger generation and children, because of course we learn actually by making mistakes, but that’s why we prevent children from making very big mistakes. And that’s why in the real life, in physical life, we create safe learning environment for our children. And that’s why I think also when we are thinking about how to regulate the digital sphere, the possibility to learn must be there, and that’s why the EU always runs the risk to over-regulate things. And this is in many ways also hampering our digital development compared with some other regions. In that sense, I think to keep that learning dimension also safe for youngsters who will be much more advanced in digital sphere, because they are already the next generation when dealing with AI, when dealing with all the possible things like Internet of Things and so on and so forth. But at the very basis, we have to really solve those issues that have been already mentioned as the basic norms like cyberbullying and peer-to-peer violence should be avoided, exposure to hate speech and violent content, exposure to content inciting self-harm or suicide, as we all know, which is a big issue in many countries, and extremism, terrorism, things like that. But at the same time, we have to keep in mind that we expect from the next generations that they will be digitally much more skillful and advanced as we are. Thank you very much.

Yuliya Morenets: Bettelina, can I maybe, we have a lot of questions online. My apologies for the headset, actually, we were not expecting people to be required to be.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Sorry, Julia, I didn’t hear you quite well, I was just about to pass you the floor.

Yuliya Morenets: Yes, apologies for that. We have a question, well, a number of questions online, actually, we have a solid participation to be very honest, 30 people plus, around 30 people. So we have actually one of the questions that just came about the DSA, because that was a discussion right now. So about the age verification, that it’s hardly checked. And that’s Katrin Moresh that is bringing the question, but maybe she would like to take a floor online, just remotely and ask her question. Can we give the mic to online, allow Katrin to ask her question? Or, okay, so if it doesn’t work, the question, should the platforms be forced by DSA and that allows to have a mandatory initial age verification? So that’s, I think, open to all participants.

Pearse O’donohue: Thank you. And hearing the inputs before with regard to that, yes, I can go into a bit more detail. But I’ll try to be brief. Because some of the providers of pornographic content have been designated as very large online platforms. And so now we have begun an inquiry with them specifically on the measures that they take to assess diligently, but also to effectively mitigate the risks relating to protection of minors. And that obviously initially starts with age verification, because we’re talking in many cases about age inappropriate content. So we were… I’m particularly interested in the details on age verification and we have their responses and now we are looking to take effective enforcement action. We haven’t had the legal means to do so until now but we are coming to that point because we don’t want to exclude children from the positive opportunities of the internet but we do actually want to protect them from this age inappropriate. So specifically age verification is a critical component. Unless we have the powers under the DSA to impose it as a protection and now what we are doing is as well as insisting on the very large online platforms enforcing it we will ourselves come forward with the member states with a temporary solution which we will then finalize once the European Union Digital Identity Wallet is fully functioning. But in the meantime we will have a privacy preserving and interoperable solution to age verification. I’m not talking about principles or a piece of paper now. We’re talking about a functioning piece of software which it will be obligatory for them to use if they do not have similar, sorry, their own mechanisms of equal effectiveness. So that is the immediate way forward we see for age verification. As I said in the long run we have the European Union Digital Identity Wallet which will be a way of ensuring on the basis of approved independently certified systems that the person is the age that they say they are and need to have in order to access these platforms. Thank you.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Thank you. Thank you, Peter. Julia, I would turn back to you if you have any more questions online and then I would like to ask you to pass the floor for the audience here if they want to pose any questions to the panel.

Yuliya Morenets: I don’t think we can hear you, you’re on mute. Sorry. Yes. Thank you for that. I was saying you never know how it goes on site online, but it’s always a success. So we actually prepared three cases for you to discuss because that case came from the youth community. I think we’ll just take one and I would like to return the situation. You know, we spoke a lot about how to protect minors online. Now the situation is the following. Let’s see the case. And that’s about the balance in between the freedoms and the freedom of expression and the harm online. Right. We have the young blogger and he wrote to us, he’s reporting news daily on a social media platform is he’s regularly blocked actually for reporting news. He always tries to be as neutral as possible and always check the news that he’s reporting for misinformation. However, the platforms tend to block him regularly. So the question is, that’s actually the right and the obligation which is given to the platforms by the regulation. And at the same time, that infringe his freedom of expression. So I would like to turn, I know we have Vlad in the room. Vlad, what is your opinion? Vlad is from youth community. And then we open the floor to the members of the European Parliament. Yeah.

Speaker 1: Thank you. Well, overall, I would say that it is quite disturbing, you know, to have any kind of regulation of the child’s actions online, because I have some experience. I originally from Russia and, you know, all the restrictions against civil society, against and actually any member of the community starts with regulation in the children protection field, I would say. And it then finishes up with the restrictions against all the members of the society. And my question is here, like, why we no longer believe in the self-regulations that already exist on the platforms? Because many of them, like you brought this example of marking the messages that like AI created content, etc. On X it is already realized in the form of the community notes. So if there is disinformation on the platform, it can be marked already by the platform itself, or the community members can add some notes to this. So you will know that it is misleading information. But I think it is kind of a very easy decision just to prevent platforms from some sort of activities like to oblige them to follow specific rules. It is easy way of solving the problem, like just to restrict them from doing something. I think that there are many other approaches that can be used, for example, dialogue and influence of the platforms to behave in a more meaningful and respectful way, supporting youth in their activities and answering this question that was raised, of course, platforms should not prevent younger people from posting anything on the platform, if it is not violating the rules of the platform itself. If it does, then of course, the general rules should apply to these bloggers as well.

Speaker 3: If I could just add on to something like in terms of regulations for self-regulations at the Canadian IGF a few weeks ago for our NRI, there was actually a comment about what if we could have regulations for harmful content with AI, that platforms have to develop out AI blockers, similar to how you can have advertisement blockers. What if there could be an invention for an AI blocker? That we could then allow that personal capacity to be able to make decisions about what to view online and allow that freedom of expression, but that would need to be invented still. And I know that AI is still a very much like in the beginning phases, at least a generative approach of how fast it’s expanding. But I wanted to add on to that because there’s an excellent point that we had in our NRI that I think would be helpful to bring to international conversations too about AI blockers as a potential tool for regulating platforms, but allowing the personal self freedom of expression that users can have in this space.

Speaker 5: Can I make an example? However, because you mentioned the AI blockers. Yeah, that’s a good idea. I think we should work on that. Like we do with the AD blockers, but we anyway regulate advertising with rules. So we do not rely only on AD blockers, because there are forbidden advertising in Europe. Now we have regarding exactly paid advertising online reaching children or a certain political advertising. We have in fact the ongoing implementation of regulations on these. But I’m just to say that we can combine the dimensions in the sense that I don’t see the contraposition because you can have AI blockers. I like the idea. That’s an instrument of freedom. But with the AD blockers already existing, we do regulate the advertising space. So I think we can do both. And in fact, to just comment on what you were saying, because this was a lot of the debate also when working on the AI Act, should we let the platforms, I mean, do their best and encourage them, etc. But this is what is already happening. That’s good, that’s the ethical dimension of developing AI tools in the space but we do not want, at least this was the thought in Europe, that it’s all based on the goodwill of the owners of a few very powerful American or Chinese or some Europeans It’s now also companies that do that, because either it’s recommended and they can ignore it or it’s a law and we think that on some aspects we need the law, on others we live with the soft, because soft regulation I mean, you look at the AI Act, a lot of AI applications are almost non-regulated by the AI Act because the AI Act concentrates on high-risk applications and on transparency looking at the generative AI but a lot of AI almost has nothing to be applied on them by the AI Act only the general principles idea, the idea of an ethical approach to AI that in fact the legislation pushes through but when we deal with more sensitive areas, we do not want to wait for the CEOs of some big companies to be good we want them to be obliged to do things based on an evaluation, based on our democratic values so the issue you raised was at the center of the debate around AI Act, but also of Digital Services Act, etc and we think we need to balance that, because if you only go for the voluntary actions you really are also in an uneven space, where probably the most powerful ones can do some things also for reputations and others can have problems. But anyway, this is a contribution to the reflections. Just quickly, I don’t know whether I have time to just speak on, from us in Africa and us in the global context, for the record, my name is Peter King from Liberia, but I feel we as youth, or youth around the world, will be looking at youth-centric Internet regulation. That means, or that looks at issues that is youth-friendly, because tomorrow is the youth that will lead the issue of Internet governance, the issue of cyber security, data protection. A very fantastic example is to also ensure that there is a balance in regulation and innovation. That speaks to the fact that some regulation should consider the level of regulation that does not harm the youth. Because the youth is not just on the list of multi-stakeholders, it’s a stakeholder in the process. So we will want to see regulation that are youth-centric, ensuring a youth-friendly regulation that ensures the right of youth, in terms of what the issue of the blogger, who is trying to present issues in his content, in his country context, is being blogged. But then, what profits the world when some other groups are being denied? And what do we achieve if we cannot have a holistic approach, considering every community member that is needed in the space? So that’s my thought, and I feel we, if I’m saying we, I’m speaking on behalf of the youth, that I’m also part of the youth system. So we want to see something that… involves all, and not only on some of our country, our policy, I’m sorry, some of our country, we do not have policies in Africa. Our policies are still in draft. That is key issue. So if it must be completed, you need to have youth voices added to it in terms of the validation process. I’m sure in Europe, most of the policies are already finished or they’re already there in modifications and separate ones are being brought out to ensure direct controls. That is my point.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Perfect. Thank you, Petr King. Insights, you wanted to take the floor and then I would insist, because we’re running out of time, but I would insist to give the floor to our audience if they wanna pose at least one question. So think of questions and I’m giving you the floor now. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you. I just wanted to add something about the blocking of some blogs and also about the abusive content on some social media going against what we want for children. Just recently that happened to me on one of my page on LinkedIn when I was combating misinformation on education and the AI block it because they say it’s going against the community while it was not. So I think while we are designing policy and regulation also, we should not fully just rely on AI to combat harmful content on the internet. Sometimes you see a content, you know that this content, it goes against what children should see. And when you report it just some minutes after you will receive a message saying, We have received your report, but this doesn’t go against the community. Maybe the language that was used in that content was not like English or French or a well-known language. Sometimes it can be a local language, so they don’t know it. They just say, oh, this doesn’t go against what it was. So I think it should be mandatory for all content, for all social media, and for all blogs that are posting things, when people report that this goes against the community, and then when the AI say it’s not, and the person appealed that it should be mandatory for a person, a human being, to see that content, if this is really going against the community or not. But we should not fully rely on AI, and that will add more transparency on content regulation. Thank you.

Yuliya Morenets: Perfect. Another insightful comment here from the room, and now I’m looking at our audience, if anyone wants to ask a question or give a comment to what we’ve heard. Perfect. Thank you. We may have the mics, at least one of them. Can you hear me?

Audience: Okay, thank you. My name is Wouter, I’m from the Netherlands. Thank you for hosting this panel. I think it’s really nice to be involved as youth, even though I would not consider myself youth anymore, but apparently I am here until 35 years. So I think it’s important to consider the effect of this legislation on youth in that sense. But I’m also thinking the perspective of youth is also important in making this legislation, because we were born with the internet, we were formed by it. And I think that’s something that’s maybe overlooked. We only discuss legislation that may have influence on youth. So I’m just maybe asking the critical question to the members of parliament here. Are you equipped enough to have this youth perspective in this legislation process?

Tsvetelina Penkova: Well, I would say this is a quick reflection here. It’s probably me and Brando here, our borderline already, also exiting the proper definition of youth above 35, but we’re close enough. So of course, this is a joke, but we do have, even one of the reasons for having those discussions in this debate is to have the perspective of everyone. So we do tend to make an effort, because I cannot say for sure that we’re succeeding all the time to take the viewpoint of all the stakeholders, because that’s how I started opening the discussion as well, that the perspective of the people who are closer to the matter is much more important, because you understand some of the challenges, some of the difficulties, but also you see some of the opportunities better than us. So we are trying to do our best to do so from all the political groups. I think the colleagues here from the different political groups will also confirm that effort. Of course, if you don’t think we are doing it enough, you can contact us at any point. Our contacts are quite public. I will pass the floor now back to Julia, because I know we are running out of time. Is there another question? Okay, Julia, if you allow me, one more question here from the audience.

Audience: You can hear me, right? Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Chris Junior, and I’m from Zimbabwe. So just a quick rundown. The Internet has done a lot of good. Coming from the Global South, during COVID, I think most of our education was on WhatsApp. That’s where we used in terms of university education, high school education, assignments and all that. everything was done on WhatsApp, right? People couldn’t afford your Zoom or your Google Meet, so most of the things were done on WhatsApp, meaning the internet has been doing a lot of good, right? Depending on the perspectives that you see. There, right. So now also, if you look into it, currently there’s a trend in Southern Africa where a lot of people are now content creators and most people are making a living from the internet. This is from your TikTok, your Facebook, X and all those applications. This is the source of income that they are using for their daily lives. And someone said, we are the young people, we are the internet, we are the users of it, right? And if you notice, even with the university students, most of them, they use content, online trading and all those other platforms as means for them to create extra revenue and extra money for themselves and all that, right? Interestingly enough, right, moving to another point, there was a question or rather a point saying that the EU is, well, they’re setting up policies and all that. I believe that the question that you’ll be asking is, oh, I just searched on the internet right now and the answer was no one owns the internet. It’s just infrastructure and framework. But interestingly enough, it all starts from the United States and Europe. So meaning one way or the other, you guys are involved. And when you set regulations, by the time it comes to, I want to call us the end user in the global South, it still needs that regulation. So you guys setting a regulation still makes sense, but at the same time, we should also be able to include the serious stakeholders, which are the guys, let’s say, for example, the guys in the porn industry, the guys who are owning all these multi-stakeholder companies that your TikToks, your Facebook and all that, but it’s engaging them. I feel like it should also be able to be like in a platform like this one, where there are actual young people who are engaging, should be able to create a platform where. the young people are able to engage with Mark Zuckerberg himself and we are able to also say in regulate as much as in regulating uh our internet we can then uh be able to detect that these are the things that we need and these are the things that we might not need and sometimes because we have a multi-generational panel it’s now easier for the older guys to also show their perspective and the youngest guys also show that perspective uh then lastly sorry uh in terms of for example we’re talking about the australian bill on regulating the internet at 16 year old uh you notice that like i said uh in the global south we use the internet for our education right because there are people who have a lot of access problem and even if in in the cities in the bigger cities sometimes access to schools is so difficult so for extra lessons for whatnot we still use the internet meaning at 13 year 18 years my little brother who’s starting his secondary education still needs whatsapp right it’s more it has more become or more of a major requirement for you to be at school you need access to what to your whatsapps your social media platform because they offer a cheaper alternative for me to engage with my teachers and also to get communication from my schools and what thank you very much

Speaker 5: thank you thank you for reminding us the perspective that working together means actually working together and coordinating coordinating everything we do in a timely manner and not post-factum after something has already been established or accepted by certain parts of of the globe julia i’m gonna pass you the floor now for a few concluding remarks and then we’re gonna have to close this panel and before we all finish i would ask our fellow participants here to to stay a bit after we close it down so we can have a common picture a group picture all together if of course whoever wants to join for that picture julia back to you

Yuliya Morenets: thank you svetlana i think you you just did the great thing i wanted to announce about the photo thank you so much i think what i have to say is we have an amazing incredible discussion in parallel going on online we have around we had around 35 people so i just wanted to know to let you know that That was a discussion on side, but it was also a great discussion online going on at the same time. And there are a number of huge questions that were asked. We’re not able to bring them to you also because there is this question of headset and etc. And what people are saying is that we need to have this conversation on that question, not only one short time in the year, but during the whole year, right? So we will try to take these comments and suggestions for the next year, but we’d like to thank, first of all, the European Parliament delegation for accepting to organise this event and this talk with us. Thank you to all members that were able to attend. Thank you to Per Stoner for being so supportive during the years and being present during this conversation. And thank you to all young leaders, Dana from Canada, Patrick from Liberia, Vlad from which country you’re based now, I don’t know, you’ll tell to the audience, and all other young people that I didn’t mention here. Thank you for the great conversation and thank you for the audience online. We will end with that by saying that a lot needs to be discussed, obviously, how to find that balance and if there is an appetite for that discussion, we will try to find an interesting and challenging format for the next year. Thank you so much and thank you for being with us. With that, stay for the group photo.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Perfect. Thank you. We would also like to thank the audience online from our side here from Riyadh. And if you allow me, I would conclude with the sentence that Dana from Canada opened of the discussion is that the digital economy will shrink if we don’t have a common approach on regulation. So let’s leave the room with that thought and that understanding. Thank you.

Yuliya Morenets: . .

Agreement Points

Need for regulation to protect minors online

speakers

Tsvetelina Penkova

Pearse O’donohue

Ivars Ijabs

arguments

EU Digital Services Act imposes obligations on platforms to respect users’ rights and protect children

DSA requires platforms to assess risks to minors and implement mitigation measures

Regulation should balance protection with digital rights and innovation

summary

There is a consensus on the need for regulation to protect minors online, but with a balance between protection and digital rights.

Importance of age verification

speakers

Pearse O’donohue

Tsvetelina Penkova

arguments

Age verification is a critical component being enforced on large online platforms

EU proposal on combating child sexual abuse and exploitation online

summary

Speakers agree on the importance of age verification measures to protect minors from inappropriate content.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of considering diverse youth perspectives in developing internet regulations.

speakers

Speaker 3

Speaker 4

arguments

Need to consider intersectionality in understanding how legislation impacts different youth

Youth in Africa want “youth-centric” internet regulations

Both recognize the global impact of EU regulations and the need for international coordination in internet governance.

speakers

Speaker 3

Audience

arguments

EU regulations have a “Brussels effect” influencing policies globally

Coordination needed between EU, tech companies, and youth globally on internet governance

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of human review in content moderation

speakers

Audience

Pearse O’donohue

arguments

Human review is needed, not just AI, when moderating potentially harmful content

DSA requires platforms to assess risks to minors and implement mitigation measures

explanation

While the EU official focuses on platform responsibilities, there’s an unexpected alignment with the audience member’s call for human review in content moderation, suggesting a shared concern for effective and fair content moderation practices.

Overall Assessment

Summary

There is general agreement on the need for regulation to protect minors online, the importance of age verification, and the consideration of diverse youth perspectives in policy-making. However, there are differing views on the extent and implementation of these regulations.

Consensus level

Moderate consensus on broad principles, but divergent views on specific implementation strategies. This suggests a need for further dialogue and refinement of policies to address various stakeholder concerns while maintaining the core goal of protecting minors online.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to regulation

speakers

Tsvetelina Penkova

Ivars Ijabs

Speaker 1

arguments

EU Digital Services Act imposes obligations on platforms to respect users’ rights and protect children

Regulation should balance protection with digital rights and innovation

Platforms should not prevent youth from posting content that doesn’t violate rules

summary

While Penkova emphasizes the need for strict regulations, Ijabs argues for a more balanced approach considering innovation, and Speaker 1 advocates for minimal restrictions on youth content.

Role of AI in content moderation

speakers

Speaker 5

Audience

arguments

AI Act can help fight cyberbullying by requiring transparency for deepfakes

Human review is needed, not just AI, when moderating potentially harmful content

summary

Speaker 5 highlights the potential of AI in combating online harms, while the audience member argues for the necessity of human review in content moderation.

Unexpected Differences

Global impact of EU regulations

speakers

Speaker 3

Speaker 4

arguments

Need to consider how EU policies could impact digital economies in other regions

Youth in Africa want “youth-centric” internet regulations

explanation

While both speakers address global impacts, their perspectives differ unexpectedly. Speaker 3 focuses on potential negative economic impacts, while Speaker 4 emphasizes the need for youth-centric regulations in Africa, highlighting different priorities in different regions.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the extent of regulation, the role of AI in content moderation, and the global impact of EU regulations.

difference_level

The level of disagreement is moderate. While there is a general consensus on the need to protect minors online, speakers differ significantly on implementation strategies and the balance between protection and innovation. These differences have important implications for the development of effective and globally applicable internet regulations.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need to protect minors online, but differ on the extent and method of regulation. Penkova and O’donohue support stricter measures, while Ijabs emphasizes the need for balance with innovation.

speakers

Tsvetelina Penkova

Pearse O’donohue

Ivars Ijabs

arguments

EU Digital Services Act imposes obligations on platforms to respect users’ rights and protect children

DSA requires platforms to assess risks to minors and implement mitigation measures

Regulation should balance protection with digital rights and innovation

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of considering diverse youth perspectives in developing internet regulations.

speakers

Speaker 3

Speaker 4

arguments

Need to consider intersectionality in understanding how legislation impacts different youth

Youth in Africa want “youth-centric” internet regulations

Both recognize the global impact of EU regulations and the need for international coordination in internet governance.

speakers

Speaker 3

Audience

arguments

EU regulations have a “Brussels effect” influencing policies globally

Coordination needed between EU, tech companies, and youth globally on internet governance

Key Takeaways

The EU is developing regulations like the Digital Services Act to protect minors online while balancing digital rights and innovation

Age verification is seen as a critical component for protecting youth from inappropriate content

There is a need to include youth perspectives in developing internet regulations

EU internet regulations have global impact, requiring consideration of effects on other regions

Addressing online harms to youth requires a multifaceted approach, including legislation, platform accountability, and user empowerment

Resolutions and Action Items

The EU will implement a temporary privacy-preserving age verification solution until the EU Digital Identity Wallet is fully functioning

The European Commission has opened investigations into several large online platforms regarding their protection of minors

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively balance protection of minors with freedom of expression and innovation online

How to ensure global coordination on internet governance, especially including perspectives from the Global South

How to address the reliance on internet platforms for education and income generation in developing countries while also protecting youth

The appropriate role of AI in content moderation versus human review

Suggested Compromises

Developing AI blockers that users can choose to enable, similar to ad blockers

Combining voluntary actions by platforms with mandatory regulations for sensitive areas

Creating more opportunities for direct dialogue between youth, policymakers, and tech company leaders on internet governance issues

Is it acceptable that it’s only stopped in the European Union? Is there a different threshold for the protection of children in other regions?

speaker

Pearse O’donohue

reason

This question challenges the global implications of EU regulations and raises important ethical considerations about child protection standards across regions.

impact

It prompted reflection on the global impact of EU regulations and the need for international cooperation on child protection online.

We don’t want to exclude children from the positive opportunities of the internet but we do actually want to protect them from this age inappropriate [content].

speaker

Pearse O’donohue

reason

This comment articulates a key challenge in regulating children’s internet access – balancing protection with opportunity.

impact

It framed much of the subsequent discussion around finding the right balance in regulation approaches.

Why we no longer believe in the self-regulations that already exist on the platforms?

speaker

Vlad

reason

This question challenges the premise of increased regulation and advocates for trusting existing self-regulation mechanisms.

impact

It shifted the discussion to consider the merits of self-regulation vs. government intervention.

What if we could have regulations for harmful content with AI, that platforms have to develop out AI blockers, similar to how you can have advertisement blockers.

speaker

Dana Kramer

reason

This introduces an innovative technical solution to content moderation that balances user choice with platform responsibility.

impact

It sparked discussion of novel technological approaches to addressing online harms while preserving user autonomy.

Are you equipped enough to have this youth perspective in this legislation process?

speaker

Wouter

reason

This question directly challenges policymakers on their ability to represent youth perspectives, highlighting a potential gap in the legislative process.

impact

It prompted reflection on the inclusion of youth voices in policymaking and the importance of diverse perspectives.

The Internet has done a lot of good. Coming from the Global South, during COVID, I think most of our education was on WhatsApp.

speaker

Chris Junior

reason

This comment provides crucial context from the Global South, highlighting how internet regulation can have vastly different impacts across regions.

impact

It broadened the discussion to consider global perspectives and the unintended consequences of regulation in different contexts.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from EU-centric policy considerations to global implications, technological innovations, and diverse stakeholder perspectives. They challenged assumptions about the universality of regulatory approaches and highlighted the complexity of balancing protection with opportunity in digital spaces. The discussion evolved from a focus on specific EU regulations to a more nuanced exploration of the global impact of internet governance decisions, the role of self-regulation versus government intervention, and the importance of including youth and Global South perspectives in policymaking processes.

Is it acceptable that TikTok’s Light Rewards Program is only stopped in the European Union? Is there a different threshold for the protection of children in other regions?

speaker

Pearse O’donohue

explanation

This raises important questions about global standards for child protection online and the potential for regional disparities in safeguards.

How can we balance the need for regulation with maintaining a safe learning environment for digitally native youth?

speaker

Ivars Ijabs

explanation

This highlights the challenge of protecting minors while also allowing them to develop digital skills and learn through experience.

Could AI blockers be developed as a tool for regulating platforms while allowing personal freedom of expression?

speaker

Dana Kramer

explanation

This suggests an area for technological development that could provide a balance between platform regulation and user autonomy.

How can we ensure youth-centric internet regulation that considers the perspectives of young people globally?

speaker

Peter King

explanation

This emphasizes the need for inclusive policy-making that incorporates youth voices, particularly from regions where internet governance policies are still developing.

Are European Parliament members sufficiently equipped to incorporate youth perspectives in the legislative process?

speaker

Wouter (audience member)

explanation

This questions the ability of policymakers to fully understand and represent the interests of digital natives in crafting internet regulations.

How can we create platforms for young people to engage directly with tech industry leaders like Mark Zuckerberg in discussions about internet regulation?

speaker

Chris Junior (audience member)

explanation

This suggests a need for more direct dialogue between youth and tech industry decision-makers to inform policy and platform design.

Summary

This discussion focused on how the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) could evolve to meet the challenges of the modern digital world. Participants emphasized the need for the IGF to become more focused, empowered, and relevant to decision-makers. Key suggestions included improving the IGF’s ability to produce concrete outcomes and recommendations, enhancing its connection to other UN processes, and better leveraging its vast archive of discussions.

Several speakers highlighted the importance of making the IGF more inclusive, particularly by addressing language barriers and improving hybrid participation options. There was debate about whether to reduce the number of sessions for more in-depth discussions or maintain the current format for diversity. The need for better funding and resources was a recurring theme, with suggestions for broader stakeholder contributions.

Participants discussed applying the NetMundial multi-stakeholder guidelines to IGF processes and potentially focusing on specific themes or issues each year. The role of National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs) was emphasized as a crucial element in the IGF ecosystem, particularly for engaging local communities and addressing region-specific concerns.

Looking ahead to the 2024 IGF in Oslo, speakers stressed the importance of making it strategically focused and relevant to the upcoming WSIS+20 review. Suggestions for immediate improvements included creating an AI-powered bot to make IGF archives more accessible, conducting early community consultations, and enhancing the hybrid meeting experience. Overall, the discussion underscored the IGF’s ongoing evolution and the need for creative approaches to increase its impact and relevance in global internet governance.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– How to evolve the IGF to be more focused, empowered, and impactful

– Improving diversity and inclusivity, especially regarding language barriers and hybrid participation

– Better organizing and utilizing the wealth of information from past IGFs

– Applying the NetMundial multi-stakeholder guidelines to IGF processes

– Making the IGF more attractive and relevant to governments and other stakeholders

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore ideas for evolving and improving the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to better meet current challenges and increase its impact and relevance.

The tone of the discussion was constructive and collaborative. Participants shared ideas openly and built on each other’s suggestions. There was a sense of urgency about the need for change, but also optimism about the IGF’s potential. The tone became more focused and solution-oriented towards the end as participants were asked to provide concrete suggestions for the next IGF.

Speakers

– Annaliese Williams – Chair of Australia’s national IGF, works for .au domain administration

– Chris Buckridge – MAG member

– Renata Mielli – Chair of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), Special Advisor of the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation

– Amrita Choudhury – CCAOI, involved in Asia-Pacific regional IGF

– Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone – Internet Governance Coordinator for ZA Domain Name Authority, Secretariat for South African IGF Multi-Stakeholder Committee

– Jorge Cancio – Government representative

– Jordan Carter – Australian Domain Administration

Additional speakers:

– Wout de Natris – Consultant from the Netherlands, representing Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards Security Safety

– Desiree Miloshevic – Role/expertise not specified

– Masanobu Katoh – IGF Japan

– Baratang Miya – GirlHype

– Anriette Esterhuysen – Association for Progressive Communications

– Galvanian Burke – Civil Society representative

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Discussion: Evolving to Meet Modern Challenges

This discussion focused on how the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) could evolve to meet the challenges of the modern digital world. Participants, representing a diverse range of stakeholders from various countries and organizations, engaged in a constructive and collaborative dialogue about the future of the IGF.

Key Themes and Discussions

1. Evolution of the IGF

There was broad consensus among speakers that the IGF needs to adapt and evolve to address current global digital challenges more effectively. Amrita Choudhury emphasized the need for the IGF to become more focused and empowered, while Chris Buckridge noted that the IGF has already evolved over time and should continue to do so. Renata Mielli and Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone stressed the importance of producing more concrete outcomes and actionable items at continental and country levels. Jorge Cancio suggested viewing the IGF in the context of the broader World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) architecture.

2. Improving IGF Programming and Format

Speakers discussed various ways to improve IGF programming and format. Wout de Natris suggested reducing the number of sessions for more focused discussions, while others argued for maintaining diversity while improving programming. Amrita Choudhury highlighted the importance of improving the hybrid format and accessibility. Chris Buckridge proposed considering different formats for different themes. There were also suggestions to organize more lively debates and make the IGF a year-round process rather than just an annual event.

3. Enhancing Multi-stakeholder Participation

Improving multi-stakeholder participation was a recurring theme. Jorge Cancio proposed applying the NetMundial multi-stakeholder guidelines to IGF processes, which sparked a significant discussion about their potential implementation. Renata Mielli emphasized the need to address language barriers to participation, sharing the example of the Lusophone Internet Forum initiative. Annaliese Williams and Masanobu Katoh discussed better coordination between global, regional, and national IGFs to increase participation. Chris Buckridge stressed the importance of maintaining a broad funding base from multiple stakeholders.

4. Improving IGF Outputs and Impact

There was general agreement on the need for the IGF to produce more concrete and impactful outputs. Renata Mielli called for more concrete recommendations and guidelines. Chris Buckridge suggested making IGF archives and data more accessible and usable, with Jorge Cancio proposing the creation of an IGF bot to facilitate this. Amrita Choudhury emphasized focusing on strategic issues related to the WSIS+20 review. Renata Mielli also stressed the importance of demonstrating the IGF’s relevance to shaping digital policies and starting consultations earlier on desired outcomes.

5. Addressing Language and Accessibility Issues

Several speakers highlighted the need to improve language accessibility and the overall user experience of the IGF. Renata Mielli discussed initiatives to address language barriers, while Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone and others emphasized the importance of improving the hybrid format. Galvanian Burke suggested enhancing digital tools and user experience for IGF attendees.

6. Role of National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs)

The importance of National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) in the IGF ecosystem was emphasized by several speakers. Annaliese Williams mentioned the DNS Research Federation report on the impact of the IGF, which highlighted the role of NRIs. Speakers discussed how better coordination between global, regional, and national IGFs could increase participation and impact.

7. Funding and Sustainability

The discussion touched on funding issues, with Chris Buckridge emphasizing the importance of maintaining a broad funding base. Jordan Carter suggested that non-state stakeholders could contribute to the IGF trust fund to enhance its sustainability and independence.

Looking Ahead: Key Takeaways and Future Considerations

The discussion yielded several key takeaways for the future of the IGF:

1. The need for the IGF to become more focused, empowered, and relevant to decision-makers.

2. Improving IGF programming while maintaining diversity and inclusivity.

3. Enhancing multi-stakeholder participation, especially from governments.

4. Producing more concrete outcomes and actionable recommendations.

5. Improving the hybrid format, accessibility, and language inclusivity of the IGF.

6. Better coordination between global, regional, and national IGFs.

7. Leveraging the IGF community and existing resources more effectively.

8. Exploring the application of NetMundial multi-stakeholder guidelines to IGF processes.

9. Developing mechanisms for year-round engagement and earlier consultations.

10. Addressing funding sustainability through diverse stakeholder contributions.

As the IGF community looks towards the 2024 IGF in Oslo and beyond, these discussions provide a foundation for ongoing efforts to evolve and improve the forum. The upcoming IGF in Oslo holds particular significance in light of the WSIS+20 review, as noted by Jorge Cancio. The challenge lies in balancing diverse stakeholder interests while enhancing the IGF’s impact and relevance in shaping global internet governance.

Annaliese Williams: that multi-stakeholder opportunities for discussion on an equal basis are a good thing and a very positive thing to have and to continue. I see our speakers are just getting themselves organized. So we we have a bit of a discussion today on how we can evolve the IGF. We recognize that a decision will be made next year as to the you know the further mandate of the IGF but I think in discussions so far at this year’s IGF there seems to be the overwhelming view that that multi-stakeholder discussions are a good thing and I just wanted to note in the DNS Research Federation did a report on the impact of the IGF and there’s a quote to the effect of you know if the IGF didn’t exist we would have to invent it. So I think you know regardless of what is decided next year there is a need for these for this international multi-stakeholder discussions to take place and we hope that the IGF will continue long into the future. So our discussion today is just seeking some some thoughts about how we can evolve the IGF from where it is today so that it can continue to to meet the challenges of a digital world. We have four speakers with us today and we have an online moderator as well who will be keeping an eye on on the online participation and will let us know if anybody has comments to contribute. My colleague Everton will read them into the into the meeting for us. So I will let our speakers introduce themselves but and perhaps you can just do that briefly as you speak but just briefly we have Chris Buckridge who wears multiple internet governance hats. We have Renata Miele from .br. We also have another ccTLD represented, we have Plantina from .za. We have civil society represented with Amrita and our online moderator today is Everton also from .br. So we’re going to ask speakers to just reflect on a few questions and then I’m hoping that there will be an opportunity for speakers to interact with each other, respond to each other’s thoughts or build on each other’s thoughts. But we will start with Amrita I think and I’ll ask you all, you’ll all have an opportunity to respond to the same question. But Amrita if you would briefly introduce yourself and then perhaps share your thoughts on how the IGF should evolve to meet the challenges of a modern digital world.

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you so much Annalise and thank you for having me here. I’m Amrita. I am from India. I work for a civil society organization called CCUI. I’m involved in the Asia-Pacific regional IGF apart from other things and to respond to your question on how the IGF should evolve to meet the modern digital world, I think it needs to be more focused. It needs to be more empowered. In fact the working group strategy where Chris, me, Jorge and many others in this room who are involved, we did create a vision document where there have been certain concrete measures being drafted on how the IGF should evolve. IGF could evolve to meet most of the requirements which is being portrayed as gap areas. For example, it could be the place where everyone can come and it could be a test bed for people. It could be a place where the GDC’s implementations could be tracked. It could also be a place where even governments come and test out what they want to do, et cetera, apart from other things. So IGF has it in them, has it in itself, but it needs to be more empowered in terms of people, in terms of money, primarily so that it can do what it has been doing, but not formally being given the mandate. I would stop at that.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks very much. Thanks, Amrita. And just before I go much further in my enthusiasm to begin the conversation today, I neglected to introduce myself. So my apologies to everybody for that. My name is Annalise Williams. I work for the .au domain administration. I’m part of the technical community and I’m also very involved in Australia’s national IGF and I’ve been the chair of the IGF for the last two years. So my apologies for being so hasty. Chris, perhaps we might go to you. How does the IGF, how should it evolve? And I do want to come back to the point Amrita made, but if any of the other speakers wanted to chime in on the points about empowerment in terms of people and money, how the IGF is going to be funded is a live question. But Chris, would you like to share your thoughts?

Chris Buckridge: Sure. So my name’s Chris Buckridge. I’m currently a MAG member for the next two days at least. and then we see what happens with 2025. Yeah, I have a few other hats that I wear, but for the purposes of this, I’m a long time IGF gadfly, who’s happy to just sort of throw some comments in as to how things might evolve. I think the important thing is the IGF is and has always been a work in progress. It’s never been static in terms of what it is. It probably feels a little, you know, we come back every year and see a lot of the same people and that’s always good and fun, but there has been evolution and well, full disclosure, I was one of the co-authors of that DNS Research Federation paper. But yeah, part of what we found there was, you know, digging back through how it’s evolved, what’s happened, what the sort of results of those processes have been was fascinating and really turned up some very interesting examples, both sort of very practical examples, how it sort of helped to foster an IXP development in Africa and other global South countries, how it fostered the NRI, National and Regional Initiative ecosystem, and how important that has proved to be in terms of developing internet governance discussions. But I mean, also things like in talking to different people, hearing some really different perspectives on the impact that the IGF had. I mean, some people sort of saying, when we talk maybe about the IANA transition, yes, it was a hugely important crucible for discussion and ideas to come together. Other people saying, no, well, it was a bit separate to that. So I think, you know, there’s lots of perspectives, it has changed and grown over time. And I mean, the intersessional activities are an area where we’ve been very clear that there has been growth, there has been change in the last two decades, and they’ve evolved into something probably of the almost most value in this IGF space. And that’s the best practice forums, which. You know, we’ve had a cybersecurity best practice forum in operation for a good number of years now and has produced some really important and insightful work. We’ve had a policy network on fragmentation, which has also been, I think, now in its third year and has done some really insightful study on a very key issue right now in internet governance. We’ve also had one on artificial intelligence, which perhaps got a bit subsumed by some of the larger scale UN discussions, but if you read the report, it actually pre-predicted, I guess, what some of the, say, the Secretary General’s AI panel said in its report about things like regulatory interoperability. So, I mean, those ideas are percolating, really, in a very early stage in the IGF, and the IGF is helping to get them to that next level. I think that evolution needs to continue. I think we’re at a really fascinating point going into next year where we’ll have a quite different context. We’ll have a much shorter timeframe to prepare. We’ll have a different kind of mag. We may see that there’s a need to sort of consolidate a little to sort of bring it in to a bit more tight focus in how it works. There’s obviously going to be an eye to the WSIS plus 20 review, which will happen a few months after the IGF next year. So, I think we want the IGF next year to be at its best, and this, you know, a little pressure can force the change that you want and create a diamond. So, I hope that’s what we’re going to see in the coming six months in terms of evolution. Obviously, funding is a perennial issue. I do think there is, it’s important to be thinking that we maintain the broad base of funding for the IGF. Any multi-stakeholder model, you know, captured by a certain stakeholder group or demographic is a concern. And that applies as much to. you know, the UN and member states as it does to any other group. I think part of the strength is having funding come from lots of different sources so that the decisions about how the IGF evolves, the decisions about where it goes have to be taken in a multi-stakeholder way rather than the person who’s outlaid the most cash gets to steer the ship. So I’ll stop there. Thanks.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Chris. Yeah, important observations on a number of fronts there. I would agree with you about the need for broad-based funding. I think at the Australian government booth out there, they had a little survey asking people to indicate whether they thought their stakeholder group should contribute to funding. So I’d be interested to see what the results of all those surveys were. And just your point on the policy networks and best practice forums, I think that dynamic coalitions, that is also a really important point. You know, the IGF has already demonstrated that it can evolve to meet changing needs and it has demonstrated that it can do this successfully and I’m sure it will continue to do so into the future. I might go to you next, Renata, and then Plantina.

Renata Mielli: Hello. Thank you, Annelise. Thank you for inviting me for this interesting, important session about how to evolve in IGF. I will agree with Chris because I agree the IGF is a work in progress. So I want to emphasize that the IGF is a work in progress and it has been an important platform for the discussions about… of the internet, its applications and the impacts of the new economic models and services for users and also sites. And maybe if some governments and other decision-maker organizations had more involved with IGF, some of the things we are saying now, they are knowing previously because we discussed this a lot. So I think we are doing a good work, seeking best practice, the new forum. I think all this is important. But in my point of view, it isn’t enough. And we are at a moment where we can no longer afford to gather in deep discussions on critical global issues without taking a step forward and using these debates to develop a set of consensual proposals and recommendations to present to multilateral organizations. It’s necessary to improve mechanisms for building consensus and producing guidelines and recommendations in such a way that community’s voices have an impact on multilateral and other decision-making processes. So that these effective solutions to challenges we face can be found and implemented. We need to demonstrate that there is no contradiction between strengthening multistakeholder spaces and processes and the role of multilateral spaces. We are in this crazy moment that we are something against another. And we have to stop this and work together in a complementary way. So in my opinion, that’s why evolving the IGF is a core discussion for us. We need to have the courage to look to what we have achieved till now, together, and together we need to build new ideas. We need to step out of our comfort zone and think about how to make the IJF a space that is seen as relevant for shaping guidelines and digital policies. This is our challenge in my point of view. To transform the IJF in such a space, we need to deepen transparency and strengthen multi-stakeholder participation mechanisms. And we already have a good start point, and this point is the São Paulo NetMundial guidelines. We are beginning the process of reviewing WSIS Plus 2018, and in 2025 we will have the IJF in June, some weeks before the high-level meeting in Geneva. So I would like to bring a constructive challenge, nothing new, because Chris put this, how we are going to organize the next IJF in June, like we did till now, or maybe trying to look to this opportunity to think differently and try something new by applying the São Paulo guidelines to build the next IJF. So that’s my initial proposal. I believe in the update proposed by NetMundial, we challenge multiple sectors to jointly think of solutions for the current internet challenges. And maybe we can build an experiment with the next IJF, and maybe this will be important to all the WSIS process in this regard. Thank you.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Renata. I think it’s definitely a time to be creative right now. What you were saying about setting against one another, I was in one of the sessions yesterday and somebody said multi-stakeholder and multi-lateral are two sides of the same coin. that was something that resonated with me. I think we certainly need both, it’s not an either or. And each process, these multi-stakeholder discussions are very much enriched by having government participation on an equal level. And there is a lot of expertise that from the technical community and from other civil society that can be very useful for multilateral processes. So we’ll go to Plantina, and then we’ve had Jorge join us as well since we started. But I’ll go to Plantina, and then if you wanted to offer some initial observations, or you can wait till the next round if you like, Jorge. Go ahead, Plantina.

Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone: Thanks, thanks, Anneliese. Thank you, everyone. Let me start also by introducing myself. My name is Plantina Mugoni. I am the Internet Governance Coordinator for the ZA Domain Name Authority. I also serve as the Secretariat for the South African Internet Governance Forum Multi-Stakeholder Committee, amongst other things that I do in my personal capacity. And just agreeing with Chris, I think we’re all gonna agree with Chris, in the sense that the IGF is a working progress. I think that a lot has been achieved from the time that I’ve been here and just witnessed just the level even of participation. I think a lot more still needs to be done, just also agreeing with my colleague. There’s a lot more that needs to be done. We need funding. However, one of the biggest things I think that remains an issue is that what happens to the discussions and that we have at IGF? What does our document, what does the IGF document turn out to do? I appreciate the fact that the multi-stakeholder forum, multi-stakeholder model that’s followed in IGF is a bottom-up approach. We solicit… inputs from different stakeholders, but what happens to those inputs? What do they lead to? What actionable items or actionable documents do they do, do they lead to? Because really if they lead to nothing, all this is is a talk show. You know, we need more funding for a continuous talk show. And I think, you know, yes multi-stakeholderism does emphasize that all parties within the multi-stakeholder model are equal, but in reality, you know, government is a decision-maker. We are not all equal. Government makes decisions. So we need to bring them into a discussion, negotiate with them. I think maybe that’s another element that we need to bring into IGF is to negotiate, because the internet as it’s evolving affects all of us in our individual and our business capacity. So I think my how the IGF can evolve is just really turn the discussions that we have within the IGF space into actionable items at continental level, at regional level, but also at country level. You know, and yeah, see how that works itself out. But really just I think the one of the things that does bother me with how we’ve been moving for the past couple of years is that we talk. And how does that translate into actionable items in individual countries? So maybe just have that as one of the action points just moving into next year in the WSIS Plus 20 review.

Annaliese Williams: Thank you. Thanks, Plantina. And we are going to sort of get into, I hope, get into a bit of discussion. And we may not come up with any solutions today, but I’m hoping that we can put forward some ideas and perhaps discuss these again or come up with a proposal for the Norway IGF and have some further discussion on them. But Jorge, did you want to offer any reflections on how the IGF could evolve? or did the processes need to change? Did you want to respond to anything that any of the other speakers have said? We’ve had some comments about governments make the decisions. I think that is, while it’s true, nationally they make laws and internationally they can make treaties. But a lot of the infrastructure is owned and operated by parties that aren’t government entities. So any thoughts you would like to throw into the mix, Jorge? And please introduce yourself as you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. Annalise, Jorge Cancios with government. So happy to be here. Happy for the invite to share some thoughts. Maybe a thought that is important is that sometimes we love so much our baby, our IGF baby, that we just look at the IGF baby and how it has to walk and talk and start to run and everything. And we forget that it’s a larger family. So and this WSIS family has more members. Each and everyone has his or her role. And really the WSIS architecture is not just some dead letter documents of 2003 and 2005 where some older people like myself participated negotiating. No, it’s really a system that is working, that is delivering for the last 20 years where we as the global community and not just member states but also private stakeholders, civil society, academia, the technical community have invested. millions of hours of work, millions of dollars of any other currency in making the vision of WSIS a reality. More connectivity, e-health, e-whatever that was the old terminology. Everything had an e. Also human rights. Many issues were already considered then. So we have to see the IGF in that context. In the wider context where we have the action lines from WSIS giving guidance to the UN agencies and to many other actors to do stuff on the ground changing the reality, really delivering on the SDGs for the people. We have the WSIS forum where we get together each year to hear what has been done to implement the action lines. We have the CSTD where we discuss what was the progress and what do we feed up into the UN system. And there we have the different roles. Then it gets very intergovernmental. It goes to ECOSOC and if somebody doesn’t know what ECOSOC is, it’s the Economic and Social Committee. It’s like the non-war, non-peace brother, twin brother of the Security Council and from there it goes up to the UN General Assembly. Those are all parts of this WSIS family, of this WSIS architecture. And the IGF is like the more innovative kid. It’s the kid where we talk about new things, we invent new things, policy networks, emerging topics, but we still have to deliver. As Plantina was saying before, we have to deliver and there are things we have on our mandate for almost 20 years, like delivering recommendations. But it was a problem because, okay, it’s nice to have that in the mandate, but we didn’t know how. How do we do this? And there were also fears. So if somebody pops up with a recommendation, how was it that recommendation was developed, etc. So I think this is where the relevance, for instance, of the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines kick in. Because they tell us, okay, multi-stakeholder is not anything that is labeled as multi-stakeholder. It’s really something that complies with certain guidelines and those guidelines are, for instance, inclusivity and not just inclusivity with an open door where only the well-resourced pass the door. No, it’s inclusivity in a material, a substantive sense. That’s in guideline one of the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines. And it’s also process steps. It’s really getting everybody who is relevant together. It’s consulting with the community and it’s really explaining what has been done with the inputs from the community, avoiding this black box problem we’ve seen in other processes. It’s really giving the community also a role in being able to adapt the the outputs, etc. It’s a lot of guidance that our dynamic coalitions, our BPFs, our policy networks could get inspiration from and start delivering, start delivering those recommendations we have in our mandate. So looking back if we look at the IGF as part of this wider family maybe for instance those recommendations could each and every year be addressed then by the UN agencies when they are updating the working plans in the action lines and then Plantina if I may address you then we would know okay we’ve made a recommendation on data governance and that data governance recommendations goes to action lines XYZ and then later on they can report at the WSIS forum on what they what they did and addressing reflecting on the IGF recommendations if we think it the IGF as part of a system it makes much more sense and then it it is no longer in the perception because it’s for me it’s not a talk show it’s much more than that but also in the perception of everybody it would become much more effective much more impactful if it’s really part of a working WSIS structure and I talk too much sorry.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks for that Jorge. I just wanted to sort of touch on a couple of things that you said you know firstly about the well the thinking about the IGF admiring our baby I think that is you know sometimes the conversations do get around you know to focusing on the IGF and sort of only the IGF and not the broader broader system I think for me personally anyway it’s not so it’s not so much the the IGF but it’s the the principle of multi-stakeholder conversations and sharing of, exchanging of views and doing that sort of globally, sort of hearing from parts of the world that are far away from where you might live or where you might work. And the IGF is a good platform for hearing about the concerns from, that might be very different from your own. And also I thought it was, I think we do need to sort of really focus on the, that connection to the SDGs and the WSIS process was all about development. And I think it’s important that we all, the internet is recognised and digital technologies are recognised as an enabler of sustainable development. But I think it was Doreen on the first day, sort of something like a third of the world’s population still aren’t connected. So, we can have one set of conversations in one place, but in other parts of the world, they’re having very different conversations. People aren’t connected. And I was in a session yesterday where they were talking about not having electricity all of the time. So, even if they have the internet, they don’t have enough power for data centres or can’t access the internet all of the time. So, I think that is making sure that the conversations and making sure that the space to have consideration of the issues from everybody’s point of view and make sure that it’s, you know, that the needs of those in less connected parts of the world aren’t sort of left out of the conversation. I did also want to ask for views and I’ll just ask for a volunteer, I guess. I think, you know, the need for governments and for technical stakeholders, you know, technical experts, private sector, civil society. society, the need for meaningful conversations to take place, there is a real need, but there is perhaps not always the stakeholder balance here at IGF conversations, at IGF meetings to sort of have those conversations. So I wondered if anybody has any ideas or any suggestions for how the IGF could better facilitate conversations between governments and other experts. Does anyone want to address that first?

Amrita Choudhury: I think what Chris mentioned, that the focus, for example, for IGF may be much more sharper. You have the parliamentary track, but are you actually discussing things which the parliamentarians want to hear? There could be certain things where they may want to discuss, but they may, in a public forum, may be shy to ask or understand. Are we having those kind of, I would say, innovative approaches to bring them so that they see value in coming here and discussing things, also clarifying their doubts, as well as sharing their experiences. I think an innovative approach would be good. It’s not a one-size-fits-all kind of a situation, and perhaps showing value to people coming, as in, I’m sure the MAG always has been trying to get the right kind of speakers to come from different stakeholder groups to speak. But sometimes travelling is a challenge, you can’t fund travellers, you know, not everyone has deep pockets. Many private companies also may not come to speak because they are afraid of what they would say and how it would be interpreted. So I think there are multiple issues which would have to be addressed, but I think more focused approach, innovative ways of having discussions, lesser ones, because unfortunately… Nearly two-thirds of the sessions which happens at the IGF is not in the MAG’s hand. If the MAG was to design it, perhaps it may have been done differently, and others can respond to it.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks Amrita. Does anybody else want to go ahead, Chris?

Chris Buckridge: Sorry, I said that without really thinking ahead of what I was going to say. Look, I mean, I think we have good speakers, I think, in a lot of the sessions, and we are trying to be innovative in how we plan sessions. I think, you know, that extends to remote speakers and better integrating them, and I think we need to really focus, sort of, on the IGF as a hybrid event. This needs to be a space where, you know, you don’t need to be there in person to have a meaningful role and take a meaningful part. But, that said, obviously, I mean, we know that people being there in person is a different experience. It provides not just the opportunity for, you know, to look around at your fellow speakers in the table and respond in a more organic way, but also to have conversations in the corridor, to meet people in bilateral meetings. There’s a richness there. So, I mean, we need to still focus on bringing people to the venue and making it an appealing and attractive event to have people at. Now, I think that’s, you know, increasingly a challenge, partly because we do have this proliferation of venues. Next year only serves to highlight that, where we have the WSIS Forum one week, two weeks after the IGF. Two weeks before the IGF, we have an ICANN meeting, which will have a lot of similar stakeholders there. So, I mean, next year is probably unusual, but maybe not that unusual, given the trend and the way we see this developing. I mean, if we look at the last five years, the pace of regulation, of new bodies, of new initiatives at the UN level, at the sort of regional level, at the national level, is remarkable. It really has, I don’t know if anyone’s done a line chart of it, but it would be almost exponential, I’m sure, in the increase. So we need for the IGF to find, to carve its own space there where it’s actually competing for attention against all of these other spaces. And that, I think, leads just back to the first question of how do we evolve it to better meet the needs and wants of people? And there is a hunger for some more link to decisional developments. Not that the IGF can take the role of government, not that it can sort of step in, and it would fail if it tried, I think. But it does need to be producing much more effective interfaces to the governmental processes, to the regulators, to legislators. So yeah, having a parliamentarian track is a very fundamental element of that, and I think a recognition of the need to build that interface, whether it’s perfect or not yet, I don’t know. Probably, yeah, like everything, a work in progress. But that sort of evolution needs to continue, I think. Yeah, I’ll stop there.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Chris. And I see Renata wanted to add on to that, and I will after Renata has spoken, but if anyone wants to think about how do we make it more appealing and more attractive, particularly to those governments who might come once?

Renata Mielli: Okay, first of all, I apologize. I didn’t present myself in the first round, so I am doing now. I’m Renata Miele, I’m the chair of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, CGI.br, and also… Special Advisor of the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation. Well, I think this question is connected to the previous one, because why a government or a deputy, a parliament, come to IGF? What can we offer to them to make it interesting, important to be here discussing with us? And for me, we do marvelous debates. We do interesting workshops. We have maybe the best minds that are thinking about Internet, their applications, their impacts on social and economic levels and everything else. But why governments come here to talk with us? And for me, they will feel the need to be here if we can deliver something concrete that has some more impact in terms of discussions. We are not going to be ourselves the decision-making process, but they need to see in us, in IGF, in the community, a locus, a space relevant enough to inform and collaborate with recommendations and concrete outcomes that can impact in decision-making process. So, if we don’t do that… this, they are not going to come. Because there are a lot of spaces to go, and more relevant for them. So I think this, I don’t have the precisely magical answer to this question, but I think the start point is that, how to make IGF more relevant to the people who has the role to make decisions. So for me, this is the start point.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Renata. Plantina, did you want to add something?

Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone: Yes, I did. I don’t know, I think too highly of the Internet Governance Forum. I really, let me just start off by saying that. I think all the discussions that have been while I’ve been here in the Internet Governance space are relevant, they’re well-informed, and they inform government. I mean, we provide so many, they have parliamentary trackers, there’s best practice sessions where we exchange knowledge and ideas on how to implement certain things, or how to structure certain guidelines and frameworks. I think much of the discussions that we are having on Internet Governance are relevant to them. They make policies that affect our well-being with regards to the evolution of the Internet. I think Chris said it, everybody that’s at ICANN, that’s at ITU is also here, and all in a multi-stakeholder model, following a multi-stakeholder model. So I don’t know if there is anything we can do beyond this. To make it more attractive and appealing to them. Because really, we are discussing things that affect. them, that affect how they regulate us, that affect socio-economic, that have socio-economic development implications, you know. So there’s, I think, me, what I was going to say is that the discussions that we have at our annual IGF meetings need to go on beyond MAG structures. We have multiple communities and sessions and they need to go on and maybe then that sits on us as NRIs or, you know, national initiatives to take back reports back to them and say we discussed this but there’s really not much we can do to make it because everything we’re discussing is relevant to them, it affects them, it affects their ability to make decisions. I don’t know if we want to dress it like a Christmas tree next time so that it’s more appealing. There’s no way we can do that. I think highly of the discussions that we have here. I make notes. I have four books full of notes just from each session that I’ve been in. They’ve been bilateral meetings. There’s just a lot of things. It allows for a lot of things. If you want to have bilaterals, there’s a parliamentary tracker, ministers are here, there’s networking opportunities. I don’t know how else we need to dress the IGF like a Christmas tree to make it more appealing. I think it is very important, the discussions that we have are very relevant to them. I think there’s maybe a need to induct them more into IGF. Maybe it’s a lack of awareness of IGF and the importance of it. So maybe, I mean, we just had, most countries have just gone through the election so there’s a new government or a new minister so there’s a need to maybe induct them into IGF. I mean, assuming that the ministry hasn’t yet done that already but having the stakeholders that are relevant to IGF speak to them about IGF stakeholders that are involved in IGF processes, speak to them about IGF processes. You know, I think that’s the best we can do at this point.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Plantina. Chris wants to jump in. I see that. I will let Chris jump in. But I did want to just flag, you said something about the national and regional IGFs, and so part of this discussion was do the IGF processes need to change somehow? So does there need to be some sort of mechanism through which national IGFs and the global IGFs sort of feed into each other?

Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone: So this is my understanding of the NRIs, right? And as somebody that coordinates from a South Africa level, we have our national IGF ahead of the regional IGF and the Africa IGF and the global IGF. We write a report that we submit to the three structures, right? So it feeds the processes that it needs to go up through our minister’s office. I don’t think that should change because the reality is that each region has its own unique challenges that speak to that, so we need to also speak to regional issues and then take those regional issues up to global. So that structure should not change because SADC issues and Europe issues or Africa issues are totally different. But when we get to global, there’s best practice platforms where we exchange on a continental level, on a regional level of how things could potentially be better or how things could work. And maybe I’m just thinking of it from how practical it is for me in coordinating IGF and what I think I feed into the bigger global picture. But that can’t change because I also speak to our regional issues. I also speak to our continental issues. My report supports those dialogues that they have that address our issues. And then that report goes up into… inter-global, inter-global reports. Yeah.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Plantina.

Chris Buckridge: Sorry, I know I’m jumping back into here. Well, first actually I want to say to Plantina I think that that’s a really important point. On the flip side, the important, like, sending a report is wonderful. We on this side need to do something with that report. So how, what does that get, how does that get translated? And I think at the moment the IGF does not have a good sort of idea of how to do that. The other thing, the Christmas tree idea, dressing it up as a Christmas tree, my, the thing that has frustrated me for many years about the IGF and that I actually think the more we talk about it the more valuable, there is such a wealth of information in the archives of 20 years of IGF. We have videos, we have, there’s so much there. Most of it’s on YouTube, but it’s not in any usable form and we have tools, we have methods that we could pull out data, pull out summaries, pull out sort of, this is how many discussions there were of GDPR. These were some of the key themes that were talked about in relation to data governance. If there are people with deep pockets out there, listening, hello, I mean, that would be my Christmas wish for the IGF, would be to someone really step, and it has been tried before. There was a Friends of the IGF project, which worked for a while, and I think then kind of floundered and it was a very good step in the right direction. I would love to see that because there is so much information and it would be so valuable in selling the IGF, in bringing people into understanding what the IGF does, in giving them an insight into the different views of stakeholders. There is so much there and when we’re not using it and that’s my concern and my hope.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Chris. Jorge, I’ll come to you in a minute, but Everton has indicated that there is… a comment in the online?

Online Moderator: Not online exactly but I would like to take this opportunity just to invite as Chris was saying was talking about the hybrid IEGF so to take it as to take this opportunity to talk about the hybrid IEGF I would like to talk that we have an audience over there watching us and so they are invited to present us with comments but we have one comment one raise at hand in the room but through zoom which is Jordan.

Annaliese Williams: I’ll go can I go to Jorge first and then I’ll come to Jordan and I saw someone yeah I’ll come to you

Jorge Cancio: Jay I’m so Jorge conscious with government again no it was a very short two fingers I understand that it’s very difficult to navigate all that IEGF information if we take the position of the 2015 technology but nowadays couldn’t we train a bot an IEGF bot and you ask what’s the IEGF ideas information on this it isn’t that difficult I’m in another life I’m also a civil rights activist in my country and we’ve done that with no money with no means and it works perfectly you can train it why don’t we do that

Annaliese Williams: so Everton perhaps we can pass the microphone to Jordan and then and then what and thanks oh that’s weird

Jordan Carter: Thanks, Annalise. Hi, everyone. My name is Jordan Carter. I’m a colleague of Annalise at the Australian Domain Administration. This is a personal view. Rather than a Christmas tree, I think that there is room for some session types that we don’t necessarily have at the moment. One of them that keeps coming up in my mind is being able to engage people on a draft piece of legislation or something. It’s almost like a legislative or a regulatory workshop where some group, it doesn’t have to be a best practice forum. It could simply be a workshop proposal or some legislative testing category of session we don’t have yet. Just give someone, it might be a country, it might be a group of activists, a way to bring a legislative possibility to the IGF community for input. And then to take on board all the input they get here and then to share it out afterwards. That’s some session type innovation. Another might be, how many of us have sat in IGF sessions and really hoped there would be an argument and there wasn’t because everyone agreed on everything? Or there’s the start of a really interesting argument that only emerges in the last 10 minutes of a two-hour panel because the people on the panel didn’t spend enough time prepping to know that they disagreed with each other. So I think even within the current framework there’s the chance for more effort and more organizing to be done. To do that, one of the IGF reforms that needs to happen is that this insane process where no one is in charge of the program needs to finish. I’ve done one year on the MAG, I’ve had my thank you and goodbye letter, who knows what’s happening next time. But the MAG does about a third of the program. And so two-thirds is by either a national government or by the Secretariat. There are multiple sessions on the same topics with almost the same angles and 400 sessions. What if there was 100 sessions covering pretty much the same topics but with four times the amount of brain power that was going into them to actually generate something savvy and interesting? And then the third point I guess I’d make is echoing the point about resources. This is, governments say, the premier space for multi-stakeholder engagement and dialogue, and then governments provide enough resources for five staff members. It doesn’t add up. Like, you know, with a bit more resource to do analysis and communicate the resources that are generated through the IGF process, there could be so much more value arising from the community effort that comes here. And governments are primarily responsible for the overall digital policy architecture. It would be nice if they put a tiny little bit more money where their mouths were on that front. Hopefully none of them was too offended by any of that.

Annaliese Williams: I don’t know that they were. I would just ask, should it only be governments that contribute to the funding of the IGF? That’s something to think about. We will go…

Wout de Natris : Thank you. My name is Wouter Natris. I’m a consultant in the Netherlands, but also representing the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards Security Safety here in Riyadh. I think part of what I want to say was just covered by Jordan, so thank you Jordan. I hear a lot of things being said right now in the past half hour, and the only thing I can point to that in 2017 and 18, I’ve wrote two reports that were presented to the MAG, where are all sorts of recommendations how the IGF could be strengthened. And we’re talking six, seven years later about the same ideas. Read the report, it’s on the IGF website, and see what we can do with it. One of the examples is exactly, we have ten sessions on AI, on human rights, on women’s rights. All these brilliant people sit in individual sessions. Why not put them together in a room for a day and say, but you’re going to come out with recommendations, a toolkit, and guidelines, and you’re going to present them a day later. Instead of having ten sessions with perhaps five times the same people… talking on the same topic Where’s the added value because we have brilliant people to what Jorge said on the dynamic coalitions and output We as an IGF we do need to start organizing around that output I’m starting to sound like a broken record I know but this output is there if you were the main session this morning you heard what these dynamic coalitions are doing We are delivering the output, but we’re not doing anything I could not even present my report on the IGF website because it was broken they said So where do you go with working for a whole year a not being able to present it because you don’t get the time and Be not be able to put it on the website so what are you what are we doing this effort for and that’s where things are broken and that needs to be changed and The funding thing that I think that a lot of governments should start stepping up, but that we’re saying that for years as well I think you’re going to pass it on to that side so there’s a rare thing you’re here, and then they don’t decide

Desiree Miloshevic: Yeah, Desiree. I’ll switch. I’ll be very brief and Also agreeing with some innovative ways of making the IGF works More inclusively with the national IGFs and regional IGFs I don’t think we have seen a collective output of what they need and that I have been able to transfer that Even to the mag let alone the secretariat Whether it’s commitment to work on the IGF for next 10 years or some some kind of joint output but also in terms of this innovative Ways governments do get a lot of benefit. I believe out of the IGF They might have a separate governmental track, but they also have a lot of bilateral meetings that we other Stakeholders are not part of but I think there’s a lot of value in in in gathering Lastly something that’s been mentioned is this discussion of legislative proposals from region what I’m witness Here is the Arab region region has worked really in sync to look at the issues in their region. So maybe wherever the IGF takes place, this regional community should come together and have this focus, maybe workshops like what was just saying, working in a less workshoppy way, but for longer hours. Anyway, I’ll stop here for the sake of time. Thank you.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Desiree. We’ll go here, then here, and then I did want to turn the conversation around to the Netrundial guidelines. You may go ahead.

Masanobu Katoh: Masanobu Kato from IGF Japan. And I’d like to explain some of the experiences we had last year. You remember that we had the IGF Kyoto, which was very popular and we had many crowds there. And the Prime Minister spoke and three ministers came and talked about their policy on digital society. Very interestingly, major newspapers like the Nikkei newspaper had a report on how the Prime Minister attended the International AI Conference or something like that. I’m not specifically criticizing any particular press or so. That was a general impression of the people. This means that the IGF is not very well known to the public. This is very important. You know, people here knows what IGF is and we are talking about an improvement of IGF, but the other angle is to look at the people who do not know this and do not know the real value. And we have to be very active on getting more interest from those people. One other example, and I found this very interesting, I met with an AI expert in Japan who came to the Kyoto conference and asked him. of why. He said his counterpart in the UK or Europe invited him. So that means there are a vast majority of experts who do not know the IGF, but who are having international collaborations, meetings, and they say, oh, IGF is not a place to make any decisions. They don’t know how to deal with these very special issues they are working with. That’s not the case. Bring them in, in some way. And the one suggestion is, like Desiree said, focus more on the NRI. And NRI within Japan, we started to invite more experts, having periodical meetings, discussing on specific issues. If we invite government, for instance, in such kind of places, we can probably get their interest more. And they may even think, well, let’s see what’s going on in the world. What’s going on in the IGF meeting. And that’s the only way I think we can get more interest from other people. Thank you.

Baratang Miya: My name is Barata Mea from Gael Hype Women Who Code South Africa, and I organize women in IGF summit every year for the past three years. I want to talk about the experience, because I listened to comments prior, and maybe my experience will clarify why some things took a different turn. I was invited by the Secretary General of the UN in 2019. There was a group of us, I think there was five women who were invited across the world. And that was because prior to that, women had been saying there’s no women’s voice in IGF. there isn’t meaningful contribution of women’s voices, their workshops are being declined, and they do not know how to fill in forms, and they even had to do something, hence we were brought in. And that was in Germany, thanks to the German government, because they made sure we are there. And after that, I had learned so much about policies and how to contribute to the space, and I never stopped. I’m coming and I started knowing how to write workshops. And that has become a main thing that we discuss on the African NRI. So if you say there’s 400 sessions with lots of voices saying the same thing, it’s purely because they’re facing a challenge of who to decline, and if they decline, and they say, according to them, these are good sessions, as they make, then they might find that they declined lots of Africans, lots of women, and for diversity and equity, they need to find out how to balance it and how to get the right perspective. Maybe your suggestion of saying, put all of them in one room, and come up with a proper solution might be the best solution, but to reduce the number of session, it’s going to take the IGF backwards. We’re going to lose what the IGF has worked so hard to bring into the space, which is youth and women. Thank you.

Annaliese Williams: Sorry, I’m just writing that down so I don’t forget. So I have heard several times that focusing, or a deeper focus on the issue, rather than multiple sort of surface level discussions might be useful, and we had the observation that under the current sort of program design, there isn’t a single sort of source in charge, so perhaps that’s something that we do need to think about, how we design the programs in the future, and how we do have the space for. in actual solving problems, or at least coming to a genuine understanding of where all the differences of opinion are, instead of just talking about the issues at a surface level. And in terms of outputs of multi-stakeholder meetings, Renata, earlier this year we had the NetMundial which did come up with a multi-stakeholder output in the guidelines that could be useful for other processes, so I just wondered if we could perhaps start with you about whether or how the NetMundial guidelines could be applied in the IGF context, or other contexts as well.

Renata Mielli: Thanks, Annelies. Just before answering your question, I think we have a good discussion, this is a very good debate about the programming, because, yes, reducing the number of the sessions maybe has an impact on diversity, but in another way it’s so frustrating and exhausting trying to follow for all the panels that are… we got very crazy, to be very honest. So this is a very good point, I think MAG has, the new MAG, because we are going to be a new MAG, maybe needs to go deeper in this discussion about how to improve programming, maybe… build some consultations for the community? I don’t know. I don’t have the answer. I don’t, but I have the question. About guidelines and NetMundial plus 10 guidelines, I think we have, I think we need to start on these guidelines, but we need to not to just look to the guidelines and try to fit all them, all that points to IGF and or in the regional IGFs, but I think we need to start to discuss how and what guidelines we need to start, because there are a lot of good ideas and propositions in that guidelines regarding how we can guarantee more diversity and we call participation of all the stakeholders and how to do this, because we put the idea but we don’t say how and how to do this and I think there are a lot of things we have to think about it. For example, a very simple one, to be, to stay, to come to IGF, we need to speak English, because there are another, there is another language to talk, to participate, and this is for a lot of countries, this is a very, very, very restricted point. In Brazil, we don’t have a lot of people who speak English in civil society, even in academia, even private sector. There is no natural. So that’s one point. We say internet needs to be multilingual, needs to have language diversity. How can we do this on IGF? That’s something that occurs to me now. Because to guarantee diversity, we have to think about what the gap you need to fill. This is one, for example. The problem with fundings, the cost for traveling and staying, it’s another. Maybe the hybrid format is an answer, but it’s a part of an answer. It’s not totally. I think we need to do some work in understanding what kind of outcome the IGF can deliver. Because we say we need to have something. But what is this something? We don’t do this job on NetMundial Plus 10, for example. We say we need an outcome. We need something more concrete. But what is this thing, something more concrete, on the IGF to be produced as an outcome that has some impact? We are going to choose an issue to each IGF, maybe. I don’t know. Let’s talk about artificial intelligence to put something outcome. Or let’s talk about, I don’t know, data governance. I don’t know. how can we build that? We are going to make previously consultations for the community about some kind of ideas. I don’t know. So I think to apply the NetMundial guidelines to the IJF, I think we need to do some homework. And this is a new challenge for all of us. That’s my, previously, that’s what I see.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks Renata. And I’m just sort of listening, just listening to you speak about the language challenges and sort of thinking about the programming issues. Perhaps there is something there to better coordinate the program of the global IGF with the national and regional. So at least on some issues everybody can be having the same conversation in their region, in their language. And maybe there is something about putting forward a view for a global, for global discussion. The positions on that issue from, you know, the thoughts from those regions on a particular issue to be discussed here. I think we had a question or a comment at the back.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Just in response to Renata, I’m Renata Esterhosen from APC. Just very quickly, we had a similar session earlier today that looked at also NetMundial, Global Digital Compact and IJF. And someone from the Swiss government, who’s not called Jorge, made a very good suggestion about applying the, you know, the NetMundial guidelines about how you scope an issue and then you identify who’s affected by that issue, who are the stakeholders. But there are other guidelines as well within the NetMundial, but she suggested that we look at the IGF messages and how the IGF messages are produced and then distributed using relevant bits of the NetMundial guidelines. And I thought that was such a good, practical, concrete suggestion. Thanks Henriette. I think we have another comment, was it online or somebody else wanted to speak? Okay, go ahead. Oh, hello. Thank you.

Galvanian Burke: My name is Galvanian Burke, Civil Society. I also do have a practical suggestion. As an attendee, the experience using digital tools is quite difficult. I believe you could focus more on the hybrid format because many people cannot afford to travel, but provide them a great experience. Creating an account is difficult, browsing the schedule is difficult, finding the speakers are difficult, finding the Zoom link is difficult. So we did an event a couple of weeks ago on Zoom events, events.zoom.us. It was extremely user-friendly. Maybe using that platform as a test could prove useful and you might have many more people joining because the IGF is an incredible and unique forum. The first time I came in, I was like, I didn’t believe my eyes, it was so good. But also now I feel frustrated because finding content like the resources is extremely difficult. And maybe you do not have the money to do what you want, but you’ve got a tremendous wealth of knowledge, of people and of resources. So leverage your community, see what you do have in terms of people and what they can do. And maybe we can create a platform all together and apply the principles that we see are good for the future of the internet. Thank you.

Annaliese Williams: Thank you. Chris, did you want to speak?

Chris Buckridge: It was a very brief comment, I think. Kind of drawing on what Henriette said and on Jordan’s comment before about evolving and innovating in sort of formats, I mean, we have an IGF which usually has several sub-themes. It could be that we look at each of those sub-themes in a sense as a different distinct conference with its own modalities. So if you had, for instance, a data governance sub-theme in a year where there was a need or a desire to produce some sort of output like the equivalent of the São Paulo guidelines, that could be the focus of that theme. Whereas another theme like AI or whatever could be more traditional IGF, a bit freeform. So, yeah, I think there are possibilities there to sort of think in terms of different formats.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Chris. And just in terms of the language issue, Amrita, do you have any views? You’re very involved in the Asia-Pacific IGF. Anything you’d like to share?

Amrita Choudhury: So I think language is an issue, as Renata mentioned. It is at a regional level also. In Asia-Pacific, it’s more complicated because you have so many languages. It’s just not one, two. Even in a country, you may have 22 languages for that matter. So it’s difficult. Again, resources is a challenge when we have documents which are produced and then even getting it translated. But I think with technology improving, the translations may be cheaper. If not absolute accurate, but at least you can get the essence and some people can look at it. So I think those can help. I think that’s important. Another thing, Chris, while I do get your point about one topic, I also draw on it, what topic may be of importance to many parts of the world may not be for some people. So obviously a nice balance would be good enough out there. The other thing about the, I wanted to point because we were speaking about the NRIs, and that’s a huge achievement for the IGF. We kind of tend to forget it. We go to the countries which were not, you know, least developed countries having, you know, NRI initiatives. And I’m talking from Pacific, you know, Asia Pacific, we have the Pacifics doing, you have the small countries like Nepal doing, landlocked countries. You also have Afghanistan where you cannot have it, they are having it in hybrid mode. They recently had the Afghan IGF and NOG. So I think it gives the empowerment also like in places like Afghanistan where you can’t do things, where an IGF is held, we sometimes lose that, that what it is triggering. They’re talking about the SDGs, they’re talking about their national goals, which we forget. Obviously, they feed on to the IGF and whatever here, they hear, they take it down. So I think, again, getting back to how we can improve, we can improve our hybrid meetings. Sorry to say, this is not a hybrid meeting we are having at this point of time. As in, we need to be better in our hybrid modes. Because see, if you’re seeing it in hybrid nowadays, many times the text you can get, you can also translate it in your at least major languages. Those also help in YouTube, etc. We love, we hate big tech, but they help in innovation. Thank you.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Amrita. Jorge, did you want to? Do you hear me? Yes.

Jorge Cancio: Jorge Cancio, Swiss government again. So, just two short points. On the languages, and as we are talking about the Sao Paulo multistakeholder. guidelines. I don’t think you’ve mentioned it or Everton has neither mentioned it. It’s important to mention that they are available in about ten languages, nine languages. Surely ten will be forthcoming amongst other in the UN and the official UN languages. So Arabic, Russian, Chinese, English, French, Spanish. We have it also in Portuguese, in German, in Italian, so Japanese and there’s already talk of translating into some languages in Nigeria. So that’s very useful I think. But my Brazilian friends are too modest to say it loudly but we should because that’s very useful to apply them also at the local level because they are also useful at the local, at the regional, at many levels. And in fact the IGF could invite the NRIs to consider them, to see where they can be applied or where inspiration can be drawn from from them. And of course it would be a bit weird to invite others but not walk the talk ourselves. I think many BPFs, policy networks, dynamic coalitions, they already are producing outputs. So they are already striving for developing recommendations or best practice examples. So maybe I’m very naive but I think it would be easy to take a look at what they are doing, how they are doing it. and compare with the Sao Paulo Multi-Stakeholder Guidelines, perhaps they can improve 1.02, or maybe they already do everything perfectly, that’s possible, but at least I think we are going to have a conversation in some also national and regional NRIs, how we can look into that, and whether we, for instance, do our call for issues in a way that is consistent. Thank you.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Jorge. Renata, you wanted to respond? I think we’re close to…

Renata Mielli: Just to share another experience, initiative that we have. We started in CGI, the organization of the Forum Lusófono da Internet, Internet Lusófono. Lusófono is okay in English? Portuguese speaking. Okay. Forum of Portuguese speaking of Internet, governance of Internet, I don’t know how to say that. But it’s interesting, because we are bringing together all the countries that speak Portuguese to discuss the governance of Internet. We made the first edition in São Paulo in 2023, and this year in Cabo Verde in August, September, I don’t know. And we are going to have the next one in Mozambique, and this is another regional forum, and there is no regional approach, but there is a linguistic approach where we discuss how to improve the language and Portuguese on Internet. So, that’s another interesting thing. How to… This is a work in progress, too, because we are inventing new things. And this is important to achieve this goal that we need to have more people together on the governance space debating these things, and so let’s be creative.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks Renata. Evitin, was there a comment online? Yeah. Thank you Annelise.

Audience: We have three comments, or maybe some more. One from Mike Nelson, that at IGF USA they have organized some very exciting and lively debates over the years. Thank you Mike. One from Jordan Carter, that non-state stakeholders do sometimes fund the IGF trust fund and maybe more can be done. And another one from Avery Doria, that the suggestion to decrease the number of sessions has been made almost every year of the IGF, if she recalls correctly. Many however feed the many sessions, a rich resource that can be used long after the four-day meeting is over. It needs to stop thinking of the IGF as a once-a-year event. We have some inter-sessional work, but the notion of ongoing work is still foreign. So the MAGs is still a program committee for once-a-year conference. And there is also one more comment here, that improving hybrid would be a really cool idea. So one comment by Pedro Lama, and a comment about a guide to hybrid events by Kiki.

Annaliese Williams: Currently there is a guide to hybrid events, so we will take note of that. So we’re almost out of time, but I did want to just quickly ask all of our speakers in 30 seconds or so, having heard the discussion today and having your own ideas, if there was sort of one thing that you could do for the next IGF or for future IGFs, like one concrete idea, what would it be? What do you think needs to happen? Any volunteers? Should we start with you, Jorge, and just go around the table? Or should we start this way? We’ll go with Amrita first.

Amrita Choudhury: Next year is important, more strategically focused IGF. More strategically focused program? IGF to achieve the end results we want to achieve in VISIS plus 20.

Annaliese Williams: Plantina?

Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone: After the discussion we just had on language and hybrid, I think improve that to make it more inclusive of attendees that are unable, participants that are unable to attend in person.

Renata Mielli: Oh my god, it’s so difficult to choose one, but I choose maybe because I agree with Amrita, this is a very strategic IGF, maybe we can start earlier with some kind of consultations regarding what we want to achieve with VISIS plus 20. Let’s put something on the net and listen to the community before the IGF starts. Maybe it will be something interesting to put some guidelines on the Sao Paulo Net Mundial guidelines. I don’t know.

Chris Buckridge: So I’m gonna go back and my earlier point, I think the one thing I’d love to see is a focus on cataloging and making usable and useful the rich data set that is all of the IGF archives that we have.

Jorge Cancio: So I vote for a bot that makes that accessible and apart from the bot, I think we need an IGF in Oslo that is relevant, that shows that this community delivers on the WSIS vision and that we are ready to update it to make it fit for purpose.

Annaliese Williams: So that brings us to the end. I think we do have some good ideas to be thinking about and if there are any, I know they don’t know yet, but if there are any people in the room who find themselves on the next MAG, perhaps they can take some of these ideas about the strategic focus for next time into consideration. But please thank all of the speakers and thank everyone for being part of this conversation. Thanks everybody online. you you you you you

Agreement Points

IGF needs to evolve to meet modern challenges

Amrita Choudhury

Chris Buckridge

Renata Mielli

Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone

Jorge Cancio

IGF needs to be more focused and empowered

IGF has evolved over time and should continue to do so

IGF discussions need to lead to more concrete outcomes

IGF should produce actionable items at continental and country levels

IGF should be seen in context of broader WSIS architecture

Speakers agree that the IGF needs to adapt and evolve to address current global digital challenges more effectively, with a focus on producing more concrete and actionable outcomes.

Improve IGF programming and format

Chris Buckridge

Wout de Natris

Baratang Miya

Amrita Choudhury

Consider different formats for different themes

Reduce number of sessions for more focused discussions

Maintain diversity while improving programming

Improve hybrid format and accessibility

Speakers agree on the need to improve IGF programming and format, balancing the need for more focused discussions with maintaining diversity and improving accessibility.

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers emphasize the need for the IGF to produce more concrete, actionable outputs that can be applied at various levels of governance.

Renata Mielli

Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone

Jorge Cancio

Produce more concrete recommendations and guidelines

IGF should produce actionable items at continental and country levels

Apply NetMundial multi-stakeholder guidelines to IGF processes

Both speakers highlight the importance of addressing language barriers and improving accessibility to enhance participation in the IGF.

Amrita Choudhury

Renata Mielli

Address language barriers to participation

Improve hybrid format and accessibility

Unexpected Consensus

Leveraging IGF archives and community resources

Chris Buckridge

Galvanian Burke

Make IGF archives and data more accessible and usable

IGF should leverage its community and resources better

Despite coming from different backgrounds, both speakers unexpectedly agree on the need to better utilize existing IGF resources and community knowledge, suggesting a shared recognition of untapped potential in the IGF’s accumulated expertise.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the need for IGF evolution to meet modern challenges, improving IGF programming and format, producing more concrete and actionable outputs, and enhancing accessibility and participation.

Consensus level

There is a moderate to high level of consensus among speakers on the need for IGF reform and evolution. This consensus implies a strong foundation for implementing changes to make the IGF more effective and relevant in addressing global digital governance challenges. However, the specific methods for achieving these goals vary among speakers, suggesting that detailed implementation plans would require further discussion and negotiation.

Different Viewpoints

Number of IGF sessions

Wout de Natris

Baratang Miya

Reduce number of sessions for more focused discussions

Maintain diversity while improving programming

Wout de Natris suggests reducing the number of IGF sessions for more focused discussions, while Baratang Miya argues that reducing sessions could negatively impact the inclusion of underrepresented voices.

Focus of IGF discussions

Renata Mielli

Chris Buckridge

IGF discussions need to lead to more concrete outcomes

IGF has evolved over time and should continue to do so

Renata Mielli emphasizes the need for more concrete outcomes from IGF discussions, while Chris Buckridge focuses on the ongoing evolution of the IGF process itself.

Unexpected Differences

Approach to IGF programming

Chris Buckridge

Audience

Consider different formats for different themes

Make IGF a year-round process, not just annual event

While both suggestions aim to improve IGF programming, they represent unexpectedly different approaches. Chris suggests varying formats within the annual event, while the audience comment proposes extending the IGF process throughout the year, which could significantly change the nature of the forum.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the structure of IGF sessions, the focus of discussions, and the nature of IGF outputs. There are also differing views on how to improve accessibility and relevance to decision-makers.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is moderate. While there is general consensus on the need for IGF evolution, speakers have varying ideas on how to achieve this. These differences reflect the complex nature of internet governance and the challenges in balancing diverse stakeholder interests. The implications of these disagreements suggest that any changes to the IGF format or focus will require careful consideration and compromise among different stakeholder groups.

Partial Agreements

These speakers agree on the need for more concrete outputs from the IGF, but propose different approaches: Renata suggests focusing on recommendations and guidelines, Jorge proposes applying existing NetMundial guidelines, and Jordan suggests new session types like legislative workshops.

Renata Mielli

Jorge Cancio

Jordan Carter

Produce more concrete recommendations and guidelines

Apply NetMundial multi-stakeholder guidelines to IGF processes

IGF needs to be more relevant to decision-makers

Both speakers agree on the need for more practical outcomes from the IGF, but Amrita focuses on improving the hybrid format for better accessibility, while Plantina emphasizes producing actionable items at different geographical levels.

Amrita Choudhury

Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone

Improve hybrid format and accessibility

IGF should produce actionable items at continental and country levels

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers emphasize the need for the IGF to produce more concrete, actionable outputs that can be applied at various levels of governance.

Renata Mielli

Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone

Jorge Cancio

Produce more concrete recommendations and guidelines

IGF should produce actionable items at continental and country levels

Apply NetMundial multi-stakeholder guidelines to IGF processes

Both speakers highlight the importance of addressing language barriers and improving accessibility to enhance participation in the IGF.

Amrita Choudhury

Renata Mielli

Address language barriers to participation

Improve hybrid format and accessibility

Key Takeaways

The IGF needs to evolve to be more focused, empowered, and relevant to decision-makers

There is a need to improve IGF programming by reducing the number of sessions while maintaining diversity

Enhancing multi-stakeholder participation, especially from governments, is crucial

The IGF should produce more concrete outcomes and actionable recommendations

Improving the hybrid format and accessibility of the IGF is important

Better coordination between global, regional, and national IGFs is needed

The IGF should leverage its community and existing resources more effectively

Resolutions and Action Items

Consider applying NetMundial multi-stakeholder guidelines to IGF processes

Focus on making the 2024 IGF in Oslo strategically relevant to the WSIS+20 review

Improve cataloging and accessibility of IGF archives and data

Start earlier consultations on desired outcomes for the next IGF

Explore ways to address language barriers in IGF participation

Unresolved Issues

How to balance reducing the number of sessions with maintaining diversity and inclusivity

Specific mechanisms for producing more concrete outcomes from IGF discussions

How to secure sustainable and diverse funding for the IGF

Ways to make IGF more appealing and relevant to government stakeholders

How to effectively transform IGF into a year-round process rather than just an annual event

Suggested Compromises

Using different formats for different thematic tracks within the IGF to balance focused outcomes with diverse discussions

Leveraging technology like AI bots to make IGF archives more accessible while working on more comprehensive solutions

Coordinating global IGF themes with regional and national IGFs to allow for discussions in local languages while feeding into global conversations

IGF could evolve to meet most of the requirements which is being portrayed as gap areas. For example, it could be the place where everyone can come and it could be a test bed for people. It could be a place where the GDC’s implementations could be tracked. It could also be a place where even governments come and test out what they want to do, et cetera, apart from other things.

speaker

Amrita Choudhury

reason

This comment provides concrete suggestions for how the IGF could evolve to become more relevant and impactful.

impact

It set the tone for discussing specific ways the IGF could change and expand its role, leading to further discussion on outputs and government involvement.

We need to demonstrate that there is no contradiction between strengthening multistakeholder spaces and processes and the role of multilateral spaces. We are in this crazy moment that we are something against another. And we have to stop this and work together in a complementary way.

speaker

Renata Mielli

reason

This insight challenges the perceived dichotomy between multistakeholder and multilateral approaches, suggesting a more integrated perspective.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards considering how different governance approaches could work together rather than in opposition, leading to discussion of the IGF’s role in the broader internet governance ecosystem.

What if there was 100 sessions covering pretty much the same topics but with four times the amount of brain power that was going into them to actually generate something savvy and interesting?

speaker

Jordan Carter

reason

This comment proposes a radical restructuring of the IGF format to potentially increase its impact and efficiency.

impact

It sparked a debate about the trade-offs between quantity and quality of sessions, as well as considerations of diversity and inclusivity in programming.

To reduce the number of session, it’s going to take the IGF backwards. We’re going to lose what the IGF has worked so hard to bring into the space, which is youth and women.

speaker

Baratang Miya

reason

This comment provides an important counterpoint to suggestions of reducing sessions, highlighting potential unintended consequences.

impact

It added complexity to the discussion about IGF reform, emphasizing the need to balance efficiency with inclusivity and diversity.

I think we need to do some work in understanding what kind of outcome the IGF can deliver. Because we say we need to have something. But what is this something?

speaker

Renata Mielli

reason

This comment cuts to the heart of the IGF’s purpose and challenges participants to define concrete goals.

impact

It refocused the discussion on the fundamental question of the IGF’s purpose and outputs, leading to more specific suggestions about potential outcomes.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from general observations about the IGF’s challenges to more specific proposals for reform. They introduced tension between different priorities (efficiency vs. inclusivity, concrete outputs vs. open dialogue) that reflect the complex nature of the IGF’s mission. The discussion evolved from identifying problems to proposing solutions, while also recognizing the potential trade-offs and unintended consequences of various reform ideas. This led to a more nuanced understanding of the challenges facing the IGF and the careful balance required in any attempts to evolve the forum.

How can the IGF better facilitate conversations between governments and other experts?

speaker

Annaliese Williams

explanation

This is important to address the lack of stakeholder balance at IGF meetings and improve meaningful dialogue between different groups.

How can the IGF be made more appealing and attractive, particularly to governments who might only attend once?

speaker

Annaliese Williams

explanation

Increasing government participation is crucial for the IGF’s relevance and impact on policy-making.

How can the IGF program be better coordinated with national and regional IGFs?

speaker

Annaliese Williams

explanation

This could help address language challenges and ensure more coherent global discussions on key issues.

How can the IGF’s vast archive of information be made more accessible and usable?

speaker

Chris Buckridge

explanation

Utilizing this wealth of information could enhance the IGF’s value and impact beyond the annual event.

How can the IGF improve its hybrid format to provide a better experience for remote participants?

speaker

Galvanian Burke and Amrita Choudhury

explanation

Enhancing the hybrid experience is crucial for increasing participation and inclusivity, especially for those who cannot afford to travel.

How can the IGF address language barriers to increase participation from non-English speaking countries?

speaker

Renata Mielli

explanation

Overcoming language barriers is essential for true global representation and diversity in IGF discussions.

How can the IGF produce more concrete outcomes or recommendations that have an impact on decision-making processes?

speaker

Renata Mielli and Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone

explanation

Creating more tangible outputs could increase the IGF’s relevance and influence on internet governance policies.

How can the IGF program be restructured to have fewer, more focused sessions without compromising diversity?

speaker

Jordan Carter and Baratang Miya

explanation

Balancing the need for more in-depth discussions with maintaining diversity of voices is crucial for the IGF’s effectiveness.

How can the São Paulo NetMundial guidelines be applied to improve the IGF process?

speaker

Renata Mielli and Jorge Cancio

explanation

Implementing these guidelines could enhance the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF and improve its outcomes.

How can the IGF be more strategically focused in preparation for the WSIS+20 review?

speaker

Amrita Choudhury and Renata Mielli

explanation

A more strategic approach could help the IGF demonstrate its relevance and impact in the context of the upcoming WSIS review.

Summary

This discussion focused on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on elections, disinformation, and democratic processes. Panelists from various countries shared insights on how AI has been used in recent elections worldwide. While fears of widespread AI-generated deepfakes disrupting elections did not fully materialize, AI was utilized in campaign strategies, such as automating responses to voter inquiries and creating personalized content. The discussion highlighted both positive and negative aspects of AI in elections. On one hand, AI tools have empowered smaller candidates to compete more effectively with limited resources. On the other hand, concerns were raised about the potential for AI to be used for voter manipulation and the spread of misinformation.

The panelists emphasized the need for transparency in how social media platforms use algorithms to promote political content. They discussed the challenges of content moderation, particularly in languages with limited online representation. The case of Romania’s recent election cancellation due to foreign interference and algorithmic manipulation was cited as a wake-up call for the potential risks of AI in electoral processes. The discussion also touched on the broader implications for democracy, including the need to update electoral institutions and processes to address technological challenges.

Participants debated the role and accountability of social media platforms in elections, with some arguing for increased regulation and others cautioning against over-reliance on these private entities. The conversation concluded by acknowledging that while technological governance is crucial, addressing underlying social issues like poverty and isolation is equally important in combating the spread of misinformation and preserving democratic integrity in the age of AI.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The impact of AI on elections and disinformation, including both fears and realities

– The use of AI by political campaigns, both for promotion and attacking opponents

– Platform governance and transparency issues related to AI and elections

– The potential for AI to both help and hinder election integrity and democratic processes

– The need for regulatory frameworks and digital literacy to manage AI risks in elections

The overall purpose of the discussion was to examine how AI is affecting elections globally, looking at both positive and negative impacts, and to consider what policy and governance approaches may be needed to address emerging challenges.

The tone of the discussion was largely analytical and cautiously optimistic. While speakers acknowledged serious risks and challenges posed by AI in elections, they also highlighted potential benefits and ways to mitigate negative impacts. The tone became somewhat more concerned when discussing specific cases of election interference, but remained focused on finding constructive solutions.

Speakers

– Tapani Tarvainen: Moderator

– Ayobangira Safari Nshuti: Member of Parliament of Democratic Republic of Congo

– Roxana Radu: Chair of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network, Assistant Professor at Oxford University

– Babu Ram Aryal: Chair of Digital Freedom Coalition from Nepal

– Dennis Redeker: Online moderator

Additional speakers:

– Nana: Works on AI and ethics

The Impact of AI on Elections and Democratic Processes

This discussion, moderated by Tapani Tarvainen, brought together experts from various countries to examine the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on elections, disinformation, and democratic processes. The panel included Ayobangira Safari Nshuti, a Member of Parliament from the Democratic Republic of Congo; Roxana Radu (participating online), Chair of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network and Assistant Professor at Oxford University; and Babu Ram Aryal, Chair of the Digital Freedom Coalition from Nepal.

AI’s Evolving Role in Recent Elections

The panellists observed that AI’s impact on elections in 2023-2024 differed from initial expectations. Ayobangira Safari Nshuti noted that AI was primarily used for self-promotion rather than attacks on opponents, citing examples such as AI-generated speech in Pakistan. Interestingly, AI tools helped smaller candidates compete more effectively with larger ones by providing similar campaign capabilities, potentially levelling the playing field in political contests.

Roxana Radu emphasized that AI has been used for both positive and negative purposes in elections. She highlighted positive examples, such as AI’s use in India to enhance voter outreach and improve campaign efficiency. However, serious concerns were raised about AI’s potential for spreading disinformation and manipulating public opinion. A stark example of AI’s disruptive potential was the cancellation of Romania’s recent election due to foreign interference and algorithmic manipulation, which is currently under investigation by the European Commission.

Platform Governance and Transparency

A major point of discussion was the need for greater transparency from social media platforms regarding their algorithms and content promotion practices. Ayobangira Safari Nshuti stressed the importance of understanding how algorithms treat information from different sources to ensure fairness in election-related content distribution. He also mentioned a collaboration between Meta and the election commission in Congo as an example of platform engagement.

Roxana Radu pointed out that platforms have reduced staff monitoring election content, increasingly relying on AI for content moderation despite its limitations. Babu Ram Aryal highlighted that AI tools are not effective for monitoring content in local languages, creating a significant gap in content moderation capabilities. This issue raised concerns about the potential for unchecked spread of misinformation in languages with limited online representation.

The speakers agreed on the need for platforms to be more accountable, especially during sensitive periods like elections. However, an audience member questioned whether platforms should be trusted at all, given their profit-driven nature, highlighting a more fundamental disagreement about the role of platforms in democratic processes.

Election Integrity and Trust

The discussion emphasized the critical importance of election integrity, particularly in light of the Romanian election cancellation. Roxana Radu argued for the need for safeguards across the entire election process, not just voting itself, and suggested rethinking democratic processes in light of new technologies.

E-voting and AI security concerns were prominent topics. Ayobangira Safari Nshuti and Babu Ram Aryal raised concerns about the vulnerability of e-voting machines to hacking, including through AI-powered attacks. The moderator also noted the potential for AI to be used to undermine trust in elections by simulating attacks.

Addressing Disinformation and Underlying Issues

The speakers agreed that multiple stakeholders have responsibility in combating election disinformation, including platforms, election officials, and voters themselves. Babu Ram Aryal emphasized the need for fact-checkers and digital literacy initiatives to combat disinformation effectively.

While technological solutions were discussed, the conversation also touched on the importance of addressing underlying social issues. An audience member pointed out that factors such as poverty and isolation contribute to the spread of disinformation and need to be addressed alongside technological interventions. This highlighted the need for a comprehensive approach to preserving democratic integrity in the age of AI.

Unresolved Issues and Future Challenges

Several unresolved issues emerged from the discussion, including:

1. How to effectively regulate AI use in elections without infringing on free speech

2. The appropriate level of trust to place in social media platforms during elections

3. Safeguarding the entire election process against AI-enabled interference

4. Balancing the benefits of e-voting with cybersecurity concerns

5. Addressing AI-generated disinformation in languages not well-represented online

The panellists suggested some potential solutions, such as focusing on transparency and labelling of AI-generated content, combining technological solutions with efforts to address underlying social issues, and enhancing digital literacy.

Conclusion

The discussion highlighted the complex and evolving nature of AI’s role in elections. While some feared disruptions did not fully materialize, new challenges emerged, demonstrating AI’s potential to both enhance and undermine democratic processes. The panellists emphasized the need for a multifaceted approach involving technological governance, digital literacy, and addressing broader societal issues to ensure the integrity of elections in the AI era. As the moderator noted in closing, this discussion marks the beginning of an ongoing conversation about AI and elections, recognizing that adaptive strategies will be crucial as AI continues to advance.

Tapani Tarvainen: Okay, sorry about this little confusion here. So we have three distinguished panellists, Ayubanjira Safarinshuti, Member of Parliament of Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Roxana Radu is online, Chair of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network and Assistant Professor at Oxford University, and Baburam Ariyal, Chair of Digital Freedom Coalition from Nepal. And we are about to talk, as the title says, about elections, AI and disinformation. As I presume most of you have heard, this has been a major election year around the world. I haven’t been able to determine the exact number, but some 60 countries have had elections this year, and at least two more are to come. Chad and Croatia will have elections later this month. And it was feared in advance that disinformation generated by AI would be a major factor in elections. One question we have to talk about is, did that actually happen, and if so, what should be done about it? Now, you may have noticed that there have been some less than perfectly fair elections even before AI and the Internet, all kinds of election campaign meddling has happened in the past. Governments, the people in power have, let’s say, creatively used their power to influence the outcome of elections. So how big a difference does AI and the Internet make on that? We’ll start with that. Have you, did their fears about AI messing up all elections come true? Let’s start with Mr. Safaree, is that okay? You go first.

Ayobangira Safari Nshuti: Okay, it’s okay. What I can say, as you say, in 2024, this year, there was a lot of election, and there was a lot of concern about having AI used by some of the actors to gain more a result on election. But I think we had a lot of fear. It doesn’t happen as we was here. And it’s like maybe people was also prepared to face the AI, to take some measure against the AI. But on our side, as a legislative people, we didn’t make done really a work on that. It’s like only people themselves, the politician actors in that field, have either take some measure to fight by themselves, by their team, the use of AI by the opponent. And also those who was planning to use it, maybe they didn’t use it as much as they would like to use. Because the community was already prepared to see the use of AI. And I think we had a lot of fear compared on what how really happened on the ground.

Tapani Tarvainen: OK, so do you think it was more scary that did not come to reality as yet anyway? Maybe I’ll try to reach Roxana next. Perhaps you might want to comment on what’s happened in Romanian elections. And did AI have anything to do with that?

Roxana Radu: Yes, absolutely. First of all, apologies for not being able to join you physically this year at the IGF. But thank you for the invitation to join online. So I wanted to bring in the example of Romania. I think for the first part of the year, we’ve heard quite a bit of comments about AI. And as we’re approaching the end of the year, people started to feel that AI is just another tool in the toolbox of technologies that we have available around the election. But the case of Romania changes the narrative completely. As you might have seen about two weeks ago. the Constitutional Court of Romania decided to cancel the results of the first round of presidential elections. So it’s the first time it has happened in the Romanian history, it’s also the first time it has happened since we’ve introduced AI. And of course, there are several reasons behind this decision, but it’s very clearly linked to electoral interference from foreign states, in particular one, Russia, as it was revealed by the intelligence reports. It was very clearly linked also to algorithmic treatment, in particular preferential treatment of one of the 13 candidates in the elections. And the decision of the court cited the illegal use of digital technologies, including artificial intelligence. So this is a case that tells us, in a way, it’s a wake up call, right? It’s just the fact that all of this can be abused massively, and it hasn’t happened in other presidential elections, it hasn’t happened in other parliamentary elections. But it doesn’t mean it’s not something we should have on our radar. I wrote a report earlier this year with a colleague of mine, looking into some positive uses of AI during elections. So we took the Indian case and we concluded, in fact, in India, we could see some very creative uses of AI, both to motivate people to go out and vote, but also to promote campaigns in ways that were fair, and also to promote inclusivity, translating in real time some of the politicians’ speeches, some really useful ways to reach out to a larger voter base. At that point, it didn’t look, so this was May, June, right, the Indian elections. At that point, it didn’t look like there was a lot to worry about. So by the time we entered the American elections, there was quite a bit of attention paid to the use of AI. And yet it happened in a country that was not in the media spotlight. And I think that’s something that we should also bring into the discussions. All elections have their own stakes. But I think it’s useful to think about this experimental use of AI for both some of the good uses and some of the really bad outcomes. I’ll stop here, but happy to jump in later in the conversation.

Tapani Tarvainen: Roxana, so very nice to observe that AI is a double-edged sword that can be used for good and bad also in election contexts. But maybe I’ll hand over to Babu now on your notion of what happened, what could have happened, what should have happened.

Babu Ram Aryal: Thank you very much. It’s my pleasure to be here and talk about this very interesting topic. And I have the privilege to speak with the honorable parliamentarian who fought elections and got through the process of all these things. And then whether it’s scary or it’s normal, it’s very rightly mentioned that it has two sides. It has the bad side as well. So benefit is that it has become very easy to make political advertisement for candidates, especially using their campaign and developing some contents. And it has become very easy for them. But simultaneously, there is a bigger risk that opposition or some other stakeholders may influence their election campaign using similar content, which could be detrimental to their characters and all these things. So one of the major issues in the political campaign is the advertisement of political campaign. And this is one issue. And another issue is the transparency of the campaign. Now, we can see that various platform providers, they have their own regulations internally. Platform providers have also their own provision about what kind of advertisement limitation could be there. And their own filtering some content using AI as well. If I recall, various platform providers, including Facebook or Twitter or TikTok as well, they themselves removed many political contents of their campaigns. And then later on, there were contest or challenge by the politicians themselves. So there is another risk of using AI in election process by the platform providers themselves on the filtering of their content. And another issue was, as I mentioned, that the development of content which could be useful and which could be detrimental. And different contents are also there that are damaging immediately the campaign of election. But when intervening on that content, it could be very late. A content can damage a politician in a few seconds or a few minutes. Even if it is removed in a few hours, that could be not sufficient to repair the damage of the political campaign. So that is another issue that could be seen in the field of election during the election. And another thing is. When we are talking about from – we are talking from campaign perspective, content perspective, also the major issue is coming from, like Roxana just mentioned, that foreign influence in the election process or election day, like intervening on data, intervening on system of ballot papers or ballot process. So this is a very significant part. And another thing is, like, when this comes to the remedy process, whether we have sufficient regulatory approach or not, whether our courts, election courts are also – need to be very clear on this kind of recognition or identifying these contents or effects. So these issues are evolving around the election and disinformation and misinformation. So if we have proper regulatory framework or understanding or digital literacy as well, so we can manage the risk of AI and using from a positive perspective.

Tapani Tarvainen: Thank you. You made some very keen observations there, notably that in elections time is everything. Also if an AI system were to, say, try to remove misinformation or whatever and then accidentally remove somebody’s political advertisement, and it takes days before it comes back online and they lose election because of that. That’s also a problem. So it can cut both ways. So the question is…

Roxana Radu: can jump in very quickly here. I definitely want to talk a little bit more about the question of transparency because that has been part of the regulatory agenda for a while, not necessarily in the context of election but platform transparencies with regard to their to their algorithmic practices has been on the mind of policymakers for a while now and in the EU we do have a framework for that is the Digital Services Act and right now the European Commission has decided to open an investigation, a formal investigation in the case of TikTok with regards to the Romanian elections so this was the platform that was scrutinized for this illegal use of AI. It turns out the transparency prerogative was not really working in this case. One of the candidates received preferential treatment without ever having their electoral content labeled as such so it would appear in all sorts of feeds without ever mentioning that this was in fact part of the the campaign and this is obviously in breach of the laws in place in Romania which is why the court had to issue the decision but we also saw now that the European Commission looking at this case, so Romania is one of the members of the European Union, there is a framework in place at the EU level and the Commission has asked for a couple of things. First of all, already on the 5th of December it asked TikTok to retain all the information that had to do with the elections for a particular period of time I think it was between end of November and going all the way to to March 2025, TikTok is now under obligation, as per this EU order, to retain all the information that has to do with any national election. So that will include the upcoming elections in Croatia as well. For the Romanian one, they said this will be a matter of priority. So we’ll complete this investigation in a speedy manner. And they want to look at what was recommended content during the period of election and also what was a potential intentional manipulation of the platform. So there are quite a few aspects that will now come into question with regard to the practices of TikTok. My previous speaker also mentioned different platforms taking action throughout this year. And it’s true, we have seen lots of statements from both Meta across their different platforms, from Instagram all the way to Facebook, but also from Twitter. I think we’ve had mixed messages in this period. But the truth is also that many of these platforms have actually reduced the number of staff working on these issues, on the issue of monitoring electoral content. So at the end of the day, I think we have to put that in balance. On the one hand, they’ve cut all the funding they had towards proper ways of dealing with this and outsourced a lot to AI, in fact, using AI tools to detect some of this content. Turns out it doesn’t work all that well. And on the other hand, they’ve made all these statements about the proactive attitudes towards preventing electoral interference. I think the truth sits somewhere in the middle. So it’s a lot more mixed than we have seen. And the reality is the AI tools we have today are probably better and better in particular languages, especially widely used languages. But they are not very good in languages that are not as well represented on the internet. So ultimately, if AI is supposed to be in charge of monitoring how AI is used on platforms, we can’t really trust that to be very, very accurate. Thank you. I’ll stop here.

Tapani Tarvainen: Thank you, Roxana. An interesting point here that historically, freedom of speech has been the freedom of newspaper owners to propose whatever they want. And of course, a platform on the internet can also have its own political position. It’s just that they should be open about it. The AI might think something like through social or whatever, which is explicitly on one politician’s platform. But pretending to be neutral and not being it is something that’s definitely bad. Maybe I’ll hand over to Safari at this point. How do you feel about this, especially in the Congolese point of view, if you have some observations there? Is AI a different issue there?

Ayobangira Safari Nshuti: On Australia, the concern we had, as she’s saying, some of the problem we have with having AI to monitor the content is the problem of the language. Because many of the communication will be done in our local language first. And also, even some words that may be in English or in French, they don’t have the same meaning locally. We used to call some of the political party using one name, which is a common name in English. But that means really different things. We have in our country some. some part of the political side that we can use to call them, to identify them regarding the somewhat like a Taliban. When you say Taliban in English you may think is someone in Taliban but on our side is another, it is another meaning. It’s member of the majority, you see. So the AI will not see that context, will not, that’s why we need really to have someone, some men, some real people in a background and will know the local context. If I come back on the use of AI, what I was saying is not to say that AI was not used in the election but it was not on the way people was expecting it. Everyone was looking on the US election on Deepfake but as you say it happened in Romania but people was looking on the US and also even the US. AI was used not mainly to make Deepfake but to promote themselves, like people who were using the AI to make some, some chatbook to respond to email, to respond to phone call automatically. There was even in Pakistan I heard that one of the candidates, the former prime minister used the AI to make speech because it was in prison but was able to make speech, live speech using AI by cloning his voice. So there was a use of AI but because many people was waiting to see it on Deepfake side, I think people have shifted, instead of attacking their opponent they start to promote themselves. They start to use the AI to reinforce their own campaign team. So mainly in the US it was to respond to email, to make call, to make speech, to make some advertising. to make some some nice video for themselves, some nice picture from themselves. In Congo we had election just before the end of 23, we are not on 24, we are not concerned, but it was at the end, on the last day of 23, so we was also part of that big game of the election on 24. On our side before election we had a meeting with even a team from META who came to see our election committee and they agreed to work with us and to help us to put in place a team to monitor all that content. And we can say that it worked partially because in the 23 election last year we didn’t have so much deepfake that it was like it was a before, because before the election we had a team from META who came in the country and put a place in place a strategy and work together with the our election a commission to see how they can fight they can fight against the deepfake and the misinformation.

Tapani Tarvainen: Okay, thank you Safari for that. It’s an interesting observation that AI has been used as a tool for election campaigns and then the question comes does it help more those who have been trouble being getting their things the underdogs because they have the same tools now they multiply their voice or will it actually just help those who are already powerful more? It helped as the

Ayobangira Safari Nshuti: report I saw it helped mostly those small candidate we are who was under under the table because they was able to to put much effort on AI like in the US I know there was a some in the country there was one of the small candidates who was able to gain more voter than Joe Biden in his state by using just the AI. He didn’t have the budget like the Joe Biden budget, but putting much effort on AI. It also happened for a small candidate in Japan, also putting much effort on AI. So it really helped those who were seen as small candidates. It gave them the same tools like those powerful candidates.

Tapani Tarvainen: That’s interesting. So it turns out that it can be a force for good. But maybe Babu has a point of view here. Maybe things are different in Nepal or other observations.

Babu Ram Aryal: Not really. It’s a similar kind of context in Nepal as well. We had election in 2022, just two years ago. When we had election, the AI tools were not that much used in that sense. But nowadays, this is a big discussion. After three years, we’ll have a new election. We are already discussing about the potential risk of using AI, especially on influencing the result of election. So in this context, our speaker Rakshana also raised some of the issues of platform governance. Previously, we considered platform as trusted third party. Media were not taking side on the content. Digital could be there. Media might have endorsed any candidate, but not through the content. But this time, we observed that, especially during US election, ex-owner was putting his… content post repeatedly and that post are coming to our account as well repeatedly and that significantly influence the result of election, this is said. So in this point what I’m talking about that now if platform owners are using platforms for their personal desired candidates then it’s a big risk and if they use AI based content and the process then that is more dangerous thing in democratic process and democratic, this is not the standard that we expect in the democracy. So in that perspective how we make more accountable to these platforms is one thing. Then another thing is very significant, previously there were in Nepal as well, in Nepal’s election context as well, this business platform operators they wish to have their business and if election commission also work with them or election commission also influenced by them then there will be more risky. In 2022 in Nepal some of the candidates they had some problem with the election commission and then they were complaining that their contents were asked by the commission to remove to the platform providers. So that is another very big risk on platform governance and the institutional mechanism of election, you know election commission as well. So these are the very significant issues if these are are influenced using AI, then there could be more risk.

Tapani Tarvainen: Thank you. At this point, I understand we have some online questions. Maybe Dennis would like to read out some questions for us.

Dennis Redeker: I’m happy to do so. This is a fantastic discussion and we have some questions in the chat. So I thought there were some public and one privately reached me. So I thought I’m gonna share those with you. And I thank you all for the speakers so far. The first question by Ahmed is only identified with the first name here or last name, asked what is the role of e-voting in this? And this is maybe something that where you think this might be a different conversation, but maybe it isn’t because maybe this is also about trust and e-voting and AI are both matters of trust when it comes to elections. And it would be certainly something that is interesting perhaps for some of the speakers to pick up on. So how does that combine? So having AI power disinformation online and then also providing you a vote online, potentially, how does that play together? The second question here is by Tanka Ayal, who asked about the positive uses of AI in elections. And I think that refers in part or is meeting in part what Roxanna has already presented about positive use of AI. I think in the context of India, I think you mentioned, maybe that’s something that you can go in some more detail, but also saw that you already posted the link to the report in the chat online as well. And the third question is on the risk of, elections being canceled. And we just had this in Romania and that also relates to trust, I think, in election integrity. under which conditions could elections be cancelled and what does it do to us as voters when we go into an election not knowing whether this will be an election that is fought fairly and whether it will be cancelled by a court later on and so maybe this is a question to Roxana but also for those others perhaps, what does it make with a community when you cannot trust that the election will go forward and the manipulation actually might mean having to retreat, take back the results of an election.

Tapani Tarvainen: So much from the online moderation team here. Okay, thank you for those. Let’s ask if anybody wants to pick up on the e-voting issue, how much if at all that relates to AI. Is e-voting going on in Estonia for a long time for example but I don’t think we have any Estonians around to talk about that but has it had anything specifically to do with AI? Anybody want to

Babu Ram Aryal: pick on that? Can I take this question? Yeah, as being a neighbor of India, Nepal and India we share a border and recently India had an election and in India there were many challenges on the compromise of voting machines and also Elon Musk in one statement said that voting machine could be compromised and then that sparked a bit of debate in Indian context and obviously this is a very challenging thing and then in Nepal’s context we may not have so far, let’s say, may not have foreign influence in the election process but if our, you know, talking from Indian perspective again, India has a range of positions like rural, on education is very much there so but still they are using voting machines so in that context it’s very risky when we use this and at the beginning I also mentioned that data systems and voting machines are very vulnerable, critical infrastructure when we talk about from an election perspective. And if our data system and the voting machine system are not securely protected, then in that case, there could be a big chance of compromise. And as Tanka asked about positive side of election, that at the beginning also, I mentioned that this has given a power to a common person to participate in the political process. And lots of examples we have seen, even in Nepal, we have seen a single person without any campaign group, only using platforms, got elected in mayor or parliamentarian. So yes, it gives significant power, as our honorable MP Safari also mentioned, that unknown person also could have been elected using this content and participating in that process.

Tapani Tarvainen: Kio, it seems like Safari has something to add to that.

Ayobangira Safari Nshuti: Yeah, I would like to say that the link between electronic vote and AI, it is not straight. Because on the electronic vote, the problem we have is maybe to corrupt the vote, to change the vote. You vote for A, and the machine will count for B. That can be done by attacking that machine. But also, what AI bring, AI also work in the cybercrime. Because to attack a machine, normally it requests some kind of skills. But AI give those skills to normal people. You can attack, you can hack something just using AI. It gives you a skill. So voting machines, they are now vulnerable. not only to those high-profile hacker, even normal people hacker, normal people using AI that are able to hack the system. But for now most of the use of AI that can interfere in election is using those deepfakes and using the misinformation to change the perception of the voter themselves so they can be convinced to vote for someone they will not vote for him normally. And on that way is I don’t know how you will cancel an election because the voter have voted for someone maybe you have influences him. It’s like even the advertising on the TV, the normal advertising, but it’s not it’s not easy to detect, to determine if that that kind of deepfake was not there the impact it will have been on election. It’s not very easy but for trafficking the voting machine there is very easy to see how how many vote was changed by by the attack and that’s where the AI gives some access for those for anyone now to be able to act and to change the result on those

Tapani Tarvainen: machine. I’m not sure if I read between you’re implying that AI could be actually useful in e-voting that it could be used to detect certain kinds of tampering as well but otherwise the link is definitely not direct. But thinking of the third question there that cancelling election can be a problem so maybe if AI can cause so much distrust in elections that they tend to be cancelled too easily that could be a problem. Maybe Roksana could like to address that

Roxana Radu: possibility. Yes thank you very much for this question. I think it’s a very important one, and it’s definitely on everybody’s mind back home in Romania, I can tell you that. With the court decision announced at the beginning of December, we still don’t know the dates of the next election, but everybody’s thinking, can we actually trust the next round of presidential elections if here we have proven post facto, so after the fact that there was so much interference, what are we putting in place to prevent that this is going to happen next time? And it’s a big question because we’ve just had elections for the parliament and those elections were not challenged from the perspective of the process, but they showed that the vote was very split, so we need a coalition in place to be agreed before we have the date of the new presidential elections. So it’s going to take a while and we’ll see what happens in between and whether we have institutional measures to address this. But just on the question of trust, right now, there’s also an indirect undermining of the democratic process through the cancellation of elections, right? On the one hand, yes, we had this in reaction to what has happened, but also for most people, this decision is perceived as a violation in some respect of the democratic process itself, that there is a core decision that comes in and annuls the vote of 52% of eligible voters. So this is something that needs to be addressed in a broader conversation around how democracy itself transforms with the rise of AI and digital technologies more broadly. In a way, the processes we’ve had in place for so long, including some of the institutions that are overseeing the democratic process, were created. in an era that had very little technology around. Right now we’re talking about transforming these processes all together, and we probably have to rethink a little bit the relationship between the forms of democracy we have and the technology that is available. And just very briefly, if I may jump in on the question of e-voting, I’ll just say very briefly that if we look at the data on this, it’s actually very few countries around the world that have opted for e-voting. We have obviously very good examples in that category, Estonia being one of them. We have a couple of examples from outside of the Western world as well. But altogether, many countries have stayed away from that because the feeling is that we are not able to prevent any sort of manipulation that might happen with e-voting. So most democracies, at least in Europe, have had that conversation, and most have decided to not move their voting processes online, which ultimately may or may not mean it makes a big difference, because in the case of Romania, we had paper ballots, and yet the whole integrity of the process had been compromised. So before you go to that final stage of whether the vote is cast online or on paper, we need to think about those other intermediary stages, whether that’s electoral registration, whether that’s the campaigning you might have for the elections, the vote counting itself and the verification reporting. And it seems that in the Romanian case, there were cyber attacks happening at the time of the vote counting and those paper ballots being introduced into the system, as well as post-election audit. This is another very important part of the democratic process, and we have to have… safeguards in place across the whole cycle of the electoral process, not just at the time of counting the vote or casting the vote.

Tapani Tarvainen: Thank you. It does occur to me that somebody might want to set up deliberately pretending to be attacking the election so as to get the vote cancelled in order to undermine trust on the system. So even instead of actually trying to affect the election, just make the impression of that so that people don’t trust the system anymore. And AI may also make that easier or even just impossible without it maybe to do effectively. And another interesting observation here that in some countries the incumbent have so much power in the situation that they tend to win that actually foreign interference might be good for the democratic process here. But that’s also something that’s very difficult to, let’s say, assess in any useful way. But maybe you want to carry on from that or if not, I might suggest that you’d consider what kind of power AI actually does for the specific issue of disinformation spreading. A question is there. A question inside. Okay. Hands up. Who’s first? Sorry for not noticing.

Audience: Okay. My name is Nana. Can you hear me? Okay. I have a question, especially as someone who works specifically on AI and ethics. Considering the very big distinction between algorithms and AI, because they’re very different, there’s a lot of conversation around algorithmic discrimination against specific candidates. And from what I hear, there seems to be a lot of responsibility placed on the platforms. Beyond the responsibility, I’m also hearing a lot of trust, because the words like trusted partner has been used. And I’m wondering, is it not too much? Because in the real world sense of it, platforms are like vendors, right? They’re business set up for profit. They’re not NGOs. They’re not civil society organizations. It’s like expecting a newspaper to publish your views, and not the views of those who pay, and not the views of the people who set it up. it up to push their own agenda. I’m wondering if it would not be more beneficial to push for algorithmic transparency, in the sense that publications that would allow people understand how decisions were made by those algorithms, what did the algorithm consider in pushing this content towards someone’s feed and all of that? Because feedback, that we have received a lot of feedback from very right-wing people around platforms like X, and platforms like TikTok, platforms like IG. And that feedback says that previously, these platforms used to be very left-wing agenda, very liberal, very, this is what we want to see. This is how the world should be run. It was run like an alternate universe to the actual real life. But there’s like a push or a shift in agenda. And now that they feel like some sort of balance has been achieved. I disagree with this, but that’s different. But this is the conversation. And I’m wondering that in demanding certain things from the platforms, are we not, one, trying to curb free speech? And because the free speech doesn’t look like the speech that we’re used to, or the speech that we like. And two, why do we trust these platforms? Why do we expect these platforms to comply to other things other than regulatory requirements? Why do we trust this platform so much? That’s like my big question. Why do we trust this platform so much? Thank you.

Tapani Tarvainen: Thank you. And I’ll hand it over to you quickly, but I’ll have to ask you to please be brief. We have only 10 minutes left of the session.

Audience: Okay, I’ll be really brief. Although there was a story to be told about this. I was thinking more very, very similar to your question, I suppose. I’ll start with the example, because during the COVID pandemic, there was a lot of conspiracy theories. A lot of people felt isolated online and started to believe that there are certain larger agendas in the world, and which is why we’re subject to them. And what a lot of research found was that these people were generally ostracized in society, left isolated. there’s a poverty problem, there’s a socio-economic problem that left people out. And I feel like we see this also playing out in the election space, where when people are isolated to believe in such disinformation campaigns, deep fakes, different examples like that. So when talking about governance, and this is to all the speakers, do you think there should be, to what extent, if any, do you think that the intervention should be more on a social aspect rather than tech governance or platform governance?

Tapani Tarvainen: So two very good interventions and questions there. Who would like to go first? I think Babu looks like he wants to speak, go ahead.

Babu Ram Aryal: I was also supposed to come into the very topic, disinformation and the election in our topic. So who is providing disinformation? Who are the agent of disinformation, especially in election process? And it has to be very clear that. So now we are very clear. There is possibility of misinformation and disinformation in election process or in common communication platforms. So to whom to trust and whether we need to trust or not to the platform providers. If we engage on our own, then we don’t have choice to trust. But it’s our choice to confine our engagement in the platform. If you lock your privacy system, and if you limit your engagement, then there will be more secured process, right? So it’s very important that we ourselves set our design that what level of engagement we do in the platform. And when there are disinformations or misinformation, who are responsible? able to remove that. Now, platform providers, they have their own system. There are two models. One is automated, AI-based. Millions of contents are moderated by the platform providers based on their own standards. And there will be another level of moderation, manual moderation. When you complain, then platforms will be responding on that. And they will be evaluated. And then if they think that it has to be removed, then they’ll remove that. And also, now, significant agents are there now. Now, it’s like now lots of fact-checkers are there. And the role of fact-checkers, responsible fact-checkers, are very significant during the election and during the regular time as well. But during the election, it’s the responsibility of the actor of that election has to be very precise on how we fight with this disinformation. Actor means election commission, law enforcement, politicians who are standing as a candidate and voters and civil society. All of them have to be more careful than the regular time because there could be targeted disinformation supplied during that process. And it’s not only the business. Business also should be accountable. Accountability comes when you start your business. Any kind of business, accountability comes together. It’s not a different thing that you do business, you don’t be accountable. So it’s very important that platform providers also be more accountable when there is a sensitivity. They have to take more care on that, that they have more responsibility. So in this way, we’re when, how we can address the major things and like that. And also on law and ethics perspective, of course, we need certain model of governance or regulatory perspective. And in that case, yes, in that way, we can address this thing. Thank you very much.

Tapani Tarvainen: I was just reminded that we have only five minutes left of the session. So we’ll have to start wrapping up slowly, but let’s go one more round of our panelists commenting that.

Ayobangira Safari Nshuti: Yeah, I will be just short, very short. I should say, previously, some of those platform, they were seen as left-wing, but the perceptions change. Where the perceptions change is because somehow we think something has changed in the algorithm they use. And as a parliament, what we want to, from those platform is one thing you say, is transparency. We just to know what is being run in the background. So we can see if there’s some fairness, some equity, how they treat information coming from different sources. If we have that transparency, the trust will be more. Thank you.

Roxana Radu: Yeah, very briefly on the first question, I agree with Babu, there’s a need to have more transparency over funding, over the labeling of that content, and also over promotion, right? These algorithms are not a different species, right? They are, they should not be completely unaccountable. We need to look into how they promote the content and why, and whether there is that preferential treatment or not, and whether that results in manipulation or not. That’s the second part of the question, but there is funding involved, obviously, and that has to be also. transparent and placed under scrutiny. Since platforms have become the new public sphere, they are not just businesses, they are more than businesses, they are the new public sphere, that’s where communication actually happens. People might not turn on the TV anymore but they will receive their news from encrypted groups, from different platforms and so on and so forth. So they provide a public channel for communication during elections and most countries have rules in place for how you promote yourself during the elections and the platforms can be living in a different universe, they need to abide by those rules, they are bound to apply national legislation on these electoral cycles. So this is something that is only a question of respecting existing legislation. And on the second question, very briefly, should the intervention be broader than just tech governance? Should we look at social aspects as well? And absolutely, I agree with you. I think we need to work on multiple levels and so far we’ve given quite a bit of attention to technology, albeit imperfectly, we have not found the right solution to all of these problems, but we haven’t really looked at what could be done on the social level, beyond just saying more digital literacy and just having a level of awareness that is better. I think we need to work on issues of poverty, on issues of connectivity, we need to work on many other aspects including welfare and so on, to be able to give people equal chances in society and that’s going to make democracy a better place for everybody.

Tapani Tarvainen: My watch says we have 45 seconds to go. I would like to hand over to Dennis if you have a final comment here to make.

Dennis Redeker: Let me just say that this conversation has been been thrilling. I really appreciate both the positive and the scary scenarios for the use and also the misuse of AI in the context of elections. I think this is only the start of a conversation that we’ll be having. And the way that we started off this planning of the session at a time when we thought AI and elections in 2024 is going to be scary, this is mirroring what Rosanna said earlier, that we had a phase where we thought we have nothing to talk about in December because nothing is going to happen. And then came along the Romanian elections and there will be more. And there’ll be more things that we have to deal with. So I think this is the start of a conversation and also start to what more regulation and more transparency in that field. Thank you everyone from the side of the Inherent Rights and Principles Coalition. Thank you for the speakers and the moderators to jump in to this frame.

Tapani Tarvainen: Well, panelists and Jerenis and everything and for the audience as well and for the great questions we had. But now we are 30 seconds over time, so let’s close it here. Thank you.

Agreement Points

AI has both positive and negative impacts on elections

speakers

Ayobangira Safari Nshuti

Roxana Radu

Babu Ram Aryal

arguments

AI used for both positive and negative purposes in elections

AI helped smaller candidates compete with larger ones

AI tools not effective for monitoring content in local languages

summary

The speakers agree that AI has dual impacts on elections, offering benefits like leveling the playing field for smaller candidates, but also posing risks such as ineffective content monitoring and potential misuse.

Need for increased transparency and accountability from platforms

speakers

Roxana Radu

Babu Ram Aryal

Ayobangira Safari Nshuti

arguments

Platforms have reduced staff monitoring election content

Platforms should be more accountable during sensitive periods

Need for fact-checkers and digital literacy

summary

The speakers agree on the need for greater transparency and accountability from social media platforms, especially during elections, and emphasize the importance of fact-checking and digital literacy.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for a comprehensive approach to safeguarding elections, involving multiple stakeholders and addressing various stages of the electoral process.

speakers

Roxana Radu

Babu Ram Aryal

arguments

Need for safeguards across entire election process, not just voting

Multiple actors responsible for fighting disinformation

Unexpected Consensus

AI potentially benefiting smaller political candidates

speakers

Ayobangira Safari Nshuti

Babu Ram Aryal

arguments

AI helped smaller candidates compete with larger ones

AI tools not effective for monitoring content in local languages

explanation

While discussing the challenges posed by AI, there was an unexpected consensus on its potential to benefit smaller political candidates, leveling the playing field in elections. This positive aspect of AI in elections was not initially anticipated in the discussion.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the dual nature of AI’s impact on elections, the need for increased platform accountability and transparency, and the importance of a comprehensive approach to election integrity involving multiple stakeholders.

Consensus level

Moderate consensus was observed among the speakers on key issues. While there were differences in specific examples and experiences, there was general agreement on the broader challenges and necessary actions. This level of consensus suggests a shared understanding of the complex relationship between AI and elections, which could facilitate more targeted and collaborative approaches to addressing these challenges in the future.

Different Viewpoints

Impact of AI on election outcomes

speakers

Ayobangira Safari Nshuti

Roxana Radu

arguments

AI use in elections less widespread than feared

AI used for both positive and negative purposes in elections

summary

While Safari Nshuti suggests AI use was less widespread and impactful than feared, Radu points out significant cases of both positive and negative AI use in elections, including electoral interference.

Effectiveness of AI in content moderation

speakers

Babu Ram Aryal

Roxana Radu

arguments

AI tools not effective for monitoring content in local languages

Platforms have reduced staff monitoring election content

summary

Aryal highlights the ineffectiveness of AI in monitoring local language content, while Radu notes that platforms are increasingly relying on AI for content moderation despite its limitations.

Unexpected Differences

Trust in platforms

speakers

Babu Ram Aryal

Audience member

arguments

Platforms should be more accountable during sensitive periods

Question of whether to trust platforms as neutral actors

explanation

While Aryal suggests increased accountability for platforms during elections, an audience member unexpectedly questions whether platforms should be trusted at all, given their profit-driven nature. This highlights a more fundamental disagreement about the role of platforms in democratic processes.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the extent and impact of AI use in elections, the effectiveness of AI in content moderation, and the level of trust and responsibility that should be placed on platforms.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is moderate. While there is general agreement on the need for measures to ensure election integrity, speakers differ in their assessment of AI’s impact and the most effective approaches to address challenges. These differences reflect the complex and evolving nature of AI’s role in elections, suggesting that a multifaceted approach may be necessary to address the various concerns raised.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for measures to ensure election integrity, but they focus on different aspects: Safari Nshuti emphasizes digital literacy, Aryal stresses platform accountability, and Radu advocates for comprehensive safeguards throughout the election process.

speakers

Ayobangira Safari Nshuti

Babu Ram Aryal

Roxana Radu

arguments

Need for fact-checkers and digital literacy

Platforms should be more accountable during sensitive periods

Need for safeguards across entire election process, not just voting

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for a comprehensive approach to safeguarding elections, involving multiple stakeholders and addressing various stages of the electoral process.

speakers

Roxana Radu

Babu Ram Aryal

arguments

Need for safeguards across entire election process, not just voting

Multiple actors responsible for fighting disinformation

Key Takeaways

AI’s impact on elections in 2023-2024 was less dramatic than initially feared, with more use for self-promotion than attacks

AI helped smaller candidates compete with larger ones by providing similar campaign tools

There are both positive and negative uses of AI in elections, including for voter outreach and disinformation

Platform governance and algorithmic transparency are major concerns, especially given reduced human content moderation

Election integrity remains a critical issue, as demonstrated by the cancellation of Romania’s election due to foreign interference and AI use

Multiple stakeholders have responsibility in combating election disinformation, including platforms, election officials, and voters

Underlying social issues like poverty and isolation contribute to the spread of disinformation and need to be addressed alongside technological solutions

Resolutions and Action Items

Need for greater transparency from social media platforms about their algorithms and content promotion practices

Platforms should be more accountable and take extra precautions during sensitive periods like elections

More fact-checkers and digital literacy initiatives are needed to combat disinformation

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively regulate AI use in elections without infringing on free speech

The appropriate level of trust to place in social media platforms during elections

How to safeguard the entire election process against AI-enabled interference, not just voting itself

Balancing the benefits of e-voting with cybersecurity concerns

How to address AI-generated disinformation in languages not well-represented online

Suggested Compromises

Focusing on transparency and labeling of AI-generated content rather than outright bans

Combining technological solutions with efforts to address underlying social issues contributing to disinformation spread

But the case of Romania changes the narrative completely. As you might have seen about two weeks ago. the Constitutional Court of Romania decided to cancel the results of the first round of presidential elections.

speaker

Roxana Radu

reason

This comment introduced a concrete, recent example of AI interference in elections having major consequences, shifting the discussion from theoretical concerns to real-world impacts.

impact

It changed the tone of the conversation from speculative to more urgent and serious. It led to further discussion about the specific ways AI was used to interfere in the Romanian election and the implications for future elections.

So at the end of the day, I think we have to put that in balance. On the one hand, they’ve cut all the funding they had towards proper ways of dealing with this and outsourced a lot to AI, in fact, using AI tools to detect some of this content. Turns out it doesn’t work all that well.

speaker

Roxana Radu

reason

This insight highlighted the paradox of using AI to police AI-generated content, and the inadequacy of current approaches by platforms.

impact

It deepened the conversation around platform responsibility and the challenges of content moderation, leading to further discussion about the need for human oversight and the limitations of AI in addressing disinformation.

Everyone was looking on the US election on Deepfake but as you say it happened in Romania but people was looking on the US and also even the US. AI was used not mainly to make Deepfake but to promote themselves, like people who were using the AI to make some, some chatbook to respond to email, to respond to phone call automatically.

speaker

Ayobangira Safari Nshuti

reason

This comment provided a nuanced perspective on how AI was actually being used in elections, contrasting expectations with reality.

impact

It shifted the discussion from focusing solely on negative uses of AI to considering how it was being used as a campaign tool, broadening the scope of the conversation.

Considering the very big distinction between algorithms and AI, because they’re very different, there’s a lot of conversation around algorithmic discrimination against specific candidates. And from what I hear, there seems to be a lot of responsibility placed on the platforms. Beyond the responsibility, I’m also hearing a lot of trust, because the words like trusted partner has been used. And I’m wondering, is it not too much?

speaker

Audience member (Nana)

reason

This question challenged the assumption that platforms should be trusted partners in addressing election interference, raising important points about the nature of these companies as profit-driven entities.

impact

It led to a deeper discussion about the role of platforms, the need for transparency, and the balance between regulation and free speech. It also prompted panelists to clarify their positions on platform responsibility.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by grounding it in concrete examples, challenging assumptions, and broadening the scope of the conversation. They moved the dialogue from theoretical concerns about AI in elections to a more nuanced exploration of real-world impacts, the complexities of platform governance, and the balance between leveraging AI’s benefits and mitigating its risks. The discussion evolved from focusing solely on disinformation to considering both positive and negative uses of AI in elections, as well as the broader societal context in which these technologies operate.

How can we ensure algorithmic transparency in social media platforms during elections?

speaker

Ayobangira Safari Nshuti

explanation

Understanding how algorithms treat information from different sources is crucial for ensuring fairness and equity in election-related content distribution.

What are the most effective ways to combat disinformation in local languages and contexts?

speaker

Ayobangira Safari Nshuti

explanation

AI tools struggle with local languages and context-specific meanings, making it challenging to detect and counter disinformation in diverse linguistic environments.

How can we balance the positive uses of AI in elections (e.g., increasing voter participation) with the risks of manipulation?

speaker

Roxana Radu

explanation

Understanding this balance is crucial for leveraging AI’s benefits while mitigating its potential negative impacts on democratic processes.

What measures can be put in place to prevent the cancellation of elections due to AI-related interference?

speaker

Dennis Redeker

explanation

Addressing this issue is vital for maintaining trust in the democratic process and ensuring the integrity of future elections.

How can we improve the security of e-voting systems against AI-powered cyber attacks?

speaker

Babu Ram Aryal

explanation

As AI enhances the capabilities of potential attackers, ensuring the security of electronic voting systems becomes increasingly important.

What reforms are needed in electoral institutions and processes to adapt to the challenges posed by AI and digital technologies?

speaker

Roxana Radu

explanation

Existing democratic institutions and processes may need to be updated to effectively address the new challenges presented by AI in elections.

How can we address the underlying social and economic factors that make people susceptible to election-related disinformation?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

Tackling root causes like poverty and social isolation may be crucial in combating the spread of disinformation during elections.

Summary

This workshop focused on the future of governance in Africa, exploring the intersection of technology and governance. Participants discussed how digital transformation is reshaping governance across the continent, highlighting both opportunities and challenges. Key themes included the need for infrastructure development, capacity building, and inclusive policies to bridge the digital divide.

Speakers emphasized the importance of leveraging technology to enhance democratic processes, improve economic governance, and manage resources more effectively. However, they also noted concerns about cybersecurity, misinformation, and the potential for technology to exacerbate existing inequalities. The role of social media platforms in elections and political discourse was a significant topic, with calls for responsible use and effective regulation.

The discussion highlighted the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to digital governance, involving governments, private sector companies, civil society, and international organizations. Participants stressed the importance of developing context-specific solutions while also engaging in global governance initiatives to address the transboundary nature of digital technologies.

Several speakers emphasized the potential of e-governance and digital public services to improve efficiency, transparency, and accountability in government operations. The importance of data sovereignty and building local capacity in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence was also underscored.

Overall, the workshop concluded that while digital transformation presents significant opportunities for improving governance in Africa, it requires careful management, appropriate legal frameworks, and sustained investment in both infrastructure and human capital to ensure its benefits are equitably distributed across the continent.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The impact of digital technologies and social media on governance, elections, and democratic engagement in Africa

– The need for regulatory frameworks and multi-stakeholder approaches to govern digital spaces and emerging technologies like AI

– Strategies for African governments to leverage digital transformation for economic governance and resource management

– Challenges around digital infrastructure, skills, and inclusion that need to be addressed for Africa to fully benefit from digital transformation

Overall purpose:

The purpose of this discussion was to explore the intersection of governance and technology in Africa, examining both the opportunities and challenges presented by digital transformation for improving governance, economic development, and resource management across the continent.

Overall tone:

The tone was largely optimistic about the potential for digital technologies to enhance governance and development in Africa, while also being realistic about the challenges that need to be overcome. Speakers emphasized the need for African-led solutions and frameworks. The tone remained consistent throughout, balancing enthusiasm for technological possibilities with pragmatism about implementation hurdles.

Speakers

– Moderator: Workshop moderator

– Salah Siddig Hammad: Head of African Governance Architecture Secretariat at the African Union

– Nasir Aminu: Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to Ethiopia and Permanent Representative to the African Union

– Christina Duarte, Undersecretary General and Special Advisor on Africa

– Selma Bakhta Mansouri, Representative of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Algeria and chairperson of the APR Committee of focal points

– Marie-Antoinette Rose Quatre, Chief Executive Officer of the African Peer Review Mechanism

– Vasu Gounden, Civil Society, African group, Republic of South Africa

– Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi, Director General of the National Information Technology Development Agency, Nigeria

– Jimena Sofía Viveros Álvarez, Managing Director and CEO of Equilibrium AI

– Mercy Ndegwa, Director of Public Policy, East and Horn of Africa for Meta

– Nomalanga Mashinini, Senior lecturer from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa

– Ismaila Ceesay, Minister of Information of the Republic of Gambia

– Adeyinka Adeyemi, Director General of Africa e-Governance Conference Initiative in Rwanda

– Uyuyo Edosio, Principal Innovation and Digital Expert at AFDB in Côte d’Ivoire

Additional speakers:

– Susan Mwape: Founder and Executive Director of Common Cause Zambia, panel moderator

– Desmond Oriakhogba: Panel moderator

Revised Summary of Discussion on Digital Governance in Africa

Introduction

This workshop focused on the future of governance in Africa, exploring the intersection of technology and governance. Participants discussed how digital transformation is reshaping governance across the continent, highlighting both opportunities and challenges. The discussion brought together a diverse group of speakers, including representatives from the African Union, national governments, international organisations, tech companies, and academia.

The Role of APRM in Promoting Good Governance and Digital Transformation

A key theme of the discussion was the role of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) in promoting good governance and digital transformation in Africa. Ambassador Salah Siddig Hammad, Head of African Governance Architecture Secretariat at the African Union, emphasized the importance of APRM in advancing good governance and implementing Agenda 2063, Africa’s blueprint for development.

Opportunities and Challenges of Digital Transformation

Speakers highlighted several ways in which digital technologies can enhance governance in Africa:

1. Improving resource management in agriculture and natural resources

2. Digitising government services to improve efficiency and reduce corruption

3. Leveraging digital tools for financial inclusion and economic growth

Dr. Uyuyo Edosio highlighted that Africa generates the least data globally, leading to underrepresentation in AI models and tools. She also noted the lack of local language models for African languages, emphasising the need for increased data generation and representation.

Challenges discussed included:

1. The digital divide between urban and rural areas, males and females, and across generations

2. Lack of digital infrastructure and connectivity

3. Low levels of digital literacy

4. Cybersecurity threats and data protection concerns

5. Potential for technology to exacerbate existing inequalities

Specific Initiatives and Policies

Speakers mentioned several specific initiatives and policies related to digital governance:

1. Nigeria’s signing of the Malabo Convention and ratification of the Protocol on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

2. The Gambia National Digital Transformation Policy 2021-2025

The Role of Social Media and Tech Companies

The discussion highlighted the complex role of social media and tech companies in African governance. While these platforms offer potential for enhancing democratic engagement, speakers also emphasised the need for responsible use and effective regulation.

Merci Ndegwa from Meta discussed the implementation of content moderation policies and fact-checking partnerships, while also stressing the importance of self-regulation and community standards for social media users.

Multi-stakeholder Approach

Several speakers emphasized the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach to digital governance, involving governments, tech companies, civil society, and international partners. Dr. Nomalanga Mashinini advocated for participatory and collaborative approaches between government and industry in developing governance frameworks for digital technologies.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The workshop concluded that while digital transformation presents significant opportunities for improving governance in Africa, it requires careful management, appropriate legal frameworks, and sustained investment in both infrastructure and human capital to ensure its benefits are equitably distributed across the continent.

Key takeaways included:

1. The potential of digital technologies to enhance governance, resource management, and economic growth in Africa

2. The need to address challenges around digital infrastructure, literacy, and the digital divide

3. The importance of a multi-stakeholder approach to digital governance

4. The crucial role of APRM in promoting good governance and digital transformation

In his closing remarks, Ambassador Salah Siddig Hammad reiterated the importance of leveraging digital technologies to enhance governance in Africa while addressing the associated challenges. He emphasized the need for continued collaboration and innovation in this rapidly evolving field.

The discussion emphasized the need for African-led solutions and frameworks, while also recognising the importance of engaging in global governance initiatives to address the transboundary nature of digital technologies. Overall, the tone remained optimistic about the potential for digital technologies to enhance governance and development in Africa, while also being realistic about the challenges that need to be overcome.

Moderator: we will also increase awareness and understanding of how emerging digital technologies impact on governance. So to kick off the workshop we are privileged to have esteemed panel whose insights will shape today’s discussion. Ladies and gentlemen, it is my great pleasure to invite Ambassador Salah Siddiq Hamad to the podium to moderate on the opening sessions. Our moderator Ambassador Salah Siddiq Hamad is the head of African Governance Architecture Secretariat at the African Union with extensive experience in governance, human rights, continental policy development. Ambassador Hamad has been at the forefront of promoting democratic principles and good governance across Africa. His leadership at the Agra Secretariat underscores his commitment to fostering cooperation among AU member states to achieve sustainable governance and development. Ambassador Hamad is widely recognized for his strategic vision and dedication to advancing governance agenda. Ambassador.

Salah Siddiq Hamad: Thank you very much and a very good afternoon to all of you and allow me to stand on the existing protocols since we are running out of time. We have an opening ceremony this afternoon before we kick off our session this afternoon and it seems like it’s a very short session of 20 minutes so hopefully we will be accomplishing our goal of having this session within the next 20 minutes. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, as has been mentioned this session is on the future of governance in Africa, exploring the nexus between governance and technology, assessing the impact of rapid technological advancements. on Governance and Fostering the Future of Governance in Africa. Welcome to Riyadh, the capital city of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and welcome to this session organized by APRM, the African Peer Review Mechanism. We will begin the opening ceremony with welcoming remarks from His Excellency Ambassador Nasir Aminu. Ambassador Nasir Aminu is the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the Permanent Representative to the African Union based in Addis Ababa. Your Excellency, you have the floor, please. Thank you.

Nasir Aminu: Ambassador Nasir Aminu, The Chief Executive Officer of APRM, Excellencies, Honorable Ministers, Invited Guests, Members of the Press, Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, It’s a great privilege and honor to welcome you to this important workshop that seeks to redefine governance in our dear continent, Africa. while leveraging on the rapidly changing global technological advancement for improved efficiency and service delivery to our people. Let me seize this opportunity to express our deep appreciation to the government and good people of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the hospitality and excellent conference facilities extended to us since our arrival in this beautiful city of Riyadh. Similarly, I wish to commend the able leadership of the African Peer Review Mechanism, APRM, for the excellent work you have been doing over the years. This workshop is a testament of your hard work and commitment in promoting not only political stability in Africa, but also supporting innovative activities that are essential for Africa’s digital transformation and advancement for our sustainable development. The future of governance in Africa is a topic that demands critical examination, taking into account our diverse cultures, economies and political landscapes, which calls for a collaborative effort to reshape governance models that prioritize inclusivity, transparency and technological advancement towards addressing our economic and socio-political challenges. I wish to highlight Nigeria’s recent milestones, underscoring our commitment to advancing governance, human rights and technological innovation across Africa. Under the leadership of His Excellency President Bola Ametunegbu, Nigeria signed the African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection. This landmark agreement, known as the Malabo Convention, establishes a critical legal framework for enhancing cyber security, safeguarding personal data. and fostering a secure environment for electronic commerce across the continent. By aligning our national priorities with this continental vision, Nigeria reaffirms its dedication to building robust digital infrastructure founded on transparency, accountability, and inclusivity. Additionally, the Federal Republic of Nigeria has demonstrated its unwavering commitment to inclusion by ratifying the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This action reflects our recognition of the transformative role technology can play in ensuring the full participation of persons with disabilities in governance and societal development, paving the way for a more equitable digital future. These actions resonate with the objective of the Program of the Future of Governance in the Digital Era, which seeks to harmonize digital transformation with the imperative of good governance and human dignity. Cybersecurity and data protection are prerequisites for trust in digital governance, and inclusion remains central to building a sustainable governance system. Your Excellencies, as we embrace these initiatives, it is imperative to institutionalize our commitment at the continental level. On this note, I therefore call on the APRM to advocate for the establishment of a continent-wide data protection authority. This body would provide unified oversight, enforce consistent data protection standards, and ensure the ethical use of technology across the continent. Such an authority would strengthen trust in digital governance and safeguard the rights of all Africans in the digital age. Excellencies, let me conclude by affirming Nigeria’s readiness to collaborate with relevant partners to make this vision a reality. Together, let us harness technological advancement, prioritize regional cooperation, and grassroots participation. As we navigate the complexities of the 21st century, it’s imperative that we prioritize these strategies to ensure a prosperous and democratic future for all Africans. I thank you for your attention.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Your Excellency, for your remarks. Lately, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, the African Union has been advocating for the promotion of the nexus between good governance, peace and security, and development. And seeing the advancement of technological processes within that nexus is quite important for the advancement of human, the promotion of human and people’s rights in Africa. That is, of course, all within the implementation of Agenda 2063. And that is all, of course, within the implementation of Agenda 2063, for an Africa that we deserve, an Africa that we want. The next speaker, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, is a statement by the Honorable Baji Lamamly, Chairperson of the Committee on Transport, Industry, Communications, Energy Science and Technology. the government. The honorable is not with us so we will move of course to the keynote address by his excellency Amara Kalloun, the minister of political and public affairs of the Republic of Sierra Leone. I’m not sure if her excellency Selma Bahati-Mansouri is in the room. Her excellency. She’s not. She will be coming later. Okay. Let me now call on Mrs. Christina, Christina Dautry, the undersecretary general and a special advisor on Africa. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Can you hear me well? Yes, we do hear you loud and clear. Please proceed. Thank you. Greetings.

Speaker 1: Thank you very much for the invitation to my dear sister Marie Antoinette. All protocols observed. Governance and technology. This is the subject of our conversation today. And when preparing myself for this conversation, I decided before jumping to a technological conversation, technological solutions. and even technological challenges such as the digital divided daughters, I do believe that we need to understand what is the status and the state of governance in Africa and the reasons behind that. This is the reason that my intervention, and I hope to be in the five minutes, will be designed to complement those that have been more focused on technological, because I believe the technological is just a tool. We need to understand the phenomenon so we can design more appropriate technical solutions. So my intervention will be touching three essential aspects. The first, historical roots of African governance challenge. I believe that is important for us Africans to understand. Second, the absence of the state, at the end of the day, a sort of governance threat. And third, breaking the trap, rebooting policymaking through four conceptual pieces. So going to the first, and I’ll be very quickly, historical roots of African governance challenge. So the governance challenge facing Africa today are deeply rooted in history. We cannot just erase that as a black chess board. It’s not possible. Where the structures and functions of the state, what essentially is shaped to serve the interest of external power. And we should say it in a very normal and calm way. So at independence, African nations in a rate of fragile and ill-suited state apparatus, which was fundamentally incompatible with aspirations of independence and development. So basically, we Africans, we need to acknowledge that the colonial state that we narrate had essentially two primary functions. Enforcing the rule of law. door to maintain colonial order, normal, logical. Second, resource extraction to serve, as I said, economic interests of these external powers. So this extractive and minimalist model of governance lacks mechanisms for cost-inclusive economic growth, social equity, and long-term development. So when African nations gained independence, the institutional capacity of the innate colonial state was fully inadequate for delivering the ambitious development. So there was a mismatch at that time. There was a mismatch between development aspirations and institutional capacity made failure almost inevitable. So in the aftermath of early governance failures, everyone knows in the 60s, but more in the 70s, so in the aftermath of these early governance failures, exacerbated by, essentially, independent economic struggles, et cetera, et cetera. So we know that the brethren of institutions offer prescriptive solutions based, essentially, on neoliberal theories. Instead of addressing the structural, let’s say, weakness of the innate state, everybody knows that they blame more the perceived overreach of the post-independence state. This is the reason that African states were accused to be too big and too interventionist, which supposedly stifled market dynamics and economic efficiency. So the results, of course, was the implementation of the search and adjustment programs that were initiated in the 90s, where, basically, these programs sought to rule back the state by reducing public spending, privatizing state-owned enterprises, liberalizing markets, opening economies to foreign competition. So basically, this approach. as a solution to state inefficiency, weakened African states even further. So rather than revitalizing African economies, as everybody knows, structures that were progressed deepened their vulnerabilities. Public service deteriorated, state capacity eroded, poverty increased. So the withdrawal of the state from economic governance left markets poorly regulated and economic actors unaccountable. So African states, as I said, became weaker, more fragmented, and less able to deliver basically their development responsibilities. So as a result, many African states today lack the capacity to manage their economy, their financial flows, deliver public goods effectively. In essence, the state has been sidelined in favor of market forces, foreign actors, and I would say global institutions. So over three decades, a weakened state has left African nations unable to, first, to control economic and financial. Basically, African economies remain highly dependent on external actors, significant capital supply, illicit financial. Second, left African nations unable to manage assets for development, natural resource, infrastructure, financial system. Third, left African nations unable to deliver public, let’s say, service. So the absence of the state has, in a certain way, perpetuated a cycle of dependence under development and social instability. So locking Africa in a sort of governance trap. And you need to understand that. So we can design, we can conceptualize, but in a more efficient way, the technological solution. So there is a need today in the 21st century, the need to break the trap. So rebooting policymaking through four conceptual pillars and I’ll be just naming them. The first conceptual pillar that we Africans we need to understand, that the only way to deliver the labor peace is by delivering sustainable development. Short-term solutions are mundane and don’t address the challenge. The second conceptual pillar is to see that the sustainable development requires sustainable finance, means substantial and long-term. Financing must go beyond short-term aid to support structural transformation, must be nationally owned, so it must be resilient. Financial systems must be able and capable of withstanding economic shocks and global market vulnerability. So to secure sustainable financing, we reach a point that we owe African policymakers and African partners must prioritize domestic resource mobilization as a driver of financing for development, shifting the paradigm. Of course, the third conceptual pillar is if the labor peace requires sustainable development, sustainable development requires sustainable financing, while it’s clear that sustainable financing requires control over economic and financial tools, and control over economic and financial tools requires strong and effective state institutions. And this fourth conceptual pillar, in my opinion, should be the driver when talking about the future of governance in Africa, which is today’s, let’s say, workshop. So strong institutions provide the foundation of economic sovereignty. sustainable finance and durable peace. So in the 21st century, to deliver control over economic and financial flow, to deliver sustainable finance, to deliver sustainable value, to deliver durable peace, digital transformation anchored on consistent investments of digital public infrastructure is not a policy option, but an imperative in terms of rescue the future of governance in Africa, and of course, to design the technological solutions to address the root causes of, let’s say, of inefficiency of today’s African governance. And I would like to stop here, back to you. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Honorable, Your Excellency, Under-Secretary-General and Special Advisor on Africa for your statement. We really appreciate it, and I hope you will stay with us a bit longer. Now I have the honor to call on the representative of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, and the chairperson of the APR Committee of focal points, to deliver a welcoming remarks. Please, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Speaker 2: Thank you. Your Excellency, Ambassador Marion Tawanatros-Kater, CEO of the APRM Continental Secretariat, dear participants, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, allow me to convey to you the warmest greetings and best wishes of success of Her Excellency, the State Secretary, For African Affairs, in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Algeria, Mrs. Selma Bakhta Mansouri, Algeria’s National Focal Point and Chair of the APRM Committee of Focal Points. Her Excellency, the State Secretary, due to her busy schedule, was not able to take part and or to attend this important workshop on governance and technology organized by the APRM. Allow me also to extend my heartfelt gratitude and special thanks to the authorities of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for their hospitality and all the facilities they made available to us for the holding of this important workshop. My presence here today testifies and reflects the commitment of my country, Algeria, under the leadership of the President of the Republic, His Excellency Abdelmajid Boun, President of the Forum of Heads of States and Governments of the APRM, to continue its support to the APRM in the accomplishment of its mission in promoting good governance in Africa. The APRM serves as a crucial self-monitoring tool aimed at fostering political stability, sustainable development, and economic growth across the African continent. Today, as we witness rapid technological advancements reshaping global governance frameworks, it is imperative that we come together to navigate the intricate intersection between technology and governance. Africa’s digital transformation which presents both opportunities and challenges should be positioned among the top priorities of African Agenda 2063. As it connects all sectors, it requires a more transversal than vertical approach as well as a more intense intersectoral coordination that will make it possible to achieve the objectives of the Agenda 2063. Where technology holds the potential for inclusive development, it also amplifies existing inequalities and poses ethical and legal dilemmas. It is our collective responsibility to bridge the digital divide and ensure that technological advancements are harnessed for the benefit of all, especially the marginalized communities. Ladies and gentlemen, dear participants, let’s recall in this perspective the African Union demonstrated leadership and commitment to Africa’s digital future by adopting the African Digital Compact and the Continental Artificial Intelligence Strategy in July 2024. These are not just policy documents, they represent a unified vision. The African Digital Compact aims to harness the power of digital technologies for economic growth, societal well-being and long-term development across the continent. The Continental Artificial Intelligence Strategy aims to leverage artificial intelligence for sustainable development in Africa, aligned with Agenda 2063 and the Sustainable Development Goals. 2030. Debating on governance and technology nexus in Africa is a perfect opportunity to unite the vision for Africa’s digital future as it explores how digital transformation can address Africa’s unique challenges and pave the way for progress towards Agenda 2063. This unity of vision is what will drive Africa’s digital future. In this context, this workshop serves as a platform for African member states and all stakeholders and partners to collaborate in leveraging technology ethically and inclusively for the advancement of our continent. By fostering a shared understanding among policymakers, civil society, academia, and other stakeholders, we aim to navigate the opportunities and risks posed by technological innovation and align them with Africa’s development goals. Together, we should develop strategies to leverage the benefits of frontier technologies while mitigating associated risks. Through a multi-stakeholder approach, we will explore the applications of technology in governance and advocate for ethical, equitable, inclusive, and transparent use of emerging technologies. Let’s work towards establishing a vibrant ecosystem for digital governance in Africa, enhancing sectoral performance, strengthening regional cooperation, and accelerating progress towards our development goals. Together, we can shape a future where technology empowers us to build a more inclusive and sustainable Africa. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you, and let’s make today’s workshop an invaluable opportunity for us to gather insights, share best practices, and identify priorities for advancing digital governance and transformation. Looking forward and to embark on this journey of collaboration, knowledge sharing, and innovation for the betterment of our continent, I thank you for your kind attention. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Thank you very much indeed. This is a very good opportunity and an excellent platform for us to share best practices and information on how to advance technology in Africa. Not only technology, but governance as, of course, the ultimate goal through the advancement of technology. I’m not sure if His Excellency the Minister from Sierra Leone is with us, Gibran. Can we check online to see if he’s available now? His Excellency, the Minister of Public and Political Affairs of Sierra Leone. All right, the time has come for us, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, to listen to the opening remarks by Her Excellency, Ambassador. Marie Antoinette Rose Quadri, the Chief Executive Officer of the African Peer Review Mechanism. Your Excellency, you have the floor, please.

Speaker 3: Excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, all protocols observed. It is a profound honour to join you at this defining moment for our continent. A moment when winds of technological transformation are sweeping across our continent, offering opportunities to reimagine governance and secure a future that is more inclusive, accountable and prosperous. Today we stand at the intersection of innovation and responsibility at a time when the choices we make about governance and technology will echo across generations. Let me begin with a reflection. Governance, at its core, is about people and their hopes, their aspirations and their dreams for a better tomorrow. Technology, meanwhile, is not just a tool. It is a bridge that connects those dreams to reality. It can amplify voices, illuminate truths and inspire innovation. But, as with all powerful tools, it can also divide, distort and exclude. But let’s also be clear. Technology is not a cure-all. Its power is only as good as the principles that guide its use. Without ethics, it can divide us. Without inclusivity, it can deepen inequalities. Without accountability, it can divide us. it can undermine trust. That’s why we’re here, to ensure that Africa leads this digital era with integrity and purpose. Our mission here today is to ensure that technology serves as a force for unity and progress, not division and stagnation. This workshop is not just another event. It’s much more than governance or technology alone. It’s about people. It’s a clarion call. A call for leaders, thinkers and doers from across Africa to chart a course forward. One that ensures technology strengthens governance rather than undermines it and empower citizens rather than marginalizes them. It’s about the young entrepreneur in Lagos coding solutions to connect rural farmers. The student in Nairobi pushing for transparency through digital activism. And the policy leaders across our member states working to build systems that reflect the aspirations of their people. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, over the coming hours, we will explore the nexus between governance and technology guided by critical questions. How can technology strengthen democratic processes across the continent? How do we confront cyber threats and misinformation that erode trust in governance? And how do we ensure that Africa’s digital transformation leaves no one behind, whether rural or urban, young or old, rich or poor, men or women? The APRM has long championed the principles of accountability, inclusivity and innovation through our e-governance initiatives and in partnership with the United Nations Office of the Special Advisor on Africa, UNOSA. We are strengthening e-governance in Africa through policy innovation and transformative technologies, as directed by the United Nations General Assembly. Furthermore, our collaboration with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UNDESA, on capacity building has been instrumental in capacitating APRM member states. As we begin, I will ask you to approach today’s discussions with an open mind and collaborative spirit, because the future of governance in Africa will not be defined by any one of us, but it will be shaped by all of us together. I am confident that this room holds the visionaries who will shape it. Let us make this moment where bold ideas meet transformative action, where the vision for a digitally empowered Africa becomes reality. It is my great privilege to officially open the workshop on the future of governance in Africa. Thank you, and I look forward to these extraordinary outcomes we will achieve together. I thank you.

Moderator: Your Excellency, thank you very much for your opening remarks. Indeed, while we are proceeding with the implementation of Agenda 2063 and the advancement of technology in Africa, no one should be left behind. No women, no men, no children, no adult, no people in the urban or rural areas of Africa. This brings us to the end of the opening ceremony, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen. And now I would like to democratically hand over the microphone to Professor… This month, this month is an associate professor, the Department of Private Law at the University of UWC. The session, session number one. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ambassador. Okay. Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, I think for now I’m actually playing the role of a forerunner, and I will simply be introducing the next person, the person who would actually moderate the next session, and she is none other than Susan Mwape, who is the founder and Executive Director of Common Cause Zambia. I’ll be coming after her, like John the Baptist, I’ll be after her, right, like Jesus Christ came, you know, after John the Baptist. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I hope you’re able to hear me. I can’t hear myself. Good afternoon. All right, so thank you very much. Thank you Desmond for the introduction. I will at this point be inviting somebody who has already been introduced and we will have just a brief fireside chat with Ambassador Sala. Hamad. As has already been introduced, Ambassador Sala is the head of the African Governance Architecture Secretariat at the African Union. And Ambassador, you’re very much welcome. Follow your work and you have been doing such great work at the AGA Secretariat. I’ll start by asking you, how has digital transformation reshaped governance in Africa, particularly in enhancing democratic engagements, political pluralism, and of course the big issue, electoral integrity?

Salah Siddiq Hamad: Thank you very much indeed. As he for she, I’m quite honored that you are the one moderating this session. Thank you. I’m not saying anything against Professor Desmond, but it’s an honor to be interviewed by a woman because this is what we believe in in Africa, that Africa cannot really be developed and built without the active participation of women. How digital transformation reshape governance in Africa? I think before we speak about the future, we need to really make reference to the past and to the present. Africa, as we all know, has been going through a lot of challenges, even before independence, slavery, colonialism, and now civil wars in many African countries, apartheid in the Southern African region, and you name it. so many challenges. So therefore, the advancement of good governance is absolutely one of the ultimate objectives that we need to reach before we proceed with the implementation of Agenda 2063, the blueprint for Africa, for building the Africa we want and the Africa we deserve. But where are we now from that objective? I would say that it’s a work in progress, but we need to really do more. Why? Because despite the fact that Africa has advanced a bit in issues related to elections and in particular the electoral processes, we still see some setbacks in some of the African countries. It’s not because the technology is not working, but because the other infrastructures are not available. The technology by itself will not work to advance governance, but we need really the people to know their rights and duties and to understand what is the political processes and the governance advancement is all about. So without orientation, without really raising awareness, I think technology by itself will not really work. In some African countries also, we need to really face the reality that the infrastructure that will be based for the advancement of technology is also lacking. So we need to look into the infrastructure that is needed to make sure that the advancement of technology is helping. Also, I think to focus more on the question, how is it reshaping governance and advancing election in Africa? I think we need to also look into how many Africans do have access to internet, how many Africans do have access to a smartphone that could be used to access internet. how many women versus men? How many young men and women versus old? I think all of these questions need to be addressed. In addition to that, the issue of infrastructure, including, I would say, even power in some African countries where all of this technology needs to be powered. Are we utilizing solar systems to empower our infrastructure so we can have a valid infrastructure and platform for empowering or for advancing technology? All of these questions need to be addressed. And I think most of all, again, we need to really make sure that all Africans are quite informed and aware of their duties and rights as part of the advancement of good governance, role of law and technology, based on technology in Africa. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you very much for that, Ambassador. And I think you raised a lot of very valuable issues. When we talk about Africa, I think the digital divide remains one of the biggest challenges, issues of infrastructure. We are seeing a lot of rapid progress in terms of what kinds of development is happening across the continent based on international standards and best practices that are being recommended. I think one thing that would come to mind would be the DPI initiatives. And we are still trying to figure out how that will speak to our rural communities, for example, and those that are already in the divide. But then maybe in your view, what would you say is the role of the different digital tools that we have in improving governance? I’ll pass it.

Salah Siddiq Hamad: The different tools that we currently have do have impact on our processes and also on our efforts. to promote good governance and e-governance, in particular in Africa. But of course, I think there’s also, we need to speak about the need for political support from our governance to allow these processes to exist and to proceed. Without political support, it would not be easy really to achieve that goal. Secondly, changes is always looked at as something that could be of disturbing nature. People by nature don’t really accept changes easily. And all of this technological infrastructure that we are talking about and mechanisms and tools, they are to some extent quite new, if not new. And therefore, we need to also accompany the process with, I would say, a stronger orientation processes to make sure that these people, our African people, are looking into the positive side of implementation of all of these tools and processes that we have. I’m saying this because in many cases, during elections in some African countries, the initial response from government will be to block internet. Why? In their view, the internet will be a tool for spreading fake news and bad news and news that will disturb the election processes. How can we prevent all of this without blocking the internet? How can we allow the African people to enjoy and to benefit from the internet while voting? How can the internet be used to ease the access to information and to also ease access to information that will allow them to vote in a way that it will make them benefit from the entire process as African citizens? Again, political support is quite important. but also general orientation is needed to allow the African citizens to know what is going on in that sphere.

Moderator: Okay, I will ask you my last question because that’s all we had time for. We have initiatives such as the African Peer Review Mechanism, which also somehow serves as an early warning too, in addition to the review processes that in the text. But at the same time, the continent also have several other early warning mechanisms. How then would you say technology can play a role in strengthening those kinds of mechanisms, such as the APRM, which is a co-governance tool that Africa is using and all these other mechanisms?

Salah Siddiq Hamad: This is an excellent question. And I think this is also an opportune moment to congratulate APRM for a job well done. APRM since its existence has been an excellent mechanism as part of the African Union family to promote good governance, democracy, rule of law in Africa through different and various mechanisms and tools. And I think one of the greatest tools that has been used in addition to the review and all of these other reviews and processes is the Africa Governance Report, which is currently one of the Africa’s, I would say, reports that speaks to the reality of governance at the national and continental level. On the other hand,

Speaker 4: Moderator, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, let me say that it is an honor today to address you. And I’m sorry that I cannot be with you in the beautiful kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I am here sitting in Durban, my internet is a little unstable, so I may at some point just have to switch off the camera, and I have a PowerPoint presentation which I see somebody is sharing. But let me quickly go through this presentation in the interest of time moderator. Let me switch off the camera, otherwise it will switch off. Cyber diplomacy in Africa and the pivotal role it plays, moderator, in securing our continent’s future, is a very, very important topic for us today on the continent. And digital technologies must be one more tool for us to break the chains of colonialism and neocolonialism, and not allow it to be used once again to imprison us. In an increasingly interconnected world, African nations must establish a unified approach to cyber diplomacy. One that balances, as you see there, the national interests with regional security and developmental and governance goals. Let us examine these challenges through five key questions, if we can get to the next slide. How can African countries create a unified framework for cyber diplomacy? The answer, colleagues, begins with cooperation. Regional organizations such as the African Union and its African Peer Review Mechanism are uniquely positioned to drive this process. The AU has already provided foundational initiatives, like the Malabar Convention on Cyber Security and Data Protection. By adopting such agreements… African countries can harmonize national cyber security policies under a collective framework. A regional cyber diplomacy council supported by the AU, and I know the earlier speaker talked about a data central authority, so either a data central authority or a regional cyber diplomacy council supported by the African Union to serve as a platform to coordinate interests, resolve conflicts, and promote Africa’s shared goals of security, development, governance, and digital inclusion. Second excellencies, what capacity building initiatives are needed to enhance African diplomacy? Cyber diplomacy requires a unique blend of negotiation, mediation, and technical expertise. Capacity building programs should focus on training African diplomats to navigate cyber-related disputes and threats. Establishing regional cyber academies and centers of excellence in collaboration with international partners will be essential to this effort. Technology transfer agreements can help African states build indigenous skills while fostering partnerships with global cyber security leaders. Thirdly, what mechanisms can ensure transparency, accountability, and trust? Trust is the cornerstone of successful cyber diplomacy. African nations must develop mechanisms for confidence building, such as cyber incidence response frameworks, joint exercises, and data sharing agreements. The establishment of a regional cyber dispute resolution body can further provide neutral ground for resolving conflicts related to sovereignty, data protection, and security. and cyber crime. Additionally, adopting international norms like the UN Group of Governmental Experts Principles on Responsible State Behavior will reinforce Africa’s commitment to a rules-based digital order. Fourth, how can cyber diplomacy promote peacebuilding and prevent cyber conflicts? Cyber incidents can escalate quickly into broader conflicts if left unchecked, and we see this all across our continent. Africa must productively use cyber diplomacy as a peacebuilding tool. For example, early warning systems and cyber confidence-building measures can prevent misunderstandings between nations. Africa can also learn from the experiences of regions like the European Union and ASEAN, which have successfully implemented cyber dialogue platforms to manage disputes. By fostering regular communication and sharing best practices, we as African nations can prevent cyber threats from becoming destabilizing forces. Fifthly, what role can public-private partnerships and civil society play? The private sector and civil society are key stakeholders in Africa’s cyber diplomacy agenda. Public-private partnerships can drive innovation, enhance infrastructure, and provide expertise in addressing complex cyber challenges. Private companies can also assist in developing standards for cybersecurity and digital trust. Civil society, meanwhile, bring inclusivity and accountability to cyber policymaking. By engaging these stakeholders, African nations can ensure that cyber diplomacy outcomes are equitable, innovative, and resilient. And in conclusion, moderator, let me say that the path towards a unified… framework for African cyber diplomacy is challenging, but achievable. Through regional cooperation under the leadership of the African Union, strategic capacity-building initiatives, robust transparency mechanisms, and active stakeholder engagements, the APRM can shape a cyber diplomacy agenda that promotes security, peace, governance, and development, and use these digital tools to liberate our continent and not imprison us again. I thank you, moderator.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Dr. Vasu. Can we please give him a round of applause? All right, so we go straight to the next panel. It’s going to be a panel discussion, and I will introduce the panelists, and then we get on to the discussion without wasting time. So the first on my list will be Dr. Kashifu Inua Abdullahi, who is the Director General of the National Information Technology Development Agency, Nigeria. We also have as a member of the panel Mr. Denise Sousa. Mr. Denise Sousa is the Governance and Public Administration Officer, Division for Public Institutions and Digital Government of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Is he here present? Is he physically present? Mr. Denise, is he here? Okay, I will introduce him when he comes back into the hall. We also have Ms. Jimena Sofia Viveros Alvarez. I hope I got the name correctly. She is the Managing Director and CEO of Equilibrium AI, and I also understand that she is a lawyer from Mexico. All right. We have joining us virtually Dr. Nomalanga Mashinini, who is a senior lecturer from the University of the Vist Water Strands in Johannesburg, South Africa. And also we have from Malawi, Dr. Jeanne Filippo, who is the Director General of the Financial Intelligence Authority in Malawi. Is she participating virtually? Okay, so Dr. Jeanne is participating virtually. And we have the last but not the least, Ms. Arusha Goyal, who is the Policy Lead, Middle Eastern Africa Chain Analysis, United Arab Emirates. Okay, we will announce her presence when she joins us. Without wasting time, we’ll go straight to the question, and it is my pleasure to call on, the first question will be actually pinned by Dr. Kashifu. Nigeria recently just left an electionary period, and for some of us who observed the elections from afar, especially from social media, the engagement was quite charged. You know, lots of misinformation flying around, a lot of fake news, a lot of exaggeration. But again, amidst those, we still had a lot of informed, you know, discussion by the Nigerian citizens. You know, they were very interested in who was going to lead them. So drawing from that experience, from that, you know, the outcome of the elections, and from what your agency, NIDDA, is doing in Nigeria. We would need to know what NIDDA is putting in place to promote informed and ethical engagement of Nigerian citizens in the democratic process in our future elections.

Speaker 5: Thank you. If you look at the history of internet and social media, when it started in early 2000, we all started or rushed after it without thinking of putting guardrails around it. Like we had the John Ballos declaration saying that internet is ungoverned space. We have the big techs as of that time saying that internet and social media is a free space. Nobody can govern it. But from 2016, things started changing after the Cambridge Analytica issues, whereby the big techs started calling for regulation. But the challenge is we don’t know how to regulate internet or social media because there is no legal books or history books that we can read to understand how to regulate these spaces. Because the generation before us never encountered these kind of challenges. So it’s something that we need to co-create how to regulate. And countries today are grappling on how to regulate these spaces. And we are looking at it from different perspectives. Then in Nigeria, we had an incident in 2000 and 2021 when Twitter was banned because of… this kind of challenges, people were misusing the platform. At that time, there was no any contact between the government and these big techs. And that’s when Nidia moved in to fill the gap. We did that by creating a code of practice, because social media is not something or technology you can just say you regulated this way, because it always changed. And also one thing with the techie guys, they always try to look at how to stretch the law or to hack the law to bypass it. So the best thing to do was to say that anything that is illegal offline is illegal online. So how can we move our law from the physical world we are to the virtual world we are creating? So we came up with the code of practice to let these big techs, the social media platforms and so on, to understand our laws so that they can apply it in their platforms in Nigeria. Because most of developing countries, we don’t have data sovereignty. We don’t have operations sovereignty. Because the big techs will decide how to operate their platforms without consulting us. And we don’t have digital sovereignty. And they don’t listen to us in most cases. So that COP brought them to the table where we sat together to create how we can navigate this platform together or how we can navigate the challenges. So we came up with the COP, the code of practice, whereby they need to respect all Nigerian laws. They need to register. in Nigeria, they need to understand content that is harmful in Nigeria and we need to agree on take down. We categorize content into two, there are illegal and legal, lawful and unlawful content. Lawful content should be allowed on the platform, while unlawful they should take it down immediately. But there are content that are lawful but harmful, which need to be reviewed to understand those content before you take them down. So that COP also provided a platform for us to engage when there are issues, we escalate, we look, we sit together and review them. And we also get them to engage fact-checkers in Nigeria because at the time we had that Twitter issue, there wasn’t any certified fact-checker in Nigeria, mostly they use fact-checkers from the US, from the western countries to look at the content in Nigeria, which they don’t even understand because there are local things that you cannot understand if you are not in Nigeria, even English words, there are English words we speak in Nigeria you cannot understand if you are not a Nigerian. So we need fact-checkers that understand the local context and also that can be able to translate things before they take decisions. So that really helped us to moderate that space. And this year they filed a report because part of the COP they need to be filing annual report to look at the number of content they take down, the number of content they put back after taking down, because sometimes also there are… is cyberbullying. If someone doesn’t like your content, people can gang around to flag your content. And this platform, they take it down. And you can initiate the process to put it back. Based on the report last year, they removed more than 60 million contents in Nigeria, harmful content. And also, they reinstated many. I don’t have the figures, but we published the report just a few weeks ago. It’s available online. And also, that get them to start filing taxes in Nigeria. Because in the half year this year, in between January to June, they paid more than 2.5 trillion Naira in VAT in Nigeria, which before, they don’t used to pay most of that.

Moderator: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Dr. Kashifu. As you were speaking, one important point I got from your discussion is the fact lack of moderation of engagement on the social media can actually threaten security. And with the emergence of the AI technology, that can actually, that situation can be exacerbated. So it can pose a greater risk to national security, to peace, peaceful coexistence among citizens. And that leads me to the question that I would like Ms. Jimena to address. I would want to know what governance framework you think that countries, especially in the global south, and particularly Africa, can adopt to address the risk that AI poses to peace and security. Well, first of all, thank you for having me here, your excellencies, distinguished panelists.

Speaker 6: So I am Ximena Riveros, and I am Mexican, but I live in Zimbabwe, so that is my link to this conference. I’m also a member of the high-level advisory body on AI that the Secretary General of the UN created. So we have been looking at a whole different set of solutions or recommendations for AI governance at the global level. Our conclusion was that, although obviously there’s a need for a regional kind of context-specific approach, there cannot be a real governance if we don’t talk about global governance, because the technology is completely transboundary, it’s transregional, and if we just have regional or national initiatives, we’re just witnessing like a patchwork of all of these different things that are not in a coherent manner adhered. So that’s what we are aiming for. So what struck us the most was, so we did a survey, and out of all of the 193 countries of the United Nations, 118 are not a part of any of the international governance initiatives worldwide, 118, out of which over 50 of Africa are in those 118. And only 7 are part of all of them, the G7. So that really is very striking, because we need more inclusivity. and we need more access to these conversations and more engagement as well. Because if we don’t do so, there’s going to be just the widening of the digital gap and more inequalities and a bunch of problems that come with the exclusion, especially with the marginalized communities, the lack of data and etc. So the way we need to achieve this is by creating synergies, strategic synergies, strategic partnerships. We discovered that the Global South to Global South kind of cooperation is more efficient and more welcome than Global North to Global South because simply within the Global South we understand the problematics, we understand each other whereas the Global North doesn’t really and their priorities are different. And what we want to avoid is this techno has been addressed or this new techno-colonization whether it’s for resources or for permitting, just the dependency itself because that’s going to bridge us even further from where we need to be in terms of trying to achieve the sustainable development goals by 2030 and even beyond. So we need to have this strategic vision that goes even further and is ahead thinking. So where does this place us in terms of governance? We need governance that is resilient, that is techno-neutral in order for it to be adaptive to the evolution of the technology itself which is extremely fast-paced and that needs to be generalistic because we cannot separate, it’s dual use by nature, right? So the technology, so we cannot separate the military domain, the civilian domain. domain, I call it the peace and security domain, but on purpose, because there are implications that are, you know, intersecting both domains. For example, it is the exact same technology that is being used by the militaries, which is a state actor, but it’s also being used by all other type of state actors, such as law enforcement or border controls, which are civilian by nature. And then we also have non-state actors, which are more relevant for our region than for, say, the global north, which are organized crime, terrorism, mercenaries, and so on. And the dire reality is that in our regions, this type of groups might have even more capabilities than the government itself, and the governments themselves don’t even have the response, the capacity of responding to attacks by these groups, with or without the technology, but exacerbated by their access to this technology, dictated by the proliferation of it, because we don’t have a governance regime. So this is critical to address. So what is the landscape in regards to the governance of specifically, say, what regards to the military domain? So in the HLAB, so the High-Level Advisory Report, there was even a discussion whether to include it or not. Fortunately, we did, because of these reasons, because it’s dual use by nature, and we cannot exclude it. So we did have a lot of considerations into the peace and security domains. For those who haven’t read our final report, which was submitted in September, right before the end of the year. summit of the future and then it was subsequently our recommendations were adopted into the the global digital compact and the pact for the future we do include recommendations for peace and security so that’s that’s a starting point so we have the pact of the future that focus then we also have the GG on laws which group of governmental experts that are within the UN’s conventional for conventional weapons which I think a little bit ironic because say autonomous weapons are the least of the conventional weapons but anyway that the discussions have been kind of deadlocked for the past over 10 years so now we’re really and this is for AI in general since this is a multi-stakeholder environment as the IGF is and how AI should also be covered and all of knowledge is because of the shift of dynamics and that are happening all over the world we need to reimagine how this governance can be achieved so the traditional methods are no longer working because then that the conversations and the discussions are deadlocked when you know one of the p5 states just decides that it’s done so the whole veto system of the Security Council and even the the structure of the GG’s has not proven to be successful for our interests obviously for them it does work out but anyway so in that sense we have that we also have the Global Commission for the Responsible Use of AI in the military domain where I’m also Commissioner you need here has a group of experts also called race then you did but the greatest achievement I think so far is moving the conversation away from the EGE on laws to the UN General Assembly, because then we have witnessed some very important resolutions which include explicitly the call for AI regulation in the military domain, which hasn’t been seen before. And we also have a very important call for action by the Secretary General, Guterres, and by the ICRC to have a binding treaty on autonomous weapons by 2026. So we really hope that this can be achieved, because the dire consequences on our region, as we have seen, for example, in Gaza, well, and also in Ukraine, but it’s just an example of how it’s disproportionately affecting the global south. Because this technology, these weapons, are not going to be deployed in the global north. We are going to be the recipients, we are the recipients, and they’re being field tested as they are deployed. There’s no testing in between, and there’s no accountability, and there’s so many problems with their deployment because of bias. And that also comes back to the point of the missing data, because, for example, these models that are, you know, the weapons that are targeting civilians are working on the data that it’s been trained on, and, for example, it just depends on who has been training the models and which data they have been trained on. So obviously these are global north enterprises that are training these models and creating them and then being deployed into the field. So obviously there are racial, there are even gender and age, all types of biases that are imprinted, and that’s how they’re targeting and attacking civilians.

Moderator: Yeah, thank you very much. I know you’ve got a lot to say, but for want of time, we’ll just proceed. We’ll come back to you again to share some thoughts. But as you were speaking, I heard you talk about multi-stakeholder approach, and that takes me back to Dr. Kashifu’s presentation where he talked about the role that Facebook Cambridge Analytica played. And of course, all these are enhanced by the emerging AI destructive technology. So I would now want to call on Ms. Merci Ndegwa, who is a director of public policy, east and on of Africa for Meta, Meta or Facebook, to intervene in the discussion. I mean, and we want her to tell us how Meta is leveraging its platform to support democratic management, engagement, sorry, in Africa, particularly during elections and periods of political transition. Thank you so much, Professor. I hope you can all hear me okay.

Speaker 7: Yes, we can. I thank you for having me in this session, and I apologize that I’m not able to join you in person in Riyadh, but I’m glad that we have this tech-enabled session where we can still participate even though we’re not there in person. So please bear with me in case of any challenges with regards to the connection. I’m grateful for the opportunity to come and join you to have this conversation. And I just, before I answer your question, I think I want to just draw us back to the context that was really helpful as I was preparing for this session that was basically looking at what, you know, what’s the nexus between technology and digital governance pretty much is. And one of the things that I think was alluded to and was brought up very strongly. even in the keynotes that were presented before my notes here right now, alluded to the fact that technology has actually been a very huge enabler in advancing governance across our countries and it has actually also enabled us to be able to do so at scale and to be able to empower communities and bring a lot of benefits on board. But even as I was thinking about this, I think in the earlier remarks that have been presented here, there is a lot of focus, I’d say, on social media specifically within the digital governance space. But I’d love to draw attention to the broader, let me say, environment that is the digital space because we’re talking about social media being one. We definitely are players in that space. There is e-commerce, there is e-governance, e-government services, there is payments themselves, all of which are but a few of the areas that I would say are the broader ecosystem within which we are speaking about digital governance. And so, again, to the points that were raised before, the question is not so much what a single player or players in a specific area could do, but more so how can we all be involved in ensuring that digital governance is upheld and that we continue to improve on how we promote this. When we think about digital governance at META, we’re thinking primarily about, I’d say, three or four areas. One, and this is to answer your question, whether it be in our engagements around elections or it be around mitigation of any integrity risks, as we call them, around privacy and security, around misinformation and disinformation, any cybersecurity risks that may emerge with the use of our platforms. I think we have had in earlier sessions and even a bit of this as mentioned within the keynote, issues around algorithmic bias and having understanding around that, there is the question of exclusion of people from the digital space. So still elements of digital divide being a key part of some of the digital governance areas that I think continue to undermine peace and could actually be areas of improvement for all of us to work on, to see how we can promote better digital governance and peace and security across. And so for us at Meta, like I was saying earlier, we think about this from primarily three to four areas. One is how can we ensure that there is self-monitoring by all of those who are coming onto our platforms. Today, our platforms support over 3.3 billion users who come onto our platforms actively every month across Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger. And all of these users are interacting for different reasons. Some are coming to connect with one another because they are either geographically removed from each other. Others are connecting because they have similar hobbies or interests. And others are coming to connect because they want to promote either business or let me say, digital economy related work streams. So you’re looking at create ecosystem and others like that. And all of these are really fundamental in ensuring that we continue to advance economic development and also social impact and economic growth across. And for us, when we think about the self-regulation, we want to ensure that those users as they come onto our platforms are very clear about what rules we have with regards to how they conduct themselves on our platforms. So we have very elaborate, what we call community standards or guidelines across these platforms that inform our different users with regards to what we allow or not allow on our platform. So that being the most effective. way to start with. But we recognize that a lot of people also may not necessarily look into this community guidelines and rules as we would like, even though we take a lot of effort and time in making sure that these policies are regularly reviewed and updated and that we get into a lot of consultation with experts, bodies, governments, associations, civil society organizations and others to draft them. We then have to think about how can we as a responsible organization then ensure that we can use other, let me say strategies within our control to support and uphold the integrity and governance across our platforms. And so this is where our second intervention comes in. We think about how can we do this, for example, using machine learning tools or artificial intelligence to be able to address some of these integrity risks at scale. And we have found that this has been extremely effective when we think about, for example, being able to bring down fake accounts or accounts that are created by folks with the intention of either using them to propagate bad activity online or to target people. And we find that when we’ve done that, a lot of the content that could have been problematic is then addressed and brought down even before that content is published or even seen by users. But there are more sophisticated actors who may come onto our platforms with different intentions. And I think some of these challenges are part of what we’re discussing here. And the question at hand you’ve mentioned is part of this problem. And we are constantly then making sure that to our third intervention is that we are working in partnership with others who are experts in this area. We are a technology company and we have a lot of expertise in-house drawn from different disciplines. But then over and above that, we want to ensure that we are working very closely and in tandem with others who also have the depth and expertise in those different areas of verticals to get support in making sure that we have the right oversight about how we create our. policies, how we develop our products, and how then we execute on programs on the ground, which then brings me to that last part, the programs themselves. Once we have identified, we have our policies in place, we have developed our machine learning and AI tools that help us to address some of these concerns at scale, we also do then partner on the ground with local partners to make sure that we can address the challenges we may have or gaps we may have from either a local language perspective or certain nuances with regards to either culture, religion, and so on that may be very unique to an area or a region, to make sure that we have a proper understanding of what risk there may be that may be exacerbated by our platforms, and then we get the right collaboration around those to be able to address them. So I think I will pause there, but then I’m happy to expand a little further when I have a chance to speak a little more, but I thank you for the opportunity. Thank you very much.

Moderator: So we take the last intervention in this panel, and we’ll be inviting Dr. Nomalanga to simply tell us from a legal point of view, what legal frameworks will be useful to ensure that government and the governed actually use the social media platforms responsibly, safely, and ethically to ensure a smooth governance process in Africa? Thank you, Desmond. And this is very brief because we’re running against time.

Speaker 8: Thank you, Desmond. I think one of the important things that we need to understand is something that Cisco recently reported, which is that cyber attacks, and sometimes committed through social media platforms, account for a 10% drop in Africa’s GDP as a whole, which in monetary terms results in billions of money, billions of dollars that are lost in our GDP. And I think There are two main points that I just want to briefly make here regarding legal framework in order to provide safe and resilient social media use in governance. The one is a participatory approach. I do think that a number of African governments have adopted a mere one-way communicative approach in using social media to reach out to people. We saw this even in the election season. We don’t really see a participatory mechanism where conversations flow both ways. And this results in opportunists, particularly fraudsters on social media, taking the opportunity to communicate very important but also misinformed or disinformed news to the communities that the government itself or other governmental organizations should be communicating. I also think one of the other ways, in addition to a participatory approach, is a collaborative one between government and industry. For example, in South Africa, we are starting to see some policy and legislative interventions and contributions coming from the Association on Comms and Technology, which basically is made up of different information and communications technology companies such as South Sea, MTN, RAIN, etc., coming together with government to create new forms of interventions that actually influence how we should regulate internet access, social media, and the use thereof. So I do think that there is a need for some focus to shift into looking to how we can get citizens involved in the process of lawmaking and as well as policy. policymaking in this regard. Is that brief enough, Desmond?

Moderator: Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much. Super, super brief. You know, let’s give a round of applause to all the speakers. And you know, one thing I take from the old message, I mean, one message I take from the old discussion is that there is actually a need for a multi-stakeholder approach towards developing an e-governance, or if you like, a digital governance framework in Africa. And of course, no agency would better, you know, galvanize that process than APRM. And I’m hoping that the CEO is taking notes, you know, for the work that needs to be done in the future. I will hand over the mic, my job is done. I will hand over the platform again to Ms. Susan. Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks everyone. Thank you very much. All right. Can we, can we please give another round of applause to the panel? Thank you very much for a well-articulated panel. And as they are winding up, I’ll be introducing the last panel for this afternoon. All right. Thank you very much. So I’ll be introducing the last panel for this afternoon, and we’ll be looking at the impact of digital transformation on the future of economic governance and resource management in Africa. At this point in time, allow me to call upon the minister, His Excellency, the Minister of Information of the Republic of Gambia, who will come to talk to us about leveraging digital transformation for Africa’s economic governance and resource management. Please, a round of applause.

Speaker 9: Good evening, everyone. My Excellency, Ambassador Marie Antoinette Rose Quattro, Chief Executive Officer of the African PREV Mechanism, good evening, Excellencies, distinguished personalities here present today. It gives me great pleasure to be here today and a very big privilege to give a speech, a brief one though, on leveraging digital transformation for Africa’s economic governance and resource management. As Africa enters the digital age, the continent faces a historic opportunity to transform its economic governance and resource management. Through the strategic adoption of digital technologies, Africa can address many of the challenges it faces, from inefficiency in the public service or public administration and e-government through various programs, such as the Gambia National Digital Transformation Policy 2021-2025, which aims to enhance digital infrastructure and services across all sectors. In addition, as part of our drive for digital transformation, we have started initiatives to support economic governance. We are making efforts to digitize government through e-government services, and this is growing, including online portals for tax collection, business registration, and public service delivery. For example, the Gambia Revenue Authority, which’s mandate is to collect revenue for the government, has introduced… digital tax platforms to streamline tax collection, reduce corruption and improve efficiency in government revenue management. That is why recently the government has done a lot in our local government funds, exceeding the target that was set for this year. We’re also about to launch the digital identity systems to improve service delivery and ensure that citizens can access social services and financial resources, especially in remote areas. When it comes to resource management, digital tools offer unparalleled potential. Africa’s vast agricultural sector can benefit from technologies like mobile apps, GPS-based farming solutions and drone surveillance. These innovations enable farmers to increase productivity, optimise water usage and adapt to the challenges of climate change. Similarly, digital technologies like Internet of Things, sensors and blockchains are helping to monitor and manage Africa’s natural resources, ensuring sustainability and curbing illegal activities like poaching and deforestation. One of the most promising areas of digital transformation is financial inclusion, with mobile money platforms proliferating across the continent. Millions of Africans who were once excluded from the financial system now have access to banking, saving and lending services. This promotes economic growth, reduces poverty and helps build more resilient communities. However, for Africa to fully realise the benefits of digital transformation, we must tackle key challenges, and these include but are not limited to improving digital infrastructure, bridging the digital divide between urban and rural areas, between male and female as well, and across generations, and investing in digital literacy and cyber security. These investments will ensure that digital transformation reaches all corners of the continent and benefits every African citizen. Africa’s digital future is bright. By leveraging digital transformation, we can revolutionize economic governance, optimize resource management, and create a more inclusive and sustainable future for all Africans. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you Honorable Minister for your remarks and indeed Africa’s future is bright. At this point in time, allow me to call on my panelists. I’d like to call upon Dr. Uyuyo Edosio, who is the Principal Innovation and Digital Experts at AFDB in Côte d’Ivoire. Okay, we may be facing some technical challenges, but I will then move on to Mr. Adeyinka Adeyemi, who is the Director General of Africa e-Governance Conference Initiative in Rwanda. Please give him a round of applause.

Speaker 10: Thank you very much. As we have run out of time, we only have three minutes and I hope I can ask you to help us deliver a huge task in in the three minutes. My question to you is, in what ways can digital transformation enhance economic governance and accountability within African nations? Right, so we can do this in two minutes. At the Africa e-Governance Conference Initiative, what we do is to promote e-governance. And I’d like to just, if I go to that question, to just say that the future of governance in Africa is actually e-governance, which is what everybody have said in different ways. So to promote e-governance in Africa or digital transformation, and some of the values have been mentioned, but for me, a lot would have to do with how it enables decision-making. Obviously, there are data-driven systems and infrastructure that aids decision-making across Africa using digital means. There’s also the value creation for sectors like agriculture, for instance. The minister from Gambia did mention a couple of things. So what we have done across Africa is to work with the agencies that promote digital transformation because we see a lot of value in the nexus or the relationship between digital or e-governance and the sectors. If you go to education, if you go to finance, which also has been mentioned, there’s just a lot of things that are happening across Africa. But there’s more to come if we have the enabling laws and frameworks. If we have the, I don’t know if you can hear me. If you have the enabling laws and frameworks in place, and if a lot of the African countries can ensure that they follow those roadmaps that have been created across Africa, and just make sure that we do. what is right, physically.

Moderator: Thank you very much, sir. Please, a round of applause. I am Uyuyo, Dr. Uyuyo is online. Can you hear us? Yes, I can. I am, apologies. I wasn’t granted access to unmute my mic nor my videos. All right, it’s okay. We have come towards the end of our program and you have three minutes to respond to one question. And I would like you to share with us what do you think are some of the strategies that African governments can use to adopt, I’m so sorry, I’ll come back again. What strategies can African governments adopt to harness the benefits of digital transformation while ensuring the resilience of SOEs? Thank you.

Speaker 11: Thank you very much for that question. And really, apologies, I cannot be with you in rehab. Really, back to your question what can African governments use to really harness the full potential of digitalization? It’s in two ways, I’ll come to the answer in two ways. First, there is a supply side, right? And it’s been said across this conference, underlying infrastructure. There is no digital transformation without underlying infrastructure. And the first being that is good connectivity. So if Africa has made progress in terms of mobile connections, at least 88% of Africa is covered by from 2G. If you look upwards, you’ll see this coverage. some way, somewhat, some part. That’s great because with 2G, you know you can make more, I mean 2G, 3G, you can make good mobile phone connections and calls. But if you’re looking at critical connectivity to contribute to the AI age, you need to be backed by fiber backhaul or some sort of very strong connectivity back and base so that you can contribute. And many of our African countries, we still are suffering from lack of quality infrastructure. Another thing is the affordability of this internet. Although I know that the prices of internet is definitely driven by the forces of demand and supply, but we need to think about this critical and how we use our universal service funds to really make connectivity affordable, especially for those that need it the most. So when you look at those critical infrastructure in terms of connectivity, you’ll see that that’s one of the backbones of digital transformation. On the back of that, I will build that the government needs to digitize more of their government services. Now the reason for this is that the more we digitize government services and provide e-government services such like digital birth certificates or digital IDs, bank identity, you’re generating data of your citizen. And this AI generation and this more so data-driven generation depends on data. Now what’s happening is that Africa generates the least data across the whole continent. And the fact remains that if we have little data, then we have little representation. So it’s no worry when you read AI models and you read AI tools and they’re not able to recognize some black faces or some languages. We still even have a very long way to go on our local language models. I mean, Africa is a unique continent of diverse language skills. But if we look at how much recordings we have just in local languages, alone, you will see that it’s minute. Now, if we set that infrastructure, underlying infrastructure in place, the next thing the government would have to do is to build their human capital, because it’s one thing to supply infrastructure, it’s one thing to build good government services that people can access, but if people don’t have the skills, how would they use it? How would, not just even using it, how would they contribute to this digital age? Because the aim is not just for Africa to be consumers, but to also be… Hello, are you still there? It appears that… But this is one percent, there’s so much more that we could leverage, can you hear me? Yes, we can. You have to wind up, because we are really running short of time, and we had lost you a little bit there. You can go. No worries. So, on the supply side, I would say the government really needs to focus on providing critical infrastructure, infrastructure being both soft and hard, underlying connectivity and also service layers that build on top of that to make citizens want to consume. Now, on the demand side, I would say we need to build critical skills, and digital skills range from basic, intermediate and advanced, so that we know that at every sphere we are training people, because literacy, digital literacy is no longer a luxury, it’s actually right now a human right, because the future of the world will be those who are digitally literate or not, and those who are digitally connected or not. That’s the future bias. In fact, I’m saying future, but it’s actually the present bias. So, that’s how I’ll summarize it for my intervention.

Moderator: Thank you so much for your intervention. Please, a round of applause, and thank you very much for joining us. I will pass on to you. So, in just one minute, I’d like to say that One of the critical things we need to do across Africa, and this is very clear from our work in Rwanda and in Zambia, is what we call the model adaptation, where you see models that are working in some parts of Africa that needs to be introduced and adapted in other parts. And I’m talking about e-governance models. I mean, Rwanda has a fantastic model that is supported by GIZ. GIZ actually is working with Irembo in Rwanda, and that works. The question is, why can we not adapt that model in other countries? So governments need to be more open where you have those interventions, especially from development partners, as in the case of Rwanda. There’s also what Zambia is doing with the Smart Zambia initiative that can be replicated in other parts of Africa. We don’t always need to reinvent, to start from scratch. We can reinvent the wheel across Africa, and that gives us a perfect solution. Thank you. Thank you very much. Please give my panelists a round of applause. Thank you very, very much. You all have been wonderful. Thank you for staying with us. And we apologize for the short time that we had to conclude. At this point, allow me to invite Ambassador Sala again to the podium. Thank you.

Salah Siddiq Hamad: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. You can hear me? Fantastic. Well, we are coming to the end of this workshop. Before we depart this room, I think it’s quite important that we recommit ourselves as Africans to this very important cause. We’ve been hearing that this connectivity and the advancement of technology is no longer a luxury thing, but in fact it’s a human right thing that we need to advance as such. And without advancing technology, we would not be able to build the Africa we want and the Africa we deserve. The Africa that is prosperous, united and peaceful. With that, I hope we will all go back to share this information that we gained and learned today within our networks, but also of course without the support and the political commitment of our member states and here represented by the able permanent representative of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and of course also from Algeria. And all other member states that are with us here this afternoon, I hope your political support will always be there to advance these very important processes. Before we officially close the meeting by the announcement by the CAO, I would like to invite you all to come here to the stage for a group photo and then the meeting will be declared officially closed by Her Excellency, the CAO of IPRM, Madam.

Agreement Points

Importance of digital infrastructure for governance

Salah Siddig Hammad

Ismaila Ceesay

Uyuyo Edosio

Technology alone is not sufficient; infrastructure and awareness are also needed

Digital tools offer potential for improved resource management in agriculture and natural resources

Importance of underlying infrastructure and connectivity for digital transformation

Multiple speakers emphasized the critical role of robust digital infrastructure in enabling effective digital governance and resource management in Africa.

Need for digital skills development

Ismaila Ceesay

Uyuyo Edosio

Importance of addressing the digital divide and investing in digital literacy

Need for building digital skills across basic, intermediate, and advanced levels

Speakers agreed on the importance of investing in digital literacy and skills development across all levels to ensure widespread adoption and effective use of digital technologies in governance.

Importance of legal frameworks and data protection

Nasir Aminu

Selma Bakhta Mansouri

Nomalanga Mashinini

Need for a continent-wide data protection authority

Importance of cybersecurity and data protection for trust in digital governance

Need for legal frameworks to ensure responsible use of social media platforms

Multiple speakers highlighted the need for robust legal frameworks and data protection measures to ensure trust, security, and responsible use of digital technologies in governance.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of content moderation and community standards on social media platforms to maintain the integrity of online discourse, especially during elections.

Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi

Mercy Ndegwa

Implementation of content moderation policies and fact-checking partnerships

Importance of self-regulation and community standards for social media users

Both speakers advocated for collaborative approaches in developing governance frameworks for digital technologies, emphasizing the need for cooperation between government, industry, and international stakeholders.

Nomalanga Mashinini

Jimena Sofía Viveros Álvarez

Need for participatory and collaborative approaches between government and industry

Necessity of a unified global governance approach for AI and emerging technologies

Unexpected Consensus

Global approach to AI governance

Jimena Sofía Viveros Álvarez

Nasir Aminu

Necessity of a unified global governance approach for AI and emerging technologies

Need for a continent-wide data protection authority

While focusing on different scales (global vs. continental), both speakers unexpectedly agreed on the need for unified governance structures for emerging technologies and data protection, highlighting a shared recognition of the transboundary nature of digital challenges.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the importance of digital infrastructure, the need for digital skills development, and the significance of legal frameworks and data protection in digital governance. There was also consensus on the role of content moderation and collaborative approaches in developing governance frameworks.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among speakers on key issues related to digital governance in Africa. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the challenges and opportunities presented by digital transformation in governance, which could facilitate more coordinated efforts in policy development and implementation across the continent.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to AI governance

Jimena Sofía Viveros Álvarez

Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi

Necessity of a unified global governance approach for AI and emerging technologies

Implementation of content moderation policies and fact-checking partnerships

Jimena Sofía Viveros Álvarez advocates for a global approach to AI governance, while Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi focuses on national-level content moderation policies and partnerships.

Focus of digital transformation efforts

Ismaila Ceesay

Christina Duarte

Leveraging digital tools for financial inclusion and economic growth

Requirement for strong state institutions to control economic and financial tools

Ismaila Ceesay emphasizes the use of digital tools for financial inclusion, while Christina Duarte stresses the need for strong state institutions to control economic tools.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the approach to AI governance, the focus of digital transformation efforts, and the methods for regulating social media platforms.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there are differences in approaches and focus areas, there is a general consensus on the importance of digital transformation and the need for governance frameworks. These differences reflect the complexity of implementing digital governance in Africa and highlight the need for a multifaceted approach that considers various perspectives and local contexts.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for regulation of social media platforms, but differ in their approaches. Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi focuses on content moderation and fact-checking, Mercy Ndegwa emphasizes self-regulation and community standards, while Nomalanga Mashinini advocates for collaborative approaches between government and industry.

Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi

Mercy Ndegwa

Nomalanga Mashinini

Implementation of content moderation policies and fact-checking partnerships

Importance of self-regulation and community standards for social media users

Need for participatory and collaborative approaches between government and industry

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of content moderation and community standards on social media platforms to maintain the integrity of online discourse, especially during elections.

Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi

Mercy Ndegwa

Implementation of content moderation policies and fact-checking partnerships

Importance of self-regulation and community standards for social media users

Both speakers advocated for collaborative approaches in developing governance frameworks for digital technologies, emphasizing the need for cooperation between government, industry, and international stakeholders.

Nomalanga Mashinini

Jimena Sofía Viveros Álvarez

Need for participatory and collaborative approaches between government and industry

Necessity of a unified global governance approach for AI and emerging technologies

Key Takeaways

Digital technologies offer significant potential to enhance governance, democratic engagement, and resource management in Africa

Challenges remain around digital infrastructure, literacy, and the digital divide that need to be addressed

A multi-stakeholder approach involving governments, tech companies, civil society and international partners is needed for effective digital governance

Legal and ethical frameworks, including data protection and cybersecurity measures, are crucial for building trust in digital governance

Digital transformation can improve economic governance through e-government services, financial inclusion, and data-driven decision making

Resolutions and Action Items

APRM to advocate for establishment of a continent-wide data protection authority

African governments to invest in digital infrastructure and literacy

Tech companies to implement content moderation policies and fact-checking partnerships

African nations to adopt and implement the African Digital Compact and Continental AI Strategy

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively bridge the digital divide between urban and rural areas

Balancing innovation with regulation of emerging technologies like AI

Addressing potential misuse of digital tools for misinformation or election interference

Ensuring equitable access to digital resources and skills across demographics

Suggested Compromises

Balancing government regulation with industry self-regulation of digital platforms

Adapting successful e-governance models from some African countries to others

Leveraging public-private partnerships to accelerate digital infrastructure development

Africa, as we all know, has been going through a lot of challenges, even before independence, slavery, colonialism, and now civil wars in many African countries, apartheid in the Southern African region, and you name it. so many challenges. So therefore, the advancement of good governance is absolutely one of the ultimate objectives that we need to reach before we proceed with the implementation of Agenda 2063, the blueprint for Africa, for building the Africa we want and the Africa we deserve.

speaker

Salah Siddig Hammad

reason

This comment provides important historical context for the governance challenges facing Africa and frames the discussion in terms of long-term development goals.

impact

It set the tone for the discussion by emphasizing the importance of good governance as a prerequisite for Africa’s development agenda. This framing influenced subsequent speakers to consider both historical challenges and future aspirations.

The colonial state that we narrate had essentially two primary functions. Enforcing the rule of law. door to maintain colonial order, normal, logical. Second, resource extraction to serve, as I said, economic interests of these external powers. So this extractive and minimalist model of governance lacks mechanisms for cost-inclusive economic growth, social equity, and long-term development.

speaker

Christina Duarte

reason

This comment provides a critical analysis of the historical roots of governance challenges in Africa, highlighting how colonial structures were not designed for inclusive development.

impact

It deepened the conversation by encouraging participants to consider how historical legacies continue to impact governance in Africa. This historical perspective informed subsequent discussions on the need for transformative approaches to governance.

We need governance that is resilient, that is techno-neutral in order for it to be adaptive to the evolution of the technology itself which is extremely fast-paced and that needs to be generalistic because we cannot separate, it’s dual use by nature, right?

speaker

Jimena Sofía Viveros Álvarez

reason

This comment introduces the important concept of techno-neutral governance, highlighting the need for adaptable and flexible governance frameworks in the face of rapidly evolving technology.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards considering more holistic and forward-looking approaches to governance that can accommodate technological change. This perspective influenced subsequent comments on the need for strategic and adaptive governance models.

Digital literacy is no longer a luxury, it’s actually right now a human right, because the future of the world will be those who are digitally literate or not, and those who are digitally connected or not.

speaker

Uyuyo Edosio

reason

This comment reframes digital literacy as a human right, emphasizing its critical importance in the modern world.

impact

It elevated the urgency of addressing digital literacy and connectivity, influencing the discussion to consider these as fundamental rights rather than optional benefits. This perspective shaped subsequent comments on the need for inclusive digital transformation strategies.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by providing historical context, highlighting the need for transformative and adaptive governance models, and emphasizing the critical importance of digital literacy and connectivity. They encouraged participants to consider both the historical challenges and future aspirations of African governance, while also emphasizing the urgent need for inclusive and forward-looking digital transformation strategies. The discussion evolved from a focus on past challenges to a more strategic consideration of how to leverage technology for inclusive governance and development in Africa.

How to establish a continent-wide data protection authority for Africa

speaker

Nasir Aminu

explanation

This would provide unified oversight, enforce consistent data protection standards, and ensure ethical use of technology across the continent

How to address the digital divide between urban and rural areas, males and females, and across generations in Africa

speaker

Minister of Information of the Republic of Gambia

explanation

Bridging these divides is crucial for ensuring digital transformation benefits all African citizens

How to increase Africa’s data generation and representation in AI models

speaker

Dr. Uyuyo Edosio

explanation

Africa generates the least data globally, leading to underrepresentation in AI models and tools

How to develop and implement local language models for African languages

speaker

Dr. Uyuyo Edosio

explanation

There is currently very little data and few models for Africa’s diverse languages

How to adapt and replicate successful e-governance models across different African countries

speaker

Adeyinka Adeyemi

explanation

Successful models like Rwanda’s Irembo and Zambia’s Smart Zambia initiative could be adapted for use in other African countries

How to ensure political support and commitment from African member states for advancing technological processes

speaker

Salah Siddig Hammad

explanation

Political support is crucial for implementing and advancing technological initiatives across Africa