Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion centered on a high-level session at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum celebrating the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Jordan’s Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) and RIPE NCC, demonstrating successful collaboration between governments and the technical community. The session was hosted by Chafic Chaya, RIPE NCC’s regional manager for public policy and government affairs in the Middle East, and featured multiple distinguished speakers from international organizations and regulatory bodies.

His Excellency Bassam Alsarhan, CEO of Jordan’s TRC, emphasized how strategic partnerships with the technical community are essential for building resilient digital infrastructure and advancing sustainable development goals. He highlighted Jordan’s progress in IPv6 deployment, routing security, and internet measurement tools through collaboration with RIPE NCC. Hans-Peter Holen, CEO of RIPE NCC, stressed that the multi-stakeholder model works best when governments and technical communities collaborate, with technical expertise informing policy and policy driving innovation.

Representatives from various international organizations praised this collaborative approach. The League of Arab States’ Dr. Khaled Wali noted their successful joint initiatives with RIPE NCC, including capacity development and government roundtables. The European Union’s Fabrizia Benini discussed their multi-stakeholder forum for internet standards and upcoming opportunities for technical community participation. Sally Wentworth from the Internet Society emphasized that no single stakeholder can achieve an inclusive information society alone, highlighting their Internet Impact Assessment Framework as a tool for policymakers.

Regional perspectives were shared by representatives from Egypt, Niger, and Croatia, each describing successful collaborations between their regulatory authorities and technical organizations. The discussion concluded with recognition that such partnerships are crucial for achieving digital development goals and connecting the unconnected by 2030, representing a significant milestone in multi-stakeholder internet governance.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments and technical community**: The central theme focused on demonstrating successful partnerships between regulatory bodies and technical organizations, exemplified by the MOU signing between Jordan’s TRC and RIPE NCC, with emphasis on how this collaboration advances sustainable development goals and digital infrastructure.

– **Digital development and connectivity challenges**: Speakers addressed the ongoing work to achieve universal internet access, noting progress from 20% global connectivity in 2005 to two-thirds today, while acknowledging significant gaps remain in reaching the unconnected and achieving SDGs by 2030.

– **Technical capacity building and infrastructure security**: Multiple speakers highlighted collaborative efforts in IPv6 deployment, routing security, internet measurement tools, and cybersecurity standards, with specific examples like the EU’s NIS2 Directive implementation and various regional technical assistance programs.

– **Regional cooperation and knowledge sharing**: The discussion emphasized the importance of regional forums, roundtables, and capacity-building initiatives, with announcements of upcoming events in Cairo and Riyadh, and recognition of successful regional partnerships across the Middle East, Africa, and Europe.

– **WSIS+20 review and future directions**: Speakers reflected on 20 years since the World Summit on the Information Society, discussing the need to re-energize (not rewrite) digital development action lines and strengthen the multi-stakeholder governance model for addressing 2020s challenges.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion served as a high-level ceremonial and strategic session at the WSIS Forum to showcase and celebrate successful government-technical community collaboration, formalized through the MOU signing between Jordan’s Telecommunications Regulatory Commission and RIPE NCC, while building momentum for continued multi-stakeholder partnerships in achieving digital development goals.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was consistently formal, diplomatic, and celebratory throughout the session. It maintained a positive, collaborative spirit with speakers expressing mutual appreciation and commitment to partnership. The atmosphere was ceremonial during the MOU signing but remained substantive as speakers shared concrete examples of successful collaboration and future initiatives. There was no notable shift in tone – it remained professional and optimistic from start to finish, with speakers reinforcing themes of unity, shared responsibility, and collective achievement.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Chafic Chaya** – Regional Manager for Public Policy and Government Affairs for the Middle East at RIPE NCC

– **Bassam Alsarhan** – His Excellency, Engineer, President and CEO of the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) in Jordan

– **Han Petter Holen** – CEO of RIPE NCC

– **Tomas Lamanauskas** – Representative from ITU (International Telecommunication Union)

– **Khaled Wali** – Dr., Plenipotentiary Minister, Head of the ICT Administration at the League of Arab States

– **Fabrizia Benini** – Head of Unit at the European Union

– **Sally Wentworth** – CEO of Internet Society (ISOC)

– **Ahmed Saaed** – Dr., Head of Public Policy and Affairs at the National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (NTRA) in Egypt

– **Anne Rachel Inne** – Director General of the National Information Society Agency in Niger

– **Zdravko Jukic** – Representative from the Regulatory Authority in Croatia, Co-chair of Cyber Security at the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC)

– **Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava** – Dr., Head of ITU-D (ITU Telecommunication Development Bureau)

– **Mia Kulivin** – Member of the Internet Architecture Board in the IETF

– **Wouter de Natris** – Representative of the Dynamic Coalitions of the Internet Governance Forum

– **Participant** – Representative from the UK government (name not clearly mentioned in transcript)

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Summary: WSIS Forum High-Level Session on Government-Technical Community Collaboration

## Introduction and Context

This high-level session at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum focused on demonstrating successful collaboration between governments and the technical community. The session was hosted by Chafic Chaya, RIPE NCC’s Regional Manager for Public Policy and Government Affairs in the Middle East, and featured the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Jordan’s Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) and RIPE NCC. The discussion brought together speakers from international organisations, regulatory bodies, and technical communities to explore how multi-stakeholder partnerships can advance sustainable development goals and digital infrastructure development.

## Central Theme: Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration for Digital Development

The session emphasized that multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments and the technical community represents a practical approach to achieving digital development objectives. Speakers consistently supported the principle that such collaboration is fundamental to effective internet governance and sustainable development.

His Excellency Bassam Alsarhan, CEO of Jordan’s TRC, highlighted how strategic partnerships between regulatory frameworks and technical expertise are essential for building resilient digital infrastructure. He noted Jordan’s progress in IPv6 deployment, routing security, and internet measurement tools through collaboration with RIPE NCC, emphasizing how these partnerships shape “a digital future that serves society and future generations.”

Han Petter Holen, CEO of RIPE NCC, stressed that “the multi-stakeholder model works best when governments and technical community collaborate, with technical expertise informing policy and policy driving innovation.” He explained that RIPE NCC’s role in allocating and registering Internet number resources requires ensuring infrastructure is robust, secure, and inclusive through collaborative approaches.

Ms. Fabrizia Benini, representing the European Union, demonstrated practical implementation of this collaborative model, noting that “the technical community is a linchpin of multi-stakeholder organisation that the EU cannot do without for an open global internet.” She announced the upcoming EU multi-stakeholder forum for Internet Standards that will draft guidelines for practical deployment of IPv6, secure email, and other standards.

Sally Wentworth, CEO of the Internet Society, provided philosophical foundation for this collaboration, stating that “no single stakeholder can achieve an inclusive information society alone; collaboration is intrinsic to mission success.” She introduced the Internet Impact Assessment Framework as a practical tool to help policymakers test public policies against objectives of openness, security, and trustworthiness.

## Regional Perspectives and Capacity Building

The discussion highlighted regional cooperation and capacity building as crucial elements for digital development, with representatives sharing experiences and announcing upcoming initiatives.

Dr. Khaled Wali, representing the League of Arab States, noted that their organisation has prioritised partnerships for capacity development, with Council resolutions from 2021 and 2025 calling for strengthened collaboration with RIPE NCC. He mentioned the 8th edition of the government roundtable held in Amman, Jordan in November, highlighting how joint initiatives have contributed to the Arab Digital Agenda and Cybersecurity Strategy.

Dr. Ahmed Saaed, Head of Public Policy and Affairs at Egypt’s NTRA, announced that Egypt will host a RIPE NCC Roundtable in Cairo in December 2025 to strengthen regional cooperation and align policies with global best practices. He emphasized Egypt’s implementation of IPv6 strategy through ongoing technical assistance, training, and regional coordination with RIPE NCC.

Anne Rachel Inné, Director General of Niger’s National Information Society Agency, provided perspective from a developing nation context, emphasizing that “success demands unity and shared commitment, following the African philosophy of Ubuntu – ‘I am because we are.'” She highlighted Niger’s partnerships with tech innovators for specific solutions including AgriShop, Doudou (agricultural library), E-Santé Niger, and LictaCare, demonstrating practical applications of collaboration in addressing development challenges.

Zdravko Jukic from Croatia’s Regulatory Authority noted that regional roundtables allow countries with similar market situations to discuss technical issues openly. He shared Croatia’s experience in implementing the NIS2 Directive through broad stakeholder involvement and mentioned Croatia’s 8th National IGF edition in Opatija.

## Technical Infrastructure and Policy Development

Speakers emphasized how government-technical community partnerships are essential for developing robust technical infrastructure, particularly in IPv6 deployment, routing security, and cybersecurity measures.

Dr. Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava, Head of ITU-D, emphasized the need for practical focus in collaboration, stating that “words are sweet, but food is better. So we want the results and the impact on human life on the planet and bring prosperity to the people.” He announced the ITU Global Symposium for Regulators to be held from 31st August to 3rd October in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and noted ITU-D’s support for digital development through a joint declaration with RIPE NCC in Jordan for IPv6 development.

Mia Kulivin, representing the Internet Architecture Board in the IETF, provided insight into how technical standards organisations operate, noting that “the IETF needs broad input from all stakeholders and works with ISOC to bring policymakers into their processes.” She emphasized that the IETF maintains and evolves internet standards used daily, requiring continuous collaboration across stakeholder groups.

The UK representative supported re-energising WSIS digital development action lines and pushing for a permanent IGF mandate, emphasizing that “governments need to work with the tech community to better understand the technology and what it can and can’t do, but we also need the tech community to work with governments to better understand policy making and how that works as well.”

Walter Natwiss, representing the Dynamic Coalitions of the Internet Governance Forum, highlighted the need for better integration of the IGF’s intersessional work on cutting-edge themes with WSIS action lines and SDGs, noting that ongoing work on themes like health, inclusion, and cybersecurity needs more recognition and integration with broader digital development frameworks.

## Sustainable Development Goals and Digital Inclusion

Speakers consistently linked collaborative efforts to achieving broader Sustainable Development Goals and digital inclusion objectives. The UK representative noted that “despite global connectivity rising to two-thirds of population, SDGs haven’t made desired progress and huge amounts remain to be done,” highlighting the gap between technical achievements in connectivity and broader development outcomes.

Chafic Chaya reinforced this connection, stating that “internet and connectivity is the life and blood for social and economic development in the digital age,” emphasizing how technical collaboration directly supports broader development objectives.

## Key Outcomes and Commitments

The session produced several concrete outcomes:

**Immediate commitments**: Egypt will host a RIPE NCC Roundtable meeting in Cairo in December 2025. The EU will publish a call for participation in its multi-stakeholder forum for Internet Standards, with the forum becoming operational by October.

**Upcoming events**: The ITU Global Symposium for Regulators will be held from 31st August to 3rd October in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

**Ongoing initiatives**: Continued implementation of Egypt’s IPv6 strategy through technical assistance and training with RIPE NCC, and continued work with the global tech community through various regional tech hubs.

## Future Challenges

Several areas require continued attention:

– Better integration of the Internet Governance Forum’s intersessional work with WSIS action lines and SDGs

– Broader stakeholder engagement beyond traditional participants in government sectors

– Addressing the gap between technical connectivity achievements and SDG progress

– Developing specific mechanisms for the tech community to provide more input to government policymaking processes

## Conclusion

The session demonstrated that multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments and the technical community represents a practical approach to digital development challenges. The MOU signing between Jordan’s TRC and RIPE NCC served as a concrete example of how such partnerships can be formalized and implemented effectively.

The announced initiatives and commitments provide clear pathways for continued collaboration, with technical expertise informing policy and policy driving innovation. The discussion reinforced that achieving digital development goals requires sustained collaboration across all stakeholder groups to connect the unconnected by 2030.

Chafic Chaya: Basmati, and Mr. Mohammad Mohamad Sharif, Peace Center for Peace Research and Development , which is hosted by Ahmad Yusuf Mahmoud Safarใ . Good morning and welcome. Good morning to all of you. I am delighted to have 10 guests to speak. First of all, on behalf of the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission in Jordan, TRC, and the RIPE NCC, it is my pleasure to welcome you to this exceptional session today to assist. My name is Shafiq Shaya, I am serving as regional manager for public policy and government affairs for the Middle East at RIPE NCC. Today, I believe the theme of this session speaks for itself. It is about the importance of collaboration between governments and technical community. It is not only a slogan, it is proven, and it is practical, and here today we are to showcase this successful collaboration. All of us know that we are living in this digital age, where Internet and connectivity is the life and blood for social and economic development. So today we are not just talking about the digital age, but we are demonstrating the implementation of this collaboration. So without further ado, I would like to welcome His Excellency, engineer Bassam Srahan, the president and CEO of the Regulatory Telecommunications Commission in Jordan, to give his remarks. Your Excellency, for his use. Thank you. Thank you, Shafiq. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Bassam Alsarhan: Thank you. Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, it is a true pleasure, to have all of you today joining us in this high-level session that showcases the strength and impact of multi-stakeholder collaboration in advancing sustainable development goals. The signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between TRC of Jordan and the RIPE NCC, witnessed by the Deputy Secretary General of the ITU, represents a pivotal milestone in our shared vision for building resilient, inclusive, and secure digital infrastructure. At TRC, we have consistently recognized the vital role of strategic partnership with the technical community. We firmly believe that combining robust regulatory frameworks with deep technical expertise is essential to shaping a digital future that is both sustainable and secure. Through our collaboration with RIPE NCC and our broader network of international and local stakeholders, we have made tangible progress in enhancing national capabilities, including IPv6 deployment, routing security, and internet measurement tools. I would also like to proudly highlight that Jordan hosted the ITU Regional Development Forum earlier this year, reaffirming our country’s position as a regional hub for digital innovation and cooperation. In addition, TRC Jordan has the honor of hosting Government Roundtable in Amman. and Mr. Tomas Lamanauskas, H.E. Eng. Bassam Alsarhan, Ms. Fabrizia Benini, H.E. Dr. Khaled Wali, Ms. Anne Rachel Inné, Dr. Chafic Chaya and Mr. Han Petter Holen, H.E. Dr. Khaled Wali, Ms. Fabrizia Benini, H.E. Eng. Bassam Alsarhan, Mr. Han Petter Holen, H.E. Dr. Khaled Wali, Ms. Fabrizia Benini, H.E. Dr. Khaled Wali, Ms. Anne Rachel Inné, Dr. Chafic Chaya and Mr. Tomas Lamanauskas, H.E. Eng. Bassam Alsarhan, Ms. Anne Rachel Inné, Dr. Khaled Wali, Ms. Anne Rachel Inné, H.E. Dr. Khaled Wali, Ms. Anne Rachel Inné, Dr. our society and future generations and the humanity in general. Thank you very much.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you, Your Excellency. Thank you for sharing your insights. Now I invite Mr. Hans-Peter Hollen, the CEO of RAPP-NCC, to offer, to give his remarks.

Han Petter Holen: Thank you, Sofiq. Excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, it’s a great honor to welcome you to this unique gathering to be here today alongside His Excellency Bassam Alsarhan, an esteemed guest from the League of Arab States, the European Union, the ITU, the Internet Society, National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority in Egypt, the National Information Society Agency in Niger and the Regulatory Authority in Croatia. The signature of this MOU between the RAPP-NCC and the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Jordan marks a significant step, one that builds capacity, fosters collaboration and promotes secure, resilient Internet infrastructure, supporting Jordan’s digital transformation agenda and strengthening the technical foundation. necessary to achieve the sustainable development goals. This MOU builds our ongoing engagement and initiatives in Jordan from IPv6 deployment to routing security and capacity building at all levels. Our role as regional Internet registry is naturally global, yet it’s also extremely local and regional. The RIPE NCC, as an important part of the technical community, allocate and register Internet number resources that form the foundation of the Internet. But we also work hand in hand with our members, governments, regulators, academia, civil society and the private sector to ensure that this infrastructure is robust, secure and inclusive. Today’s signature is a testament to that spirit of collaboration and partnership. It reflects our shared belief that the multi-stakeholder model works best when governments and the technical community collaborate, with technical expertise informing policy and policy driving innovation. As we mark 20 years since WSIS, let’s look ahead to a new area of collaboration built on the joint efforts of governments, the technical community and all stakeholders grounded on multi-stakeholder partnership. Thank you, Your Excellency for the trust, and thank you all Excellencies, colleagues and friends here today for your presence and support. Together, let’s shape the future of the Internet, the foundation of the future information society. Thank you. Thank you, Hans-Peter. Thank you so much. With this, we move to the signature of the OMU. So please, Dr. Issa, can we give the copies for Dr. Assam and Mr. Hans-Peter. As you can see, once again, this is the showcasing how a successful collaboration between technical community and governments can achieve the SDGs and the digital future for all of us. Thank you once again for being with us today.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you very much, Thomas, to be with us today. I know you’re busy schedule, so I will give you the floor to give your remarks. Thank you. Thank you. And indeed, thank you. Mission

Tomas Lamanauskas: engineer and thank you very much. I really appreciate you allowing me to witness signing of this MOU today, but also doing this here at WSIS. I think this is exactly what WSIS platform forum should be, that platform for different stakeholders to come together, for the governments and regulators in this regard, from the technical community, and really build those stronger partnerships within this platform. So for us, that’s really very meaningful that this happens. Of course, it’s even a bigger pleasure that this MOU is being signed between the two organizations that we very closely collaborate with and we work together with. Of course, engineer mentioned the regional development forum and our PM that thank you for that. And of course, RIPE NCC is our treasured sector member and strong involvement. We invite you to different activities, and again, it’s a great pleasure that these two organizations here again reaffirm their partnership. So the only thing is, I would like to say, so long live the partnership for the benefit of the people of Jordan and the Middle East and for the benefit of digital development. So thank you very much. And everyone here, more and more youth here, and the more welcome. So take an example. Thank you very much.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you. Thank you, Tomas. Thank you so much. Just before you leave, we’ll take a group photo, please. 30 seconds for your time, Your Excellencies, to have a group photo with Tomas. Please, Your Excellency. Please, Mr. Genk. Photo for all the speakers, please. Dr. Khaled, Mr. Mahmoud Elia. Sally. A group photo, yes, with the speakers. Mr. Tomas, a little bit on this side, because of the screen. Please, if you move a little bit from your left side, please. Until there? Yeah. Because of the screen, the light is not good there. Sorry about that. It’s good. Okay. Okay. This way. This way, ladies and gentlemen. This way. One more. Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Tomas. With this, we will continue with our guests. Our next speaker is from the League of Arab States, Dr. Khaled Wali, who is the plenipotentiary minister, head of the ICT administration. Dr. Khaled, please. Thank you.

Khaled Wali: Thank you, Shafiq. Excellencies, colleagues, delegates, it’s my pleasure to speak today on behalf of the League of Arab States as we commemorate 20 years since the World Summit on the Information Society. This occasion is not only a reflection on the past. but a commitment to building an inclusive, secure digital future. Throughout the years, the League has prioritized partnerships that empower our member states to advance digital development and internet governance. One particularly successful collaboration has been with RIPE NCC, an organization that brings deep technical expertise and long-standing commitment to multi-stakeholder engagement. Together, we have engaged in joint initiatives ranging from capacity development to high-level government roundtables, including the most recent, the 8th edition in Amman, Jordan, which took place last November. Our collaboration extends to strategic frameworks where RIPE NCC has contributed to the Arab Digital Agenda, the Arab Cybersecurity Strategy, and the Arab IGF, working with us to ensure our regional priorities and aligned with global internet government efforts. In addition, through our joint engagement and contribution to the Arab Working Group on Internet Issues, RIPE NCC has helped shape regional discussions on internet infrastructure governance and regional digital cooperation. This partnership has not gone unnoticed. In 2021, the Council of Arab Ministers passed a resolution calling on Arab governments to strengthen their collaboration with RIPE NCC to foster the internet development in the Arab region, and just this year, in 2025, another resolution encouraging Arab governments to cooperate with RIPE NCC. Excellencies and colleagues, the success of this collaboration demonstrates what is possible when the technical community and governments work hand-in-hand, each respecting the roles and strengths of the other. Thank you.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you, Dr. Khaled, and thanks for your engagement and your support. We did a lot, and we have a long journey ahead. Our next speaker is Ms. Fabrizia Benini, Head of Unit

Fabrizia Benini: Thank you very much and good morning everyone. So I’m really very happy to have this opportunity to discuss with the tech community and this should not be a surprise because for decades the European Union has stood by an open global internet that is based and centred on the multi-stakeholder community and of course the tech community is a linchpin of that organisation and indeed something that we could not do without, let us be very clear. Now in WISIS, as we come up to the review, this position has been officially endorsed by 27 Member States in the Council and so therefore we stand united here before you to renew our commitment to the technical community and thank you for your support and work. Now RIPE NCC is a good example of that, you contribute to the general operational stability, you promote better inter-cyber security ways of working and indeed that collaboration with us, which is regular and constructive, has delivered tangible results. Tangible results that we see in particular in the implementation of the NIS2 Directive, which sets out a set of requirements for better cyber security standards that fall onto certain entities that are particularly exposed because of the trans-border work. Now in that framework there is an aspect which talks about internet standards. The increased development, sorry the increased The Commission has set up an EU multi-stakeholder forum for Internet Standards, and the objective of that group, which brings together the technical community, is to draft guidelines to make sure that there are practical steps that organizations can take to make sure that those Internet Standards are deployed. We’re talking about IPv6, we’re talking about secure email, etc. You all know that, so I don’t need to repeat it. But what I wanted to draw your attention to is that there is going to be a call for participation in that forum that is going to be published in the coming weeks, and that call of course will allow us to select the best and the brightest amongst you to contribute to those drafting of the guidelines. We hope to have the forum up and running by October, so when you mentioned that you wanted to talk not only about collaboration but in fact implementation, this is one such example. We can’t go forward in a secure global Internet without you, and we are really very grateful for your contribution and look forward to continuing it. Thank you very much.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you so much for your insights, and yes, this is what we are looking for, agile regulation policy based on technical expertise. Thank you so much. I will move to the CEO of ISOC, Internet Society, Ms. Sally Wentworth. Sally, the floor is yours. Thank you.

Sally Wentworth: Thank you very much, and first I want to congratulate our colleagues at RIPE NCC. and the TRC for the MOU. I think that’s a wonderful reflection on the kind of collaboration that we all seek, I think, within the technical community with policymakers as we try to build out towards a truly inclusive information society. So congratulations and thank you for having me here today. The Internet Society is a global organization dedicated to a vision that the Internet is for everyone. And we have been doing the work that we do on connectivity and Internet governance and pushing towards an open and trustworthy Internet across the globe for over 30 years. And that work has been grounded in a vision and a view that we, no one stakeholder, can achieve the vision of a truly inclusive information society on its own. And that includes the role of the technical community in ensuring that the Internet is stable, secure, trustworthy, resilient, affordable, present everywhere. But we do that within a context, and that context is often set by the policy frameworks that governments and international and regional organizations set around the world. And the work that we do to work alongside governments, with governments, is really intrinsic to how we want to approach our mission and our work. There are many things that the Internet Society does to collaborate with governments, including capacity building. We work with our colleagues, several of whom are here, from the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Architecture Board, to bring policy makers into the IETF to demonstrate how that open standards model is working to support the global Internet. We also ensure that the work that we do to bring connectivity to some of the hardest-to-reach places around the world is done in collaboration with local policymakers, whether that’s through workshops, whether to understand the local needs, through partnership with our chapters around the world. This kind of relationship is incredibly important to us. The last thing I would say is, for some time, we recognized that policymakers have a really, really difficult job. The work you’re doing to try to advance the public interest in your countries is incredibly important and very difficult to do in a fast-moving and changing digital environment. Some years ago, we started thinking about what we could do to help policymakers on that journey, and we developed something called an Internet Impact Assessment Framework. The idea is to recognize the public interest concerns that governments have, but also the commitment, as we heard from the European Commission, to an open and secure multi-stakeholder Internet, and to try to create a framework in which policymakers could test public policies against those objectives of openness and security and trustworthiness. Almost similar to how you would do an environmental impact assessment if you were going to build a bridge or a building somewhere, we think it’s useful to do an Internet Impact Assessment to understand the impact of policies and what tradeoffs there might be. This is something that I offer to you as a tool. There are many tools to use. But, again, a recognition that there are public interests that we all share. I think that’s reflected in the MOU here today. And we are really honored and pleased to be part of that, to be part of that collaboration. And I think it’s the only way where we will finally achieve the results of the WSIS that we all envisioned 20 years ago. So thank you.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you, Sally. Thank you so much. And yes, our engagement with governments and with your team and colleagues at the ISOC is really very practical and proven on the ground. Thank you. I will move now to the Telecommunication Regulatory Authority in Egypt. On the agenda, we had His Excellency Mohamed Shamroukh, the president of the agency. But for an emergency, he left yesterday to Egypt. So we have here our dear friend, Dr. Ahmed Saeed, head of public policy and affairs. Dr. Ahmed, the floor is yours.

Ahmed Saaed: Thank you, Shafiq. And thank you, Your Excellency, Engineer Bassam and Hans, for inviting us to this important roundtable. It’s a true honor to join you today and take part of this important session of WSIS Forum, an event that continues to embody the spirit of multi-stakeholder collaboration in shaping a secure, inclusive, and sustainable digital future. Egypt’s participation reflects our strong belief in the power of international cooperation. and H.E. Dr. Khaled Wali, Mr. Han Petter Holen, H.E. Dr. Khaled Wali, Ms. Anne Rachel NTRA and RIPE NCC are currently building a solid cooperation and partnership. This partnership encompasses both technical capacity-building and collaborative engagement in the Internet Government process. Together we are planning to work to support the policymaking process, enhance regional technical expertise and promote secure and stable Internet development. As we look to the future, NTRA is proud to deepen the collaboration with RIPE NCC in supporting the implementation phase of Egypt’s IPv6 strategy through ongoing technical assistance, training and regional coordination efforts. Also, we are excited to announce that Egypt will host the RIPE NCC Roundtable meeting in Cairo in December 2025, a high-level gathering that will bring together regulators, policymakers and network operators from across the region to exchange ideas, strengthen cooperation and align national policies and global best practices. Another example is our collaboration with the ITU. NTRA maintains a longstanding and strategic partnership with the International Telecommunication Union built on the shared values of connectivity, innovation and inclusive development. Through active participation in ITU study groups, conferences and regional initiatives, NTRA contributes to shaping global telecom policies, advancing regulatory best practices and fostering capacity building. across the Arab region. This collaboration supports Egypt’s digital transformation agenda while reinforcing multilateral efforts to create a secure, resilient, and equitable global digital environment. We actively engage across all ITU sectors and proudly hold leadership positions with each of them. In summary, NTRA remains deeply committed to continuing this journey and to working hand-in-hand with all stakeholders, governments, and the private sector, civil society, and technical community to ensure that no one is left behind on our shared digital future. To close, I would like to warmly invite you all to join us in Cairo in December for the dedicated DRIVE-NCC roundtable meeting. This gathering will serve as a key opportunity to deepen our collaboration, exchange insights, and collectively advance a more resilient, inclusive, and forward-looking digital future for our region. Thank you.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you, Dr. Fahez. Thank you. And thank you for the invitation. It will be a pleasure and honor to be in Cairo in December. Thank you so much. I’ll move online. We have one speaker online from Niger to hear from the African perspective, Ms. Anne Rachel Inné, Director General from National Information Society Agency in Niger. Anne Rachel, you are with us.

Anne Rachel Inne: I am, Shafiq. Good morning. Good morning. We hear you. The floor is yours. Please. Thank you very much. And I’m glad to see you all. And apologies for not being able to join you, but it’s great to have the internet to be able to interact even remotely. So congratulations to DRIVE-NCC in the TRC Jordan for signing this MOU. And thank you for inviting me to participate to this gathering on the anniversary of WSIS 20th year. We’ve come a long way. and we’ve come a long way because the collaboration has been part of it. It is really an honor to be here and to talk about how in a world of interconnected challenges we know that can drive progress alone and success demands unity and what I call what everybody in Africa calls Ubuntu, the African philosophy that basically says, you know, I am because we are and it’s a shared commitment and it’s the only way we can drive innovation for good. Niger is a landlocked country and we have quite a few challenges and opportunities and we face present challenges like insecurity, climate issues, limited infrastructure, gaps in education and health care. But within those challenges we do see, you know, quite immense opportunities. Our greatest resource is not just land or minerals but the people. We have a very youthful population and their resilience, ingenuity and willingness to collaborate is something that is definitely, you know, those are basically the attributes we’re counting on to make sure that we succeed. So, some of those success stories include, you know, collaboration work in digital, for example, and food security since we’re talking about achieving the SDGs. So, in terms of agriculture for food security, for example, we have partnered with tech innovators in, you know, deploying mobile platforms like AgriShop. or Doudou. Doudou, for example, is a full library on agriculture and pastoralism. Niger is a place where we have a lot of agriculturists and pastoralists, and it is important that they get the information that they need, you know, online, but not only online, actually, it has to be in local languages. So those are some of the things that we’re doing, and these platforms, for example, provide farmers with real-time weather forecasts, market prices, farming techniques that, of course, have resulted in crop yields, increased crop yields, reduced post-harvest losses, empowered smallholder farmers as a whole in agriculture. So in terms of renewable energy, for example, we have done quite a few things in terms of partnerships with technical experts also, and we have expanded mini solar grids locally that have also empowered quite a few communities. Other national projects include e-governance and public service delivery. This is really what the national agency is working on, on the whole right now, to be able to produce as much as possible we’re hoping, you know, 45 to 50 percent of citizen services to be accessible by 2030. And this is really a great challenge, but we are collaborating with local tech startups in digitizing administrative processes, reducing bureaucracy, and of course corruption. We have initiatives in the health sector also, like E-Santé Niger, that is working a lot with, on making sure that local communities can have access to medical care, and also getting, for example, a few startups that are like LictaCare that are making sure to produce national equipment in terms of setting them up, for example, in other national hospitals and all of that, that can help transmission of information from doctors in between health care centers, for example, where we don’t have specialists and things like that. So in terms of the role of its stakeholders, I’m really glad to see this MOU again from RIPE and TRC Jordan, just because it is absolutely important. Governments it is absolutely important. Governments create enabling policies. We do have, you know, they invest in digital infrastructure. They foster public-private partnerships. Private sector and NGOs have a role to play. Citizens have a role to play. So in terms of strengthening collaboration, we absolutely need a lot more of these MOUs. We need to build trust and transparency. And the only way we can do that is to make sure that we talk to each other. Traditionally, one of the things that I have said to some of my colleagues is that, you know, when we do this type of things, meetings and all of that, we always end up talking to each other. So we really need this trust and this transparency to go to each sector of governments, not only the regular suspects, in terms of making sure they understand how the machine works and what’s in it for them, actually, you know. So to leverage regional and global partnerships is one of the things that we’re doing, investing in local talent. is one another thing that we’re doing. And we’re really hoping that from governments, technologists, businesses and communities, we have to understand that we need to unite to turn obstacles into opportunities. It is crucial. So we need to commit to deepening these partnerships. The future we want is one of resilience, and it is full of opportunity. It is within our grasp, and we can do it. So thank you very much for listening, and thanks for having me today. And have a good day, all. Enjoy WSIS Plus 20 Forum.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you. Thank you, Anne Rachel. Thank you. And just to comment, this didn’t come from vacuum. We are working for this for a longer years, and trust and transparency, yes, one of the main pillars that this MOU is based on. Thank you, Anne Rachel. We’ll go for Mr. Zdravko Djokovic from the Regulator Authority in Croatia, and he is the co-chair of the Cyber Security at the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, BEREC. Mr. Djokovic.

Zdravko Jukic: Thanks very much, Shafik, dear excellencies, colleagues, and dear RIPE NCC team, thanks for inviting me to this roundtable. I could name many good examples of good cooperation with governments and technical community and other stakeholders, but for this occasion I have picked three, I think, very good examples of this cooperation. First one is the Croatian National IGF. So we just had our 8th edition of the National IGF in Opatija, a very nice place by the sea, just one week before the Global IGF, where we had also a very was among the first member states to fully transpose it in national legal systems. So I can say that this was, as a national regulatory authority, we were a member of this team, but it was driven by the Central Authority for Cybersecurity in Croatia, and they really involved very broad participants from all the stakeholders, especially technical community and private sector. And the third example is, of course, as was already mentioned, the RIPE NCC roundtables, and especially those localized regional roundtables where we can sit down and discuss among countries that have similar situations on their markets, similar problems, and then we can openly discuss technical issues that RIPE NCC can help us. So I’m really looking forward to next editions of those roundtables. And maybe as some kind of conclusion of all these engagements with different stakeholders, is that it really makes sense to engage them when they have some clear interest, and they are really very active in participating in those discussions. I think that’s all for this time for me. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank

Chafic Chaya: you. Just, I want to welcome a friend, a colleague, Dr. Zava Zava, the head Zarrabi, Head of ITUD, to join us. I know you have busy schedule today, but it’s an honor to have you with us. I will give you the floor to make your remarks. Thank you.

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava: Okay, so this is a true ambush. I would like to thank, I recognize of course the presence of the minister who hosted us during the regional preparatory meeting in Jordan and took great care of us. We in the ITU and in the Telecommunication Development Bureau believe in everything that is digital. So our doors are open. We are ready to engage. We are ready to move. Words are sweet, but food is better. So we want the results and the impact on human life on the planet and bring prosperity to the people. I would like to take and abuse this opportunity and invite you to the Global Symposium for Regulators to be held from the 31st of August to the 3rd of October in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. You are most welcome. The minister is welcome. We have a high segment where we want the regulators to speak to policymakers and policymakers to speak to industry, chiefs of industry. So we welcome this signing of life. He’s a friend, also a member of ITU-D, and we support whatever you are going to sign. I haven’t seen anything,

Chafic Chaya: but thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. And by the way, this MOU is the, you know, we, last February in Jordan, just to give Dr. Zabazab our respect and consideration, that we signed a joint declaration with the ITU-D in Jordan for the development of IPV.

Participant: RIPE NCC for offering myself the opportunity to sit on this panel today. So the UK is a strong supporter of the multi-stakeholder model of global internet governance. The tech community are absolutely key alongside industry, government, civil society, academia, etc. And embedding the multi-stakeholder governance model has been a great success of the WSIS process to date, and we believe this is now a settled consensus. We must stay on our guard, but we don’t believe that anyone is seriously looking to reopen this. However, while global connectivity has risen from below 20% at the start of WSIS back in 2005, it’s now risen to two-thirds of the global population. This is a huge achievement, but the SDGs have not made the progress I think we all wanted to see in this regard, and there’s huge amounts still to do. And one of the key themes of the WSIS review is going to be the need to re-energise, but not rewrite, but re-energise the digital development action lines to reflect the reality of the 2020s that we now live in. And in the UK, we see the technical community as key partners in this challenge. But to achieve these goals, governments need to work with the tech community to better understand the technology and what it can and can’t do, but we also need the tech community to work with governments to better understand policy making and how that works as well. So it is great to see the tech community here in Geneva out in force, ISTAR organisations such as the Internet Society, ICANN, regional registries, not least RIPE NCC, but also seeing digital standards bodies as well like ITUT, the Internet Engineering Task Force, IEEE as well. It’s great that the tech community is all here in Geneva. In my view, a key task H.E. Dr. H.E. Mohamed Shamroukh, H.E. Dr. Khaled Wali, Ms. Anne Rachel Inné, Dr. Chafic Chaya It’s great to see elsewhere in the tech community, for example, ICANN’s efforts through its Applicant Support Programme to encourage G77 countries to apply for the next round of global top-level domain names. Similarly, efforts to promote multilingualism and minority scripts, and we welcome the efforts by standards event organisations as well to be more open and to promote their diversity. Governments have a role as well, of course, so the UK will continue to work closely with the global tech community and ask what more they can do. It needs to be a two-way conversation. We need the tech community to come to us as well with their suggestions and ideas as well. For the UK, we have a new digital development strategy and we’ll continue to support and implement our own digital access programme, our support for ITUD, and also our network of tech hubs in places like Brazil, South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, and Indonesia. And as well as reinvigorating the WSIS action lines, we’ll push for a permanent mandate for the IGF. So just to conclude, if we can increase this momentum, I hope by 2030, we will be in touching distance of connecting the unconnected in reality and achieving that momentous goal together. Thank you very much.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you so much. Once again, thank you for being with us today. And yes, I can say that the A-team The RIRs, ICANN, ISOC, IATF, are there to work with you and to collaborate with you all. So I will give the floor. If we have any questions, I can give two or three minutes for the floor. If there’s any question or any remarks, any feedbacks. Yes, we have one question. Please, can you introduce yourself? Thank you.

Mia Kulivin: My name is Mia Kulivin. I’m a member of the Internet Architecture Board in the IETF. And I just wanted to join the chorus here about how important it is to work together. The IETF is the main standards organization that works on internet standards that you’re using every day. We are maintaining and evolving them continuously. And of course, because we’re all using the internet every day, there are social and political questions that come up in this processes as well. So we need broad input from all of you. The IETF is an open organization, so everybody can come and join, but we know that’s not enough. Sometimes we don’t speak the same language. Sometimes we just need to talk more, and that’s why it’s important to have these forums. But we also do a lot together with ISOC, actually, to bring in policy makers to understand our process, to build trust. That’s also something you mentioned. And yeah, I just wanna join that. It’s very inspiring to see that everybody’s here to talk to each other, and we need to continue that. Thank you.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you so much for this contribution. And yes, we can’t agree more. Thank you. Yeah. One last question, please.

Wouter de Natris: My name is Walter Natwiss, and I represent the Dynamic Coalitions of the Internet Governance Forum here in Geneva, I think where I am always traveling. But I think that what is important to understand that the Internet Governance Forum is often seen as a one-day, one-week event every year, but there’s a lot of intersessional work going on on cutting-edge themes like health, like inclusion, cybersecurity, et cetera, et cetera. And I think that work needs more recognition and more integration in also getting to the WSIS and the Action Blinds and the SDGs, because we’re-

Chafic Chaya: and H.E. Eng. Bassam Alsarhan, H.E. Eng. Bassam Alsarhan, H.E. Eng. Bassam Alsarhan, H.E. Eng. Bassam Alsarhan, H.E. Eng. Bassam Alsarhan, H.E. Eng. Bassam Alsarhan, H.E. Eng. David, thank you for being with us. Thank you so much.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for digital development and internet governance

Speakers

– Bassam Alsarhan
– Han Petter Holen
– Tomas Lamanauskas
– Fabrizia Benini
– Sally Wentworth
– Anne Rachel Inne
– Participant
– Mia Kulivin
– Chafic Chaya

Arguments

Strategic partnerships between regulatory frameworks and technical expertise are essential for sustainable digital infrastructure

Multi-stakeholder model works best when governments and technical community collaborate, with technical expertise informing policy and policy driving innovation

WSIS platform should facilitate collaboration between different stakeholders including governments, regulators, and technical community

The technical community is a linchpin of multi-stakeholder organization that the EU cannot do without for an open global internet

No single stakeholder can achieve an inclusive information society alone; collaboration is intrinsic to mission success

Success demands unity and shared commitment, following the African philosophy of Ubuntu – ‘I am because we are’

Multi-stakeholder governance model has been a great success of WSIS and is now settled consensus

The IETF needs broad input from all stakeholders and works with ISOC to bring policymakers into their processes

Collaboration between governments and technical community is not just a slogan but proven and practical

Summary

All speakers unanimously agree that multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments, technical community, and other stakeholders is fundamental to achieving digital development goals and effective internet governance. They view this as a proven, practical approach rather than just theoretical concept.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Technical infrastructure development requires government-technical community partnership

Speakers

– Bassam Alsarhan
– Han Petter Holen
– Khaled Wali
– Fabrizia Benini
– Ahmed Saaed

Arguments

Tangible progress has been made in IPv6 deployment, routing security, and internet measurement tools through collaboration

RIPE NCC allocates and registers Internet number resources that form the foundation of the Internet while ensuring infrastructure is robust, secure and inclusive

Joint initiatives have ranged from capacity development to government roundtables, contributing to Arab Digital Agenda and Cybersecurity Strategy

EU multi-stakeholder forum for Internet Standards will draft guidelines for practical deployment of IPv6, secure email, and other standards

Egypt is implementing IPv6 strategy through ongoing technical assistance, training and regional coordination with RIPE NCC

Summary

Speakers agree that technical infrastructure development, particularly IPv6 deployment and cybersecurity measures, requires close collaboration between government regulators and technical organizations like RIPE NCC to achieve concrete results.

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity | Development

Regional cooperation and capacity building are crucial for digital development

Speakers

– Bassam Alsarhan
– Khaled Wali
– Ahmed Saaed
– Anne Rachel Inne
– Zdravko Jukic
– Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Arguments

Jordan has positioned itself as a regional hub for digital innovation, hosting ITU Regional Development Forum and Government Roundtables

League of Arab States has prioritized partnerships for capacity development, with Council resolutions calling for strengthened collaboration with RIPE NCC

Egypt will host RIPE NCC Roundtable in Cairo in December 2025 to strengthen regional cooperation and align policies with global best practices

Niger leverages partnerships with tech innovators for agriculture platforms, renewable energy, e-governance, and healthcare solutions

Regional roundtables allow countries with similar market situations to discuss technical issues openly

ITU-D supports digital development and signed joint declaration with RIPE NCC in Jordan for IPv6 development

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize the importance of regional cooperation through roundtables, forums, and capacity building initiatives to share knowledge, align policies, and address common challenges in digital development.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Digital connectivity is fundamental to achieving Sustainable Development Goals

Speakers

– Han Petter Holen
– Sally Wentworth
– Participant
– Chafic Chaya

Arguments

Building capacity, fostering collaboration and promoting secure Internet infrastructure supports sustainable development goals

Internet Impact Assessment Framework helps policymakers test public policies against objectives of openness, security and trustworthiness

Despite global connectivity rising to two-thirds of population, SDGs haven’t made desired progress and huge amounts remain to be done

Internet and connectivity is the life and blood for social and economic development in the digital age

Summary

Speakers agree that internet connectivity and digital infrastructure are essential foundations for achieving broader sustainable development objectives, though significant work remains to be done.

Topics

Development | Economic | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Arab region representatives share a common approach of positioning their countries as regional hubs for digital cooperation and hosting international forums to facilitate knowledge sharing and policy alignment.

Speakers

– Bassam Alsarhan
– Ahmed Saaed
– Khaled Wali

Arguments

Jordan has positioned itself as a regional hub for digital innovation, hosting ITU Regional Development Forum and Government Roundtables

Egypt will host RIPE NCC Roundtable in Cairo in December 2025 to strengthen regional cooperation and align policies with global best practices

Joint initiatives have ranged from capacity development to government roundtables, contributing to Arab Digital Agenda and Cybersecurity Strategy

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

European representatives emphasize practical implementation of cybersecurity standards through multi-stakeholder collaboration, particularly in the context of EU directives and frameworks.

Speakers

– Fabrizia Benini
– Zdravko Jukic

Arguments

EU multi-stakeholder forum for Internet Standards will draft guidelines for practical deployment of IPv6, secure email, and other standards

Croatia successfully transposed NIS2 Directive through broad stakeholder involvement including technical community and private sector

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory | Development

Technical community representatives emphasize the need for tools and processes that bridge the gap between technical expertise and policy-making, facilitating better understanding and collaboration.

Speakers

– Sally Wentworth
– Mia Kulivin

Arguments

Internet Impact Assessment Framework helps policymakers test public policies against objectives of openness, security and trustworthiness

The IETF needs broad input from all stakeholders and works with ISOC to bring policymakers into their processes

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Ubuntu philosophy and collective responsibility in digital development

Speakers

– Anne Rachel Inne
– Sally Wentworth
– Chafic Chaya

Arguments

Success demands unity and shared commitment, following the African philosophy of Ubuntu – ‘I am because we are’

No single stakeholder can achieve an inclusive information society alone; collaboration is intrinsic to mission success

Collaboration between governments and technical community is not just a slogan but proven and practical

Explanation

Unexpectedly, speakers from different continents and organizations converged on a philosophical understanding of collective responsibility, with the African Ubuntu philosophy resonating with technical and policy communities globally, suggesting a deeper cultural alignment in digital governance approaches.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Practical implementation focus over theoretical discussions

Speakers

– Fabrizia Benini
– Chafic Chaya
– Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava
– Ahmed Saaed

Arguments

EU multi-stakeholder forum for Internet Standards will draft guidelines for practical deployment of IPv6, secure email, and other standards

Agile regulation and policy should be based on technical expertise

ITU-D supports digital development and signed joint declaration with RIPE NCC in Jordan for IPv6 development

Egypt is implementing IPv6 strategy through ongoing technical assistance, training and regional coordination with RIPE NCC

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus across different organizational types (EU, regional bodies, national regulators) on moving beyond theoretical discussions to concrete implementation, with specific focus on technical standards deployment and practical capacity building.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed remarkably strong consensus across all speakers on the fundamental importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, the need for government-technical community partnerships, regional cooperation for capacity building, and the role of digital connectivity in achieving sustainable development goals. Speakers consistently emphasized practical implementation over theoretical discussions.

Consensus level

Very high consensus level with no significant disagreements identified. This strong alignment suggests mature understanding of digital governance challenges and established best practices for addressing them. The implications are positive for continued international cooperation in digital development, with clear pathways for implementation through existing frameworks like RIPE NCC partnerships, regional roundtables, and multi-stakeholder forums. The consensus provides a solid foundation for scaling successful collaboration models globally.

Different viewpoints

Unexpected differences

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus among speakers with no direct disagreements identified. All participants strongly supported multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments and technical community.

Disagreement level

Very low disagreement level. The session demonstrated strong alignment on fundamental principles of multi-stakeholder internet governance, with speakers reinforcing each other’s points rather than challenging them. The only variations were in specific approaches and tools for achieving shared goals, which represents healthy diversity in implementation methods rather than fundamental disagreements. This high level of consensus suggests either careful curation of speakers with aligned views or genuine convergence around multi-stakeholder principles in internet governance. The implications are positive for continued collaboration, though the lack of dissenting voices may indicate limited representation of alternative perspectives on internet governance approaches.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Arab region representatives share a common approach of positioning their countries as regional hubs for digital cooperation and hosting international forums to facilitate knowledge sharing and policy alignment.

Speakers

– Bassam Alsarhan
– Ahmed Saaed
– Khaled Wali

Arguments

Jordan has positioned itself as a regional hub for digital innovation, hosting ITU Regional Development Forum and Government Roundtables

Egypt will host RIPE NCC Roundtable in Cairo in December 2025 to strengthen regional cooperation and align policies with global best practices

Joint initiatives have ranged from capacity development to government roundtables, contributing to Arab Digital Agenda and Cybersecurity Strategy

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

European representatives emphasize practical implementation of cybersecurity standards through multi-stakeholder collaboration, particularly in the context of EU directives and frameworks.

Speakers

– Fabrizia Benini
– Zdravko Jukic

Arguments

EU multi-stakeholder forum for Internet Standards will draft guidelines for practical deployment of IPv6, secure email, and other standards

Croatia successfully transposed NIS2 Directive through broad stakeholder involvement including technical community and private sector

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory | Development

Technical community representatives emphasize the need for tools and processes that bridge the gap between technical expertise and policy-making, facilitating better understanding and collaboration.

Speakers

– Sally Wentworth
– Mia Kulivin

Arguments

Internet Impact Assessment Framework helps policymakers test public policies against objectives of openness, security and trustworthiness

The IETF needs broad input from all stakeholders and works with ISOC to bring policymakers into their processes

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

Multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments and technical community is essential for achieving sustainable digital development and SDGs

The MOU signing between TRC Jordan and RIPE NCC demonstrates successful practical implementation of government-technical community partnership

Technical expertise must inform policy while policy drives innovation – this two-way collaboration model is proven effective

Regional partnerships and capacity building are crucial for digital infrastructure development, particularly in areas like IPv6 deployment and routing security

Trust and transparency are fundamental pillars for successful collaboration between different stakeholder groups

The multi-stakeholder governance model established through WSIS is now settled consensus and should be maintained while re-energizing digital development action lines

No single stakeholder can achieve inclusive information society alone – unity and shared commitment across all sectors is required

Resolutions and action items

Egypt will host RIPE NCC Roundtable meeting in Cairo in December 2025 to strengthen regional cooperation

EU will publish call for participation in multi-stakeholder forum for Internet Standards in coming weeks, with forum operational by October

ITU Global Symposium for Regulators to be held August 31 – October 3 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia with invitation extended to participants

Continued implementation of Egypt’s IPv6 strategy through ongoing technical assistance and training with RIPE NCC

UK will continue working with global tech community through digital development strategy and support for various regional tech hubs

Push for permanent mandate for Internet Governance Forum as part of WSIS review process

Unresolved issues

How to better integrate Internet Governance Forum’s intersessional work on cutting-edge themes with WSIS action lines and SDGs

Specific mechanisms needed for tech community to provide more input to government policymaking processes

How to ensure broader stakeholder engagement beyond ‘regular suspects’ in government sectors

Addressing the gap between global connectivity achievements (two-thirds of population) and slower SDG progress

Practical implementation details for the EU Internet Standards guidelines and deployment requirements

Suggested compromises

Recognition that governments need to understand technology capabilities while tech community needs to understand policymaking processes – requiring mutual education efforts

Balancing open internet principles with legitimate government public interest concerns through frameworks like Internet Impact Assessments

Using regional and localized roundtables to address similar market situations and challenges rather than one-size-fits-all approaches

Leveraging existing successful collaboration models (like RIPE NCC partnerships) as templates for broader stakeholder engagement

We can’t go forward in a secure global Internet without you, and we are really very grateful for your contribution and look forward to continuing it… this is what we are looking for, agile regulation policy based on technical expertise.

Speaker

Fabrizia Benini (EU) and Chafic Chaya’s response

Reason

This exchange crystallized a key paradigm shift from traditional top-down regulation to collaborative, technically-informed policy making. Benini’s concrete example of the EU multi-stakeholder forum for Internet Standards with an upcoming call for participation demonstrated practical implementation rather than just theoretical collaboration.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from ceremonial statements to concrete examples of how technical expertise can directly inform policy frameworks. It provided a tangible model that other participants could reference and potentially replicate in their own contexts.

Some years ago, we started thinking about what we could do to help policymakers on that journey, and we developed something called an Internet Impact Assessment Framework… Almost similar to how you would do an environmental impact assessment if you were going to build a bridge or a building somewhere, we think it’s useful to do an Internet Impact Assessment to understand the impact of policies and what tradeoffs there might be.

Speaker

Sally Wentworth (Internet Society)

Reason

This introduced a novel conceptual framework that bridges the gap between technical understanding and policy making. The environmental impact assessment analogy made complex internet governance concepts accessible to policymakers while providing a practical tool for decision-making.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from general collaboration principles to specific methodological approaches. It provided a concrete tool that governments could adopt, influencing how subsequent speakers framed their own collaborative initiatives and moving the conversation toward practical implementation strategies.

Our greatest resource is not just land or minerals but the people. We have a very youthful population and their resilience, ingenuity and willingness to collaborate… We really need this trust and this transparency to go to each sector of governments, not only the regular suspects, in terms of making sure they understand how the machine works and what’s in it for them.

Speaker

Anne Rachel Inné (Niger)

Reason

This comment provided crucial perspective from a developing nation context, highlighting that successful digital collaboration requires going beyond traditional stakeholders to engage broader government sectors. Her emphasis on explaining ‘what’s in it for them’ addressed a fundamental challenge in multi-stakeholder engagement.

Impact

This intervention brought much-needed diversity to the discussion, shifting focus from developed-world perspectives to include challenges faced by landlocked, resource-constrained countries. It influenced subsequent speakers to consider broader inclusivity and practical benefits for all stakeholders, not just technical communities.

Words are sweet, but food is better. So we want the results and the impact on human life on the planet and bring prosperity to the people.

Speaker

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava (ITU)

Reason

This blunt statement cut through diplomatic language to emphasize the ultimate purpose of technical collaboration – tangible human impact. It challenged the tendency toward ceremonial discourse and demanded focus on measurable outcomes.

Impact

This comment served as a reality check that reoriented the discussion toward practical outcomes rather than process. It influenced the tone of subsequent contributions, with speakers becoming more specific about concrete results and measurable impacts of their collaborative efforts.

But to achieve these goals, governments need to work with the tech community to better understand the technology and what it can and can’t do, but we also need the tech community to work with governments to better understand policy making and how that works as well.

Speaker

UK Participant

Reason

This comment articulated the bidirectional nature of learning required for effective collaboration, moving beyond the common assumption that only governments need to understand technology. It highlighted that technical communities also need policy literacy.

Impact

This observation reframed the collaboration as mutual education rather than one-way technical assistance. It influenced how participants conceptualized their roles, suggesting that successful partnerships require both sides to develop new competencies and understanding of each other’s domains.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a ceremonial MOU signing into a substantive discussion about practical collaboration mechanisms. The most impactful contributions moved beyond diplomatic pleasantries to address real challenges: how to make regulation more agile and technically informed, how to create practical tools for policy assessment, how to ensure inclusivity beyond traditional stakeholders, and how to focus on measurable human impact. The discussion evolved from celebrating existing partnerships to identifying concrete next steps and frameworks for deeper collaboration. The diversity of perspectives – from EU regulatory frameworks to African development challenges to technical community insights – created a rich dialogue that demonstrated the multi-stakeholder model in action rather than just advocating for it in theory.

How to better understand technology capabilities and limitations from a government perspective, and how policy making works from a technical community perspective

Speaker

UK representative

Explanation

This two-way understanding is essential for effective collaboration between governments and technical community to achieve digital development goals

What more can the tech community do to support government initiatives, and what suggestions/ideas can they bring to governments

Speaker

UK representative

Explanation

The speaker emphasized this needs to be a two-way conversation where the tech community proactively engages with governments with suggestions and ideas

How to increase recognition and integration of Internet Governance Forum intersessional work in WSIS Action Lines and SDGs

Speaker

Wouter de Natris

Explanation

There is ongoing work on cutting-edge themes like health, inclusion, and cybersecurity that needs better integration with broader digital development frameworks

How to re-energize (not rewrite) the digital development action lines to reflect the reality of the 2020s

Speaker

UK representative

Explanation

While global connectivity has improved significantly since 2005, the SDGs have not made the expected progress and need to be updated for current realities

How to achieve the goal of connecting the unconnected by 2030

Speaker

UK representative

Explanation

Despite progress in global connectivity reaching two-thirds of the global population, there is still significant work needed to achieve universal connectivity

How to build trust and transparency between different sectors beyond the ‘regular suspects’

Speaker

Anne Rachel Inné

Explanation

There is a need to extend collaboration beyond traditional participants to include all sectors of government and ensure they understand how digital systems work and their benefits

Summary

This discussion explored the role of satellite technologies in enhancing early warning systems and protecting lives during disasters, with a particular focus on direct-to-device initiatives. The session was co-organized by the ITU and the Global Satellite Operator Association (GSOA), bringing together experts from various organizations including the European Space Agency, NextGen Space/Link Global, and Fleo Blue.

The panelists emphasized that satellite communications are essential for disaster response because they provide global coverage, resilience, and reliability when terrestrial networks fail or are unavailable. Current technology challenges were addressed, noting that while mobile networks cover 96% of the global population, this coverage is concentrated in only 20% of Earth’s land area, leaving millions in remote regions vulnerable during emergencies. Several innovative direct-to-device solutions were presented, including Link Global’s space-based cell towers that connect directly to standard mobile phones, SpaceX’s emergency alert capabilities demonstrated during recent hurricanes and wildfires, and Fleo Blue’s Bluetooth-based satellite messaging system.

The European Space Agency highlighted the importance of combining Earth observation data with connectivity solutions, using AI to process information on-board satellites for real-time disaster monitoring and response. Speakers stressed that technology alone is insufficient – successful implementation requires preparedness, training, proper protocols, and coordination between governments, industry, and local authorities. Key barriers identified include regulatory delays, customs duties, lack of awareness, and the need for fast-track frameworks during emergencies.

The discussion concluded that while the technology exists today and satellites are already in orbit capable of delivering life-saving alerts, the main challenge lies in ground-level implementation, ensuring different stakeholders collaborate effectively to transform these space-based tools into practical applications that can save lives and meet the UN’s early warning for all initiative target by 2027.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Current State of Satellite-Based Emergency Communications**: Multiple panelists demonstrated that direct-to-device satellite technologies are already deployed and operational today, with companies like SpaceX, Link Global, and emerging solutions like Fleo Blue’s Bluetooth-based system already sending emergency alerts and SMS messages during real disasters like hurricanes and wildfires.

– **The Critical Role of Preparedness and Partnerships**: Beyond having the technology, success requires extensive preparation including training, clear protocols, regulatory frameworks, cross-border cooperation, and partnerships between satellite operators, mobile network operators, governments, and international organizations like ITU.

– **Integration of Earth Observation and Communication Systems**: The discussion highlighted the evolution toward combining satellite-based Earth observation (like ESA’s Copernicus program) with direct communication capabilities, enabling real-time disaster detection and immediate alerting to affected populations through AI-powered analysis.

– **Addressing the Global Connectivity Gap**: With 2.6 billion people still unconnected and mobile networks covering only 20% of Earth’s land area, satellite communications provide the only viable solution for reaching remote and disaster-prone areas where terrestrial infrastructure is inadequate or destroyed.

– **Implementation Challenges and Solutions**: Key barriers include regulatory delays, customs issues, lack of awareness, phone settings not enabled for emergency alerts, message duplication, and the need for localized content in appropriate languages and formats that communities can understand and trust.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how satellite technologies can enhance early warning systems to protect lives during disasters, with a specific focus on direct-to-device initiatives. The session was designed to showcase current capabilities, identify implementation challenges, and promote collaboration toward achieving the UN’s “Early Warnings for All” initiative by 2027.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was professional, urgent, and solution-oriented throughout. Speakers conveyed both optimism about technological capabilities and a sense of urgency about implementation needs. The discussion maintained a collaborative spirit, with panelists emphasizing partnerships and shared responsibility. There was a notable shift from technical presentations in the first half to more practical, action-oriented discussions about overcoming barriers and achieving real-world deployment in the second half.

Speakers

– **Alexandre Vallet** – Lead of the Space Services Department in the ITU Radio Communication Bureau, Session moderator

– **Isabelle Mauro** – Director General of the Global Satellite Operator Association (GSOA), Co-organizer of the session

– **Cosmas Zavazava** – Director of the ITU Telecommunication Development Bureau

– **Margo Deckard** – Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice President of Special Projects at NextGen Space, Co-founder of Link Global (D2D company), Previously served as Chief Operating Officer at Link Global leading regulatory and government teams

– **Pierre Philippe Mathieu** – Implementation manager of the civil security from space program at the European Space Agency (ESA)

– **Philippe Lattes** – CEO and co-founder of Fleo Blue

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Comprehensive Summary: Satellite Technologies for Early Warning Systems and Disaster Response

## Introduction and Context

This discussion, moderated by Alexandre Vallet from the ITU Radio Communication Bureau and co-organised by the ITU and the Global Satellite Operator Association (GSOA), brought together leading experts to explore how satellite technologies can enhance early warning systems and protect lives during disasters. The session focused particularly on direct-to-device initiatives and their role in achieving the UN’s “Early Warnings for All” initiative by 2027.

The panel featured diverse expertise from international organisations, space agencies, and innovative technology companies, including Isabelle Mauro (GSOA Director General), Cosmas Zavazava (ITU Telecommunication Development Bureau Director), Margo Deckard (NextGen Space COO and Link Global co-founder), Pierre Philippe Mathieu (ESA Implementation Manager), and Philippe Lattes (Fleo Blue CEO and co-founder).

## Current Operational Capabilities

### The Critical Connectivity Gap

Isabelle Mauro established the fundamental framework by highlighting that while mobile networks cover 96% of the global population, this coverage exists in only 20% of Earth’s land area. Cosmas Zavazava noted that approximately 2.6 billion people remain unconnected, often in the most vulnerable regions during emergencies. As Mauro emphasized, “communications are not a luxury… they are a necessity,” particularly during disasters.

Zavazava reinforced this urgency by stating that “satellite communications are at the core of saving human lives during disasters for alerting and coordinating humanitarian action.” He shared a sobering example from early warning system testing: “We used it to send a siren and follow it with a message in English. And the young people, children, were dancing to the tune of the siren, not understanding that it’s actually an alert for them to go to higher ground if there is a tsunami.” This illustrated the critical gap between having technology and achieving effective communication.

### Direct-to-Device Solutions Already Operational

Contrary to perceptions of satellite emergency communications as futuristic technology, multiple speakers demonstrated that these systems are already operational. Margo Deckard provided compelling evidence that “direct-to-device technology is deployed today with thousands of emergency cell broadcasts tested in 40 countries.”

Deckard shared specific examples of recent deployments, noting that SpaceX has successfully sent emergency alerts during Hurricanes Helene and Milton, as well as during the Los Angeles wildfires. She mentioned that SpaceX currently has “over 600 direct-to-cell antennas on orbit” and highlighted practical applications like a UK Space Agency-funded project connecting 46 smallholder farmers in Kenya.

The development of Link Global’s space-based cell towers emerged from Deckard’s direct experience during the 2014 Ebola pandemic crisis response in Liberia and Sierra Leone, where she observed that existing terminals were primarily used for text messaging, leading to the realization that “the terminal is the problem.”

### Earth Observation and Monitoring Systems

Pierre Philippe Mathieu highlighted the operational status of ESA’s Copernicus system, which provides “weekly timescale global coverage at 10 meter resolution with open and free data access.” He emphasized that satellites offer “a unique perspective” with “globally consistent measurements across countries,” crucial for cross-border coordination since countries often measure variables like temperature differently.

Mathieu stressed that “AI processing on board satellites is needed to extract information and reduce latency in emergency response,” noting that such AI systems must be designed to “resist radiation” in the space environment.

### Emergency Response Infrastructure

Zavazava outlined the ITU’s current operational capabilities, explaining that the organization deploys emergency telecommunications and satellite terminals free of charge in disaster aftermath. He noted that companies like Iridium, Inmarsat, Vizada, and Thuraya provide free airtime during emergencies, and that ITU offers free support to member states for designing national emergency plans with standard operating procedures.

## Technology Approaches and Solutions

### Multiple Complementary Technologies

The discussion revealed that different satellite technologies serve complementary rather than competing roles:

**Direct-to-Cell Solutions**: Deckard’s Link Global approach uses space-based cell towers that connect directly to devices using existing cellular spectrum, addressing challenges like Doppler shift and extended range for emergency communications.

**Earth Observation Integration**: Mathieu’s ESA perspective emphasizes combining monitoring capabilities with communication systems, using AI to process information on-board satellites for real-time disaster detection and response.

**Bluetooth-Based Communication**: Philippe Lattes presented Fleo Blue’s innovative approach, leveraging Bluetooth as “the most widely standard in the ground,” making it “immediately compatible with all smartphones.” Lattes, whose company was “created last year,” outlined plans for deploying 330 satellites with Bluetooth modules by 2027-28, using existing satellite opportunities rather than building new constellations.

### Technical Demonstrations and Partnerships

During the session, Pierre Philippe demonstrated a “little antenna that uses a few milliwatts of power to talk to geostationary” satellites, developed by Turnwaves. This illustrated the practical miniaturization of satellite communication technology.

Mauro highlighted important industry collaborations, including agreements between GSOA and GSMA, and between GSOA and ESA, emphasizing the integration of terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks. She noted that ITU maintains technology neutrality while recognizing satellite communications’ critical importance.

## Implementation Challenges and Barriers

### Regulatory Obstacles as Primary Barrier

Despite technological readiness, speakers identified regulatory barriers as the primary obstacle to widespread implementation. Mauro called for “fast-track regulatory frameworks and reduced legal barriers for emergency satellite service deployment,” highlighting that current regulatory delays significantly underutilize satellite resources during emergencies.

Zavazava reinforced this perspective, noting that “countries must have policies, regulations, and spectrum access in place for crisis-time satellite use.” He emphasized the need for strategic connectivity plans that integrate satellite capabilities into national emergency telecommunication frameworks.

### Cultural and Communication Barriers

Zavazava’s siren example demonstrated that cultural context, language, and local understanding are as important as technical infrastructure. He emphasized that “local content, language, and proper messaging are fundamental for effective emergency alerts.”

### Technical and Operational Challenges

Deckard identified several practical implementation challenges:

– Emergency alert functionality exists in phones but is not always activated by providers

– The need for formalized government approval processes for emergency alerts before disasters occur

– Integration challenges between satellite systems and existing emergency response protocols

– Addressing timeline constraints, as some solutions require up to 10 years for new spectrum compatibility in phones

## Partnerships and Collaboration Requirements

### Multi-Stakeholder Approach

The speakers unanimously agreed that no single entity can implement effective early warning systems alone. Mauro stressed that “partnerships between industry, governments, and local authorities are crucial for successful implementation” and emphasized the importance of cross-border cooperation while respecting national sovereignty.

Mathieu highlighted a specific need: “Collaboration between Earth observation and connectivity communities is needed to connect these capabilities,” pointing to the necessity of breaking down silos between different technical communities.

### Beyond Technology: Comprehensive Frameworks

Mauro emphasized that “technology alone is insufficient without training, coordination, protocols, and regulatory frameworks.” Zavazava reinforced this by highlighting the importance of “strategic connectivity plans integrating satellite capabilities and national emergency telecommunication plans.”

## Future Plans and Scaling

### Immediate Development Priorities

Deckard captured the shared sense of urgency, stating that “the future is now” and expressing her desire to “do the work right now… so that two months from now, wherever that disaster, earthquake is, or tsunami, we could save lives.”

Mathieu discussed European proposals for “resilience from space” including virtual constellations and AI-enabled autonomous satellite systems, pointing towards more sophisticated, automated emergency response capabilities.

### Specific Deployment Timelines

Lattes outlined specific scaling plans for Bluetooth-based solutions, targeting 330 satellites by 2027-28. His approach leverages existing satellite opportunities rather than requiring new constellation development, potentially reducing costs and deployment timelines.

## Action Items and Next Steps

### Immediate Implementation Actions

The discussion identified several immediate action items:

– Adopt temporary conventions to reduce legal barriers for emergency telecommunications deployment

– Establish fast-track regulatory frameworks for satellite services during emergencies

– Promote cross-border cooperation protocols for mutual assistance

– Integrate satellite capabilities into national emergency frameworks

### Capacity Building and Preparedness

Speakers emphasized the need for:

– Conducting simulation exercises and joint response scenarios with all stakeholders

– Creating readiness culture through training and coordination

– Formalizing government approval processes for emergency alerts before disasters occur

### Continued Collaboration

Zavazava specifically invited participants to the Global Symposium for Regulators in Riyadh (August 31 – September 3) to address regulatory barriers. The discussion highlighted ongoing collaboration needs between ITU, GSOA, ESA, and industry partners to scale solutions.

## Conclusion and Future Outlook

The discussion revealed a remarkable alignment between technological capability and implementation urgency. Satellite-based emergency communication technologies are not futuristic concepts but operational systems already saving lives during disasters. The primary challenge has shifted from technological development to implementation frameworks, regulatory coordination, and multi-stakeholder collaboration.

The speakers’ consensus on regulatory barriers as the primary obstacle, rather than technical limitations, suggests a clear path forward focused on policy development and coordination mechanisms. The diversity of technical approaches—from direct-to-cell to Bluetooth-based to Earth observation integration—indicates that comprehensive emergency communication coverage will require multiple complementary technologies rather than a single solution.

Alexandre Vallet’s closing emphasis on moving “from tools in space to real applications that save lives” encapsulated the session’s core message: the technology exists, satellites are in orbit, and the focus must now shift to ground-level implementation that transforms space-based capabilities into life-saving applications. The speakers’ shared sense of urgency and emphasis on immediate action suggests that the satellite industry and international community are positioned to make substantial progress towards universal early warning coverage in the near term.

Alexandre Vallet: My name is Alexandre Vallet. I lead the Space Services Department in the ITU Radio Communication Bureau. I will be the moderator of this session. I’m pleased to meet you all. Maybe a brief point of background and context, this session will try to explore the role of satellite technologies in enhancing early warning systems and therefore protecting lives during disasters and associated crises. Notably, we will focus this session by highlighting the progress in different direct-to-device initiatives. So, I am joined by a set of wonderful panelists that I will present later in the session, but I will start first with some opening remarks, and I propose that we start with Ms. Isabelle Mauro, who is Director General of the Global Satellite Operator Association, which, as you may know, under her leadership, lead the effort to showcase the benefits of satellite communications for a more inclusive, sustainable, and secure society. She has kindly accepted to co-organize this session with the ITU, so I think I will later introduce the topic from the viewpoint of the satellite industry.

Isabelle Mauro: Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here at WSIS, and thank you for letting us co-host this session. Today’s discussion, I think, should really remind us that communications are not a luxury, and I think you’ve probably heard it if you attended WSIS yesterday. summit, but really they are a necessity, and in particular in times of, in the face of natural or man-made disasters. So I really want, given that we only have, I think, three minutes, I really want to focus on three key points for the discussion about emergency services and, you know, times of crisis. The first one is connectivity. You know, the solution starts long before a disaster strikes. It starts with ensuring access to connectivity. Without that, there is no communication, you know, within, without the time of crisis. But yet mobile networks cover 96% of the global population, which is a major achievement. However, this coverage is concentrated in just 20% of the earth land area. So the remaining 4% of unconnected people are really spread across vast and hard to reach regions. And it really represents millions of people in communities that still lack really the basic services. And that becomes critical in times of emergency and times of crisis. And satellites really offer a unique complementary solution here, because we have global coverage, we have resilience, and we have reliability. So remote monitoring, IoT, disaster detection, and early warning systems really all depend on robust, ubiquitous networks. And that’s really a key basic element. And countries really need to have strategic, inclusive connectivity plans that really integrate satellite capabilities from the outset so that we are ready to respond, you know, in terms of crisis. The second is preparedness. Having technology is not enough, we must also know how to use technology. So preparedness begins with connectivity, of course, but it also includes training, coordination, and readiness. And too often, satellite resources are really underutilized in emergencies due to the lack of awareness and clear protocols, but also regulatory delays. So essentially, we need simulation exercises, for instance, practicing joint response scenario with all stakeholders really helps create a culture of readiness. And it ensures that all actors know their role before a crisis occurs. And we also need to align national policies with ITU guidelines, with embedding satellite capabilities into emergency frameworks, and all of these will really dramatically improve the response capacity. And last but not least, is the response itself. So what happens when disaster strikes? You know, we have seen that satellite systems support early warning efforts in the face of impending disasters, they enable real time coordination of relief efforts, and the aid damage assessment. This rapid flow of data also helps communicate and economies because, sorry, become more resilient by enabling faster, more informed decision making. So in times of disaster, when over communication systems are all down and destroyed, satellite communication equipment really can be immediately used to support relief efforts. So we recommend three key actions to improve disaster response and overcome the red tape that sometimes exists because of customs duties and different barriers. First is to adopt the temporary convention to reduce legal barriers and facilitate emergency telecoms deployment. Second, to establish fast track regulatory frameworks for the use of satellite services during emergencies. And finally, to promote cross border cooperation, while respecting national sovereignty to enable mutual assistance and faster recovery. So in conclusion, we must really ensure that we innovate with purpose. and that digital inclusion remains at the forefront of government’s agenda so that nations are prepared in times of crisis. So let me remind you, connectivity saves lives, preparedness prevents chaos, and timely response builds resilience and response. Thank you.

Alexandre Vallet: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Isabelle. Now I have the honor to introduce the director of the ITU Telecommunication Development Bureau, Dr. Cosmas Zavazava, who will also provide us with some improvements. Please, Dr. Zavazava.

Cosmas Zavazava: Yeah, thank you very much and good afternoon. It is a pleasure to be here. Very short remarks. Before I go to my prepared remarks, I just want to say that ITU is technology neutral, but satellite communications is at the core when it comes to saving human lives, whether it is for alerting or it is for coordinating humanitarian action, distribution of food, distribution of medication, provision of shelter, and rehabilitation of telecommunications networks. So it is very important. And we celebrate the fact that many operators are generously providing support to the work that we do. We also help the private sector member states by designing national emergency telecommunication plans to make sure that standard operating procedures are in place. We deploy the right technology at the right time. In 2010, when the 7.2 earthquake on the Richter scale hit Haiti, the subsea cable from Bermuda to Santo Domingo was cut, and that disrupted the connectivity. And it was very difficult for humanitarian actors. That triggered many non-governmental organizations. and Ms. Margo Deckard, Mr. Philippe Lattes, Ms. Margo Deckard, Mr. Philippe Lattes, Mr. It is important for us to recognize the importance of early warning. And of course, satellite communications provide that remote sensing is very important. Geographical information systems are very important. And we should be enhancing our approach by injecting, of course, a dose of artificial intelligence so that we can target those people who are at risk. But having said that, let me go to my statement. It is a privilege, as I have said, to be speaking on this topic that directly impacts the safety, dignity and resilience of communities around the world. The most needy countries are the least developed countries because they are very vulnerable. So infrastructure resilience, robustness, reliability are very important. And that we always focus on when we are deploying emergency telecommunications. Reliability is crucial. And I think top of the agenda for us should be in saving human life. Let me begin by sincerely thanking our co-organizers, GESOA, and our distinguished panelists from the European Space Agency, Leo Blue and Link Global. Their work continues to push the boundaries of satellite innovation for societal good. So we have much to learn from them. They are our partners. and Mr. Pierre. We are very proud to have them on board. We try to support their work through appropriate regulatory frameworks. On this note, I want to invite you to come to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia from the 31st of August to the 3rd of September, where all the regulators will be assembling. We also invite the private sector and industry and academia to come because the day before GSR, we will be having a meeting of industry for industry also has got a role to play in expressing their concerns and the barriers brought by inappropriate or too much regulation. And we wanted to break those barriers today, more than ever, the world faces increasingly frequent devastating disasters, and most of them are driven by climate change. So climate change adaptation and mitigation are very critical. These are often driven by climate change, of course, but they are compounded by vulnerabilities in communication, infrastructure and coverage. Today we have 2.6 billion people who remain unconnected. The figure is going to change, I can tell you. We just released on the 30th of June, our latest figure on the ICT development index, and we’ll be releasing the facts and figures. We are making great progress and that will help us, for example, to reach out to people who live in a remote, neglected, marginalized areas. And we want universal coverage so that when disasters are impending, early warning systems can reach every living human person. And that’s why we deploy early warnings for all with a target to make sure that by 2027, every living person will be within reach. Satellite communications have proven to be a reliable and scalable means of ensuring the continuity of emergency services. And the timely delivery of life-saving alerts, particularly where terrestrial networks are unavailable or damaged. In cases where we have earthquakes and we have the tsunami, for example, the infrastructure is usually destroyed or disrupted. Sometimes disrupted or destroyed because of sabotage, and the satellite will still be looking at you. And then you are assured that you will connect, you will continue to be connected. At ITU, Telecommunication Development Bureau, we are deeply committed to helping countries build resilience. But that we can do, but we can’t do alone. We are taking the lead on pillar three of the UN Secretary General’s early warnings for all initiative, which concerns warning dissemination and communication. Our goal is to ensure that every person on earth is protected by an effective early warning systems, and that these warnings reach people at risk at the right time and in the right format and in the right way. And the local content is very important. We tested the deployment of emergency telecommunications, and in earlier days when we were doing early warning systems, we used it to send a siren and follow it with a message in English. And the young people, children, were dancing to the tune of the siren, not understanding that it’s actually an alert for them to go to higher ground if there is a tsunami. So local content, local language, proper messaging, capacity building are fundamental and very important. Now, in the aftermath of disasters, ITU also provides for your information for free. We deploy satellite terminals, broadband, and we set up telemedicine centers to make sure that communities that are disadvantaged continue to communicate, and we can save one or two lives. Arbace. I would like to say to you, this is also made possible thanks to some of the members of GSOA, because we have organizations like Iridium, Inmasat, Vizada, Turaya, and a few others that believe in our mission. They provide free air time for us to be able to support the efforts of local institutions, governments, and agencies that are responsible in saving lives. Today, emerging technologies like direct-to-device satellite communications are redefining what is possible. Soon, we’ll be able to send our latest directly to standard mobile phones, even in the most remote corners of the world, without any need of ground-based infrastructure. And that’s progress. This is a transformational step forward for inclusive, universal alerting system. Our partners here today are also demonstrating the powerful role of space technologies in supporting disaster management at all phases. Preparedness, response, recovery, rehabilitation of telecommunication networks. But innovation must be matched by readiness. Technology alone is not enough. Countries must have national strategies in place, including policies, regulations, and spectrum access, so that digital technologies, including satellites, can continue to be used in times of crisis. ITU continues to support our member states in developing these frameworks. Please call on us. It’s free. We are paid to do exactly that. Ladies and gentlemen, let me end with a call to action. Let us work together. Partnerships drive mountains or move mountains. We need to work together. Duplication of effort and resources does not get us very far. Governments, industry, international partners should be working with us to scale up satellite based solutions and deliver on the promise of early warnings for war and our dream and commitment and vision not to leave anyone behind. Thank you very much for this opportunity.

Alexandre Vallet: Thank you very much Dr. Zavazava. Thank you very much both of you for this introductory remark. I will now turn to the panelists and start with Margo Deckard, who is the Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice President of Special Projects at NextGen Space. She’s also a co-founder of Link Global. You probably know this is a famous D2D company. She served there as the Chief Operating Officer and led the regulatory and government teams. So she will have certainly some insights on these aspects as well. What is particularly interesting with her biography, I would say, is that she was led to funding Link Global because of her previous humanitarian work. So she really understands in depth the topic. Margo, could you briefly highlight your direct-to-device solution and the current development or deployment status of it and how you see this solution contributing to strengthening resilient communication in disaster-prone areas?

Margo Deckard: Thank you. Thank you and good afternoon. First of all, a brief thanks to the WSIS organizers for the opportunity to join this panel and to the attendees today for your time. As Alexander shared, actually Link was born out of my work in Liberia and Sierra Leone in the 2014 Ebola pandemic crisis response. I noticed that on these BGAN terminals, which are video set terminals, they were mostly used to text from. And if you imagine the amount of information you can contain in a text, infection rates, fatalities, supply requests, and you realize the time saved for responders to just grab the phone in their pocket in their go bags and respond to a crisis, then you realize the terminal is the problem. So together with my fellow co-founders at Link, we created cell towers in space that connect directly to the device already in your pocket. And Link created the category of direct-to-device, but we were quickly joined by others, including AST Space Mobile, and then a few years later in 2023 by SpaceX. Now all three of these providers partner with mobile network operators. They bring the spectrum and the customers, and we bring the satellite infrastructure to either extend their coverage, fill in a gap, or provide their network resiliency. We do this first by using spectrum that’s already in the phone today and solving for Doppler shift, because now your cell tower is moving relative to you, and the extended range time delay because instead of being 20 kilometers from your cell tower, you’re now 500. Now space-based cell towers are designed to be the weakest signal until a customer moves outside of terrestrial coverage, then it becomes stronger and they seamlessly roam onto the space network. Now there are other flavors of direct-to-device that you may have heard of. There’s Apple and Globalstar. Apple uses the Globalstar constellation by putting a chip in their new phones, and there’ll be new 3GPP compliant providers that use their MSS spectrum, C-band, L-band, S-band, and as soon as they build their constellations and as soon as that spectrum is in the phone, it will be available to users. But in unserved and underserved population, those phones will take a decade. So that’s why the category of the Lynx and the SpaceX and the AST space mobiles are so powerful, because we’re sending emergency alerts today. In fact, Lynx has sent over thousands, I mean, of emergency cell broadcasts. tests in 40 countries around the world today. SpaceX has sent hundreds of texts in actual emergency disaster response. In Hurricanes Helene and Milton and the LA wildfires, they successfully sent SMS texts and emergency cell broadcasts, alerting individuals outside of terrestrial coverage what their evacuation routes were and connecting them to 911 services. So if you think about, and I know for many people, they think about a satellite constellation and they think it’s expensive, but it is the only infrastructure that will solve emergency alerting on a global scale. So in 2023, when the US had a fire in Maui, and when, you know, Libya had those devastating floods, you know, it was hundreds of deaths in Maui and thousands of deaths in Libya. The only infrastructure that could have saved lives on opposite sides of the planets is satellite infrastructure. And with the link and SpaceX architectures, we don’t need ground infrastructure. We don’t need a ground station in sight because we take the terrestrial base station and we move it onto our satellites in low earth orbit. So whether your infrastructure is non-existent, whether your infrastructure was devastated by an earthquake, fire or flood, we can connect to your citizens and provide them with that timely information that they need. And I know time is short, so I will pass it along, but I know, I just want to leave with the audience, the understanding that this technology is deployed today. This category can save lives today. And we really don’t have 10 years to wait. You know, just this week in my country, we’ve had devastating floods in Texas that again, claim lives due to non-existent and poor emergency alerting. So thank you for your…

Alexandre Vallet: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Margot. I will now turn to Pierre-Philippe. who is the implementation manager of the civil security from space program at the European Space Agency. And I will ask him a question that is more about the format, the information that the director previously alluded to. Could you highlight what kind of essential information in fact should be included in the messages, not only because the technology to transfer the message are important but also the content. So if you can elaborate a bit on what are the essential information and how do we get this information to transfer it to people.

Pierre Philippe Mathieu: Good afternoon everybody and thank you very much for the invitation. The director mentioned that during a disaster you need to have the right information at the right time and the right place. This is what we are trying to do with space technology. As you know you cannot manage what you cannot measure. So space offer really a unique perspective to do that because you can have a globally consistent way of measuring things across countries so that they can talk about the same variables because countries like just for temperature they would measure it in different way. So if you want to look at climate change for example this would give you a kind of long term consistent view and really measure the anomalies on top of it. So this is called Earth observation. It’s remote sensing. Europe has set up a system called Copernicus which is a public good. It creates routine monitoring of the planet. Like at weekly timescale you get global coverage at 10 meter resolution in optical and also in radar and this data is open and free. So you can use it for science but also for application. And during disaster, we need these data, but we also need enhanced resolutions from the new space like Planet Spire, ISAI in Radar, and Aurora Tech. So what we try to do at the agency is really to put all these data together with AI, and that’s why I’m here today, in fact, using also large language model as a way to interact with them to really extract the information. And one of the big issues we have in disaster is first to put all these data together in context with drone data, IoT, so the extraction that we call data fusion and extraction. The ability then to move these data to the people, and that’s the connectivity issue, in particular the last mile, and very key to do it in almost real time, so the latency aspects. And that latency aspect is something we focus a lot on because there is a huge gap today. When you get the data, you have to go to a long path and journey to a ground segment. So we try to process on board with AI because this is the emergence of AI in space that resists to radiation with computing, and that extracts information, and then we need on the same satellite, both the observing system and then the connectivity system, like a solution we heard today, to send then this information to the people in the field. So I’m coming here, I mean, I don’t have specific technology in mind. ESA has to create an industry in Europe with different technology, but I’m coming here to really connect these communities of the one observing with the one connecting. And I just present here solutions for a direct-to-device. This is really new out of the oven. This is a very disruptive field, so there are very few actors in Europe, and we are exploring this. It’s a low level of TRL, we call it technology level, but it was demonstrated last week. This is a little antenna that uses a few milliwatts of power to talk to geostationary. So this is an opposite paradigm to lower-orbit satellites. They are very far away, so it’s very difficult to reach them, but they are there. And the intelligence here in the software, they use part of this signal that exists already to use the noise to actually convey messages. And I find this extremely disruptive. A test was done last week, bidirectional, by a company called Turnwaves. And we are exploring now how to put this into a more sustainable application layer and do use cases. And I’ll stop here for the moment. Thanks.

Alexandre Vallet: Pierre Philippe Mathieu Yes, thank you very much, Pierre Philippe, and for showing live that we are really speaking of today’s technology. We are not really speaking of futuristic applications. Technologies are here. And I will now turn to Philippe Lattes, the CEO and co-founder of Fleo Blue, who will present us another technology for delivering this kind of solutions. So again, if you could describe your technology, its status, and what it can bring to this emergency, early warning forward systems. Philippe Lattes

Philippe Lattes: Thank you, Alexandre. So, the starting point of Fleo Blue was how we can send vital information to everyone in the world, of a maximum of people in the world, with a lower cost, for lower complexity of system. And when we make this analysis, we make the analysis that the most widely standard in the ground is the Bluetooth standard. So, we made the assumption that it will be possible to send messages directly from satellites to any smartphone or any object equipped with a Bluetooth chip directly from the satellites to this object. And we have shown this is possible. We have found a way to do that. So we have patented this technology. And now we are a very younger startups were just created last year. And we have just recently made some tests under stratospheric balloon to validate our technology. And the interest of using Bluetooth, it’s because we are immediately compatible with all the smartphone, 8 billion of smartphone in the world, 30 billion of objects that could receive this directly. And one another interest is that the number of satellites that we need to make our acting system, etc, is very quite low, because the field of senior stand by the satellites very large, meaning you’re covering 800 kilometer for the ground. So this mean even number of satellites is low, this mean that cost of a system will be low as well. And the last point is that Bluetooth is using free frequency. So, of course, there are some discussions with regulation, but it’s something which could be a real added value for our acting system in the world. So now we are under development of our first satellites that will be launched normally next year to make real test. of Otherworld. Thank you.

Alexandre Vallet: Thank you. So during this first round of questions, our panelists have given to you an overview, a panorama of the technology and the, I would say, the data that are needed to, that are currently available also. What I would like now, during a kind of second round, is to focus more on the future and what remains to be done. And maybe I will change the order of speakers for the second round. So maybe I will start with Pierre-Philippe. If you could explain us how does ESA envision the evolution of the space-based services, notably Copernicus that you mentioned in your first answer. In order to strengthen the situational awareness, notably in terms of real-time disaster, you mentioned having satellites connect, well, assembling both the remote observation and the connectivity on the same bus. Will it be something that is envisaged for Copernicus, or how do you see it in the future?

Pierre Philippe Mathieu: Okay. So Copernicus has already a roadmap. So if you want, you have a backbone information that is operational and will be there, hopefully, for several decades. So you would have consistency on measurements. On top of that, there are a few missions coming up that we call expansion mission that will bring new capability, like monitoring carbon or methane, that are also important for emissions and climate change, etc. And in parallel to that, which is a public service, in fact, a public good, there is the whole ecosystem of new space and companies that we also stimulate through industrial contract, creating innovation, etc. And they have, let’s say, a very large number of companies that are already working on that. specific flavors, to use the term. Some of them are high resolution optical, like a planet. Others are thermal infrared, like looking at fires, looking at radar at very high resolution. So the idea is to put them together almost as a virtual constellation, so that you could trigger them and have the synergy between them. And this is a kind of contractual framework that we plan to do that. And also building a new generation of mission of high resolution, which would be very agile. And that’s where the AI on board comes in, in order to introduce autonomy in the system and having things like what we call tip and cue. So you would have one satellite that observed something of interest, but at some resolution, and then it would trigger another satellite to look at there and zoom in if you want. So the system would be more clever. So it’s, and then there is the whole aspects of honors to bring all these data together through PKI factory, where you have different algorithm created by industry, and then operated possibly by the people who have needs, like the National Center for Disaster. So these are different elements of a proposal called the European resilience from space that we are currently exploring.

Alexandre Vallet: Thank you very much. So back to Philippe. in terms of the future, so you mentioned the first satellite, the prototype launched next year, but could you share with us your, I would say your desired framework, timeframe for ensuring global accessibility of alert messaging via Bluetooth? And yeah, a bit of what are the next steps after the first satellites?

Philippe Lattes: First, our strategy is not to develop our own satellites, but rather to develop a small module, a small emitter that could be put on existing satellites. The idea is not to create another constellation, but to use all the existing opportunities of satellites to put our system. So this means once we will realize the in-orbit test, we will be able to make a very quick deployment, because there are a lot of satellites in which you can find some places to put additional payload. So the idea is in 2027 and 28 to have around 330 satellites in orbit. I mean, not my satellite, but satellites that are embedded in a Bluetooth module. So this is for, we can say, a communication system. And so this allows to have a revisit frequency, I mean, to be up to any point of the Earth each 30 minutes, roughly. So it’s not permanent view of that. So we are doing something like the SMS of space to be, to summarize. And but in parallel, to complement what Pierre-Philippe said, we are working on the fact that we can put this emitter on Earth observation satellites, because if you have a satellite who is taking images, and who is able to make a real time analysis of a situation, for example, to detect a forest fire beginning, I don’t know, any kind of subject, the interest is to be able to send the information directly on the ground to the potential concerned people, I mean, for example, for the firemen of the area. And so the idea is, in the next step, it’s to make a coupling with all connectivity with Earth Observation Satellites with IA Embedded to make a real-time analysis of the situation and real-time information of good people on the ground. Thank you very much.

Alexandre Vallet: So let me now turn to Margo. You explained in your first answer that in fact we are speaking about current technologies, things that are currently deployed. But could you also, I would say, give us a bit of information on how the next steps in the deployment of this constellation will also enhance the capabilities that are currently demonstrated, either in terms of coverage or in terms of flow of capacities, so that we can better understand how the current development and the future deployments can help in this objective of having an early warning system?

Margo Deckard: Thank you. So even though these technologies are currently deployed, there are of course engineering challenges that need to be met. So both SpaceX and Link, when we have sent these emergency cell broadcasts, we have noticed that there are times when the same cell broadcast is sent to the same phone, so they get duplicate warnings. In countries where you get emergency cell broadcast, your citizens may have already experienced fatigue, right? You don’t want to give them any more emergency warnings than they need to have, or they begin to ignore them, even when they live in the most disastrous prone areas. So in the very near term, because in reality, SpaceX has over 600 direct-to-cell antennas on orbit today. You’ve got one or two of their satellites at any given time with one of these cell towers in your field of view. You could really do emergency alerts from them right now on an almost global scale. They don’t cover the poles, Link covers the poles because of the way our satellites were deployed. But you need to be able to meet those really pragmatic challenges of how people receive that information on their phone. All the phones in the marketplace today have the ability to receive emergency cell broadcasts, but what we found in these some 40 countries that we’ve tested them is that not all populations have them turned on. So maybe when you go in Indonesia to buy your cell phone, they don’t have alerting so that functionality which is in the phone is not turned on. So there’s that educational component of getting the providers to spend a minute turning that on as well as the education component to the citizens so that they understand the information being provided to them. Now cell towers in space have a distinct advantage over terrestrial towers when it comes to sending emergency alerts. As I mentioned, you have to solve for Doppler shift and the extended range time delay where those two pieces of data intersect. I get very precise information about where an individual is. This means I can almost give you a bespoke emergency alert. So in California, what we can do a lot of times when they have these wildfires, they take down cell towers because they don’t want the power going to these sites because that’s a large part of wi-fi or spread in California. So what we can do is we can give targeted emergency alerts. We can draw any shape we want to and we can tell individuals you need to head north on this highway. We can tell other individuals you need to head south. In countries where you may have a diverse population with different speak different languages, I can actually give you a customized language emergency alert. First it’s read in English and then it’s read in the native tongue. And a lot of this is already pre-programmed in the 3GPP protocol. So it’s so very, very powerful. And the session before us, which I wasn’t able to attend, was on agriculture. So, LINC actually did a grant that was funded by the UK Space Agency with 46 smallholder farmers in Kenya. And what we did was we sent them emergency cell broadcasts, and it had weather information and planting advice. And we were originally only supposed to have 10, but we had a really very eager female farmer who went out and recruited 36 more individuals for the project. And we got immense feedback on, you know, the iconography, like what they understand, what they want to see, how it needs to be presented. So to me, the next steps, because the technology is on orbit when it comes to SpaceX, and of course LINC and AST can send intermittent emergency alerts, is really engaging with the population. So first they can receive them, their phones are turned on so they can get the alert, but also so that they’re not shocked, that they don’t mistrust it. How do you integrate with that government system? You know, in the United States and many countries like the United States, there’s a protocol by which emergency alerts enter the telecom system. And we need that kind of supervision from the government that we’re sending alerts in to make sure that the message is indeed approved by the government. We have done it in an ad hoc way today, but those processes need to be formalized, and before, hopefully, the natural disaster hits, so that these things run very smoothly. Because honestly, it’s just an orbit to upload an emergency alert and get it on the satellites. Even for LINC with SpaceX, it’s almost near, with their inter-satellite links, it’s almost near real time. So that’s where I, the future is now. I’d like to do the work right now, Alexander, so that two months from now, wherever that disaster, earthquake is, or tsunami, we could save lives.

Alexandre Vallet: Yes, thank you, and I think you have been very persuasive and convincing enough that the future is now, indeed. I will turn to Isabelle to conclude this panel and maybe to share with us some further views on the means to achieve this implementation of early warnings for all, because we have, I hope that you have noted that technology is not the problem, technology is here, technology is even in orbit, so we have that. But the objective is to have an early warning system for all by 2027, which is now quite close. And so I will ask Isabelle, maybe for Gisoire, how are partnerships leveraging satellite capabilities, different satellite capabilities, able to ensure that we can meet this target of 2027? And your views on your thoughts?

Isabelle Mauro: Well, I think that there’s so much that has been said, and you know, very insightful for the colleagues on the panel. I believe for us, there are two things that are essential, one really, but from two front, and this is partnerships. The first one is partnership and collaboration in within the industry. And one of the, you know, we’ve seen so much evolution in the satellite industry in the last five years, I think it’s been it’s been striking. It’s continuing. And that is going to be as well to be put to the benefits of the citizens and in particular in terms of crisis. But I think one of the big evolution that we are seeing as well is this really integration of terrestrial and non terrestrial networks. And I think this is going to be essential in this area of, you know, this collaboration that we have with the cell, as you say, in the US, we say mobile on this side of the pond. But this is essential, but this is essential, we ourselves signed a cooperation agreement with the GSMA, and not just for emergencies, but really to see how best we can integrate because this is going to be crucial to reach out the 2.6 billion people that are not connected. And as we saw in times of disasters, you know, the most affected are those people who didn’t have economic and the other area that is critical as well is IOT and IOT delivered by satellite because that is going to be crucial for monitoring as well. And so, you know, this is really the areas where those partnerships, collaboration is important. The second one, of course, is collaboration between industry, governments, local authorities. And we mentioned several areas there, which is one is really preparedness, training, capacity building. We really need and local content as well that you mentioned. We really need to make sure that we work with governments to have the right protocols in place that you were mentioning, Margo, that, you know, if there are some sort of ecosystems that need to be changed, you know, they have, we have to work together to understand, you know, that this is going to be put in place in the best manner. And also, of course, with the local authorities to ensure that we provide training, we provide preparedness for citizens, for users to be alerted when disaster strikes. So I think a lot of good work, the early warning for all initiative that we work with with the ITU, those for us are really critical initiatives when we need each other, you know, nobody’s going to implement this successfully if we work on our own. So collaboration is crucial. And I guess events, you know, like this week are also crucial to bring all the relevant stakeholders together. So as you saw, anyway, and our partners, we know, members, you know, I want to mention also Kuiper that I see here because, you know, like they’ll heard a lot about SpaceX and others, but there are a lot of new players that are coming as well to the table. And I think everybody will have Jussot, Mr. Vaillet, and Mr. Gisaud. We stand committed, as you saw, to continue our work with the ITU, with other relevant organizations, with our members of course, and with ESA. We also signed a cooperation agreement with ESA. So I think all of these are really important for us to ensure that, you know, everybody will be able to reserve an alert when disasters strike and can be saved. Thank you.

Alexandre Vallet: Thank you very much, Isabelle. Unfortunately, we don’t have time for questions from the audience, but our panelists are here and you may quite grab them during the break. I would like to thank Gisaud for having co-organized with us this session. I hope that you will take from this session that technology is available. Satellites are in orbit that can deliver the solutions. Now the question of the implementation is on the ground, making sure that the different actors speak together, work together and deliver for the benefit of our fellow citizens in our different countries. And I hope that you will also leave this room with a sense of responsibility, each of you, to make sure that we can make this happen and make sure that we can move this technology from a simple tool in space to a real application that will save lives. Thank you very much and I wish you a nice rest of the week.

Agreement points

Technology alone is insufficient without proper implementation frameworks

Speakers

– Isabelle Mauro
– Cosmas Zavazava
– Margo Deckard

Arguments

Technology alone is insufficient without training, coordination, protocols, and regulatory frameworks

Countries must have policies, regulations, and spectrum access in place for crisis-time satellite use

Government supervision and formal protocols are needed to integrate satellite alerts with existing emergency systems

Summary

All speakers agree that having advanced satellite technology is not enough – successful emergency warning systems require comprehensive frameworks including training, protocols, regulatory support, and government integration

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Partnerships and collaboration are essential for successful implementation

Speakers

– Isabelle Mauro
– Cosmas Zavazava
– Pierre Philippe Mathieu

Arguments

Partnerships between industry, governments, and local authorities are crucial for successful implementation

ITU works with private sector members and helps design national emergency plans with standard operating procedures

Collaboration between Earth observation and connectivity communities is needed to connect these capabilities

Summary

Speakers unanimously emphasize that no single entity can implement effective early warning systems alone – success requires collaboration between industry, government, international organizations, and technical communities

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Current satellite technology is operational and ready for emergency deployment

Speakers

– Margo Deckard
– Philippe Lattes
– Pierre Philippe Mathieu

Arguments

Direct-to-device technology is deployed today with thousands of emergency cell broadcasts tested in 40 countries

Stratospheric balloon tests have validated Bluetooth satellite communication technology

Copernicus system provides routine global monitoring at 10-meter resolution with open and free data access

Summary

All technical speakers confirm that satellite-based emergency communication technologies are not futuristic concepts but are currently operational and have been successfully tested

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Local content and cultural adaptation are critical for effective emergency alerts

Speakers

– Cosmas Zavazava
– Margo Deckard

Arguments

Local content, language, and proper messaging are fundamental for effective emergency alerts

Emergency alert functionality exists in phones but is not always activated by providers or understood by citizens

Summary

Both speakers recognize that technical capability must be matched with culturally appropriate messaging and local language support to ensure emergency alerts are understood and acted upon

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for seamless integration between satellite and terrestrial networks, emphasizing that satellite solutions should complement existing mobile infrastructure rather than replace it

Speakers

– Isabelle Mauro
– Margo Deckard

Arguments

Integration of terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks is essential for reaching unconnected populations

Space-based cell towers can connect directly to devices in pockets, solving the terminal problem in emergency response

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers emphasize the unique global perspective and reliability that satellite systems provide for disaster management, offering capabilities that terrestrial systems cannot match

Speakers

– Cosmas Zavazava
– Pierre Philippe Mathieu

Arguments

Satellite communications are at the core of saving human lives during disasters for alerting and coordinating humanitarian action

Earth observation satellites provide globally consistent measurements and real-time disaster monitoring capabilities

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers focus on leveraging existing device capabilities (Bluetooth, cellular) to enable immediate satellite communication without requiring new hardware or infrastructure

Speakers

– Philippe Lattes
– Margo Deckard

Arguments

Bluetooth-based satellite communication can reach 8 billion smartphones and 30 billion objects worldwide with lower system costs

SpaceX has successfully sent emergency alerts during Hurricanes Helene and Milton and LA wildfires

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic

Unexpected consensus

Regulatory barriers as primary implementation challenge rather than technical limitations

Speakers

– Isabelle Mauro
– Cosmas Zavazava
– Margo Deckard

Arguments

Fast-track regulatory frameworks and reduced legal barriers are needed for emergency satellite service deployment

Countries must have policies, regulations, and spectrum access in place for crisis-time satellite use

Government supervision and formal protocols are needed to integrate satellite alerts with existing emergency systems

Explanation

Unexpectedly, all speakers identified regulatory and policy barriers rather than technical challenges as the primary obstacles to implementing satellite-based emergency systems, despite representing different technical approaches and organizations

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Immediate readiness of satellite technology for global emergency deployment

Speakers

– Margo Deckard
– Philippe Lattes
– Pierre Philippe Mathieu

Arguments

SpaceX has successfully sent emergency alerts during Hurricanes Helene and Milton and LA wildfires

Plans for 330 satellites with Bluetooth modules by 2027-28 using existing satellite opportunities rather than new constellations

European resilience from space proposal includes virtual constellations and AI-enabled autonomous satellite systems

Explanation

Despite representing different technical approaches (direct-to-cell, Bluetooth, Earth observation), all technical speakers agreed that their technologies are ready for immediate deployment, suggesting the satellite industry has reached a maturity level for emergency applications

Topics

Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

Speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus on key implementation challenges and solutions for satellite-based emergency warning systems. Main areas of agreement include: the operational readiness of current satellite technologies, the critical importance of partnerships and collaboration, the need for comprehensive regulatory frameworks, and the requirement for culturally appropriate local content.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for rapid implementation. The agreement suggests that the satellite industry and international organizations are aligned on both technical capabilities and implementation strategies, potentially accelerating the achievement of the 2027 early warnings for all target. The consensus on regulatory barriers as the primary challenge indicates a clear path forward focused on policy development rather than technology development.

Different viewpoints

Deployment strategy for satellite emergency systems

Speakers

– Margo Deckard
– Philippe Lattes

Arguments

Direct-to-device technology is deployed today with thousands of emergency cell broadcasts tested in 40 countries

Plans for 330 satellites with Bluetooth modules by 2027-28 using existing satellite opportunities rather than new constellations

Summary

Deckard emphasizes that direct-to-device technology is already operational and deployed today, while Lattes focuses on future deployment plans for 2027-28 using a different approach of integrating modules into existing satellites rather than building new constellations

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Technical approach to satellite-to-device communication

Speakers

– Margo Deckard
– Philippe Lattes
– Pierre Philippe Mathieu

Arguments

Space-based cell towers can connect directly to devices in pockets, solving the terminal problem in emergency response

Bluetooth-based satellite communication can reach 8 billion smartphones and 30 billion objects worldwide with lower system costs

AI processing on board satellites is needed to extract information and reduce latency in emergency response

Summary

Each speaker advocates for different technical approaches: Deckard promotes space-based cell towers using existing cellular spectrum, Lattes advocates for Bluetooth-based communication using free frequencies, and Mathieu emphasizes AI processing on satellites with geostationary solutions

Topics

Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Spectrum and frequency approach for emergency communications

Speakers

– Margo Deckard
– Philippe Lattes

Arguments

Space-based cell towers can connect directly to devices in pockets, solving the terminal problem in emergency response

Bluetooth-based satellite communication can reach 8 billion smartphones and 30 billion objects worldwide with lower system costs

Explanation

While both speakers advocate for direct-to-device communication, they propose fundamentally different spectrum approaches. Deckard’s solution uses existing cellular spectrum that requires solving for Doppler shift and extended range, while Lattes proposes using free Bluetooth frequencies. This represents an unexpected technical disagreement on the optimal frequency band for emergency satellite communications

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkable consensus on the importance of satellite technology for emergency communications, with disagreements primarily focused on technical implementation approaches and deployment timelines rather than fundamental goals

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers share common objectives of saving lives through satellite-based emergency communications but differ on technical solutions and implementation strategies. This level of disagreement is constructive and reflects the diversity of technological approaches available, rather than fundamental conflicts that would impede progress toward the 2027 early warning for all target

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for seamless integration between satellite and terrestrial networks, emphasizing that satellite solutions should complement existing mobile infrastructure rather than replace it

Speakers

– Isabelle Mauro
– Margo Deckard

Arguments

Integration of terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks is essential for reaching unconnected populations

Space-based cell towers can connect directly to devices in pockets, solving the terminal problem in emergency response

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers emphasize the unique global perspective and reliability that satellite systems provide for disaster management, offering capabilities that terrestrial systems cannot match

Speakers

– Cosmas Zavazava
– Pierre Philippe Mathieu

Arguments

Satellite communications are at the core of saving human lives during disasters for alerting and coordinating humanitarian action

Earth observation satellites provide globally consistent measurements and real-time disaster monitoring capabilities

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers focus on leveraging existing device capabilities (Bluetooth, cellular) to enable immediate satellite communication without requiring new hardware or infrastructure

Speakers

– Philippe Lattes
– Margo Deckard

Arguments

Bluetooth-based satellite communication can reach 8 billion smartphones and 30 billion objects worldwide with lower system costs

SpaceX has successfully sent emergency alerts during Hurricanes Helene and Milton and LA wildfires

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic

Key takeaways

Satellite technology for emergency communications is already deployed and operational, not futuristic – direct-to-device solutions are currently sending emergency alerts in real disasters

The main challenge is not technological but implementation-focused: ensuring proper protocols, training, regulatory frameworks, and partnerships are in place

Multiple complementary satellite technologies exist: direct-to-device (Link, SpaceX), Earth observation (Copernicus), and emerging Bluetooth-based solutions

Connectivity must be established before disasters strike – 4% of unconnected people in remote areas are most vulnerable during emergencies

Early warning systems require integration of terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks, with local content and language considerations being critical

Partnerships between industry, governments, and international organizations are essential for scaling solutions to meet the 2027 ‘early warnings for all’ target

Resolutions and action items

Adopt the temporary convention to reduce legal barriers for emergency telecommunications deployment

Establish fast-track regulatory frameworks for satellite services during emergencies

Promote cross-border cooperation while respecting national sovereignty for mutual assistance

Integrate satellite capabilities into national emergency frameworks and align policies with ITU guidelines

Conduct simulation exercises and joint response scenarios with all stakeholders to create readiness culture

Work on formalizing government approval processes for emergency alerts before disasters occur

Continue collaboration between ITU, GSOA, ESA and industry partners to scale satellite-based solutions

Attend the Global Symposium for Regulators in Riyadh (August 31 – September 3) to address regulatory barriers

Unresolved issues

How to prevent emergency alert fatigue when duplicate warnings are sent to the same device

Ensuring emergency alert functionality is activated by mobile providers in all countries

Standardizing protocols for government supervision and approval of satellite-based emergency alerts

Addressing the 10-year timeline for new spectrum compatibility in phones for some direct-to-device solutions

Resolving regulatory discussions around using free frequency bands like Bluetooth for satellite communications

Bridging the gap between Earth observation and connectivity communities for integrated solutions

Suggested compromises

Use existing satellite opportunities rather than building new constellations (embedding modules in existing satellites)

Leverage multiple complementary technologies rather than relying on a single solution

Focus on immediate deployment with current phone compatibility while developing future spectrum solutions in parallel

Balance global standardization with local content and language requirements

Integrate public services (like Copernicus) with commercial new space capabilities for comprehensive coverage

Communications are not a luxury… they are a necessity, and in particular in times of, in the face of natural or man-made disasters… mobile networks cover 96% of the global population, which is a major achievement. However, this coverage is concentrated in just 20% of the earth land area. So the remaining 4% of unconnected people are really spread across vast and hard to reach regions.

Speaker

Isabelle Mauro

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by establishing the fundamental paradox of connectivity – high population coverage but low geographic coverage. It shifts the conversation from viewing satellite technology as an enhancement to positioning it as essential infrastructure for the most vulnerable populations.

Impact

This opening statement set the foundational framework for the entire discussion, establishing that satellite technology isn’t just about improving existing systems but about reaching the unreachable. It influenced subsequent speakers to focus on global accessibility and equity rather than just technological capabilities.

Link was born out of my work in Liberia and Sierra Leone in the 2014 Ebola pandemic crisis response. I noticed that on these BGAN terminals… they were mostly used to text from. And if you imagine the amount of information you can contain in a text… you realize the terminal is the problem.

Speaker

Margo Deckard

Reason

This personal anecdote provides a powerful real-world origin story that transforms abstract technology discussion into human-centered problem-solving. It demonstrates how field experience directly drives innovation and reveals the gap between available technology and practical usability.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from theoretical capabilities to practical implementation challenges. It humanized the technology discussion and influenced other speakers to focus more on user experience and real-world deployment rather than just technical specifications.

We tested the deployment of emergency telecommunications, and in earlier days when we were doing early warning systems, we used it to send a siren and follow it with a message in English. And the young people, children, were dancing to the tune of the siren, not understanding that it’s actually an alert for them to go to higher ground if there is a tsunami.

Speaker

Cosmas Zavazava

Reason

This vivid example illustrates the critical gap between having technology and effective communication. It highlights how cultural context, language, and local understanding are as important as the technical infrastructure itself.

Impact

This story fundamentally changed the conversation’s focus from technical deployment to cultural adaptation and user comprehension. It influenced subsequent speakers to emphasize localization, user education, and the importance of appropriate messaging formats.

You cannot manage what you cannot measure… space offer really a unique perspective to do that because you can have a globally consistent way of measuring things across countries so that they can talk about the same variables because countries like just for temperature they would measure it in different way.

Speaker

Pierre Philippe Mathieu

Reason

This comment introduces a crucial systems thinking perspective, emphasizing that effective disaster response requires standardized, consistent data across borders. It highlights the coordination challenges beyond just connectivity.

Impact

This shifted the discussion toward the importance of data standardization and international cooperation. It broadened the conversation from individual country solutions to global coordination frameworks and influenced the focus on cross-border collaboration.

The future is now. I’d like to do the work right now, Alexander, so that two months from now, wherever that disaster, earthquake is, or tsunami, we could save lives.

Speaker

Margo Deckard

Reason

This urgent call to action challenges the typical technology development timeline and emphasizes the immediate life-saving potential of existing technology. It transforms the discussion from future possibilities to present responsibilities.

Impact

This comment created a sense of urgency that influenced the final portions of the discussion, pushing speakers to focus on immediate implementation barriers rather than long-term development. It reinforced the moderator’s closing emphasis on moving from ‘tools in space to real applications that save lives.’

The most widely standard in the ground is the Bluetooth standard… we are immediately compatible with all the smartphone, 8 billion of smartphone in the world, 30 billion of objects that could receive this directly.

Speaker

Philippe Lattes

Reason

This comment introduces a completely different technological approach that leverages existing ubiquitous infrastructure rather than requiring new hardware or spectrum. It demonstrates innovative thinking about working within existing constraints.

Impact

This alternative approach added technological diversity to the discussion and showed how different solutions can address the same problem through different pathways. It reinforced the theme that multiple complementary technologies will be needed for comprehensive coverage.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing three critical dimensions: the human imperative (communications as necessity, not luxury), the implementation reality (technology exists but deployment faces practical barriers), and the urgency of action (lives can be saved now, not just in the future). The most impactful comments were those that provided concrete, real-world examples – from children dancing to tsunami sirens to texting during Ebola outbreaks – which grounded the technical discussion in human consequences. The conversation evolved from a technology showcase to a call for immediate coordinated action, with speakers increasingly emphasizing partnerships, standardization, and the need to move beyond technical capabilities to practical implementation. The discussion’s trajectory moved from ‘what’s possible’ to ‘what’s necessary’ to ‘what must be done now.’

How to establish fast track regulatory frameworks for the use of satellite services during emergencies

Speaker

Isabelle Mauro

Explanation

This is critical for overcoming regulatory delays that currently underutilize satellite resources in emergencies

How to solve duplicate emergency cell broadcast warnings being sent to the same phone

Speaker

Margo Deckard

Explanation

This engineering challenge needs to be addressed to prevent emergency alert fatigue among citizens

How to ensure emergency cell broadcast functionality is turned on in all phones globally

Speaker

Margo Deckard

Explanation

Many populations have phones capable of receiving emergency alerts but the functionality is not activated by providers

How to formalize government approval processes for emergency alerts before disasters strike

Speaker

Margo Deckard

Explanation

Current ad hoc processes need to be systematized to ensure smooth operation during actual emergencies

How to integrate direct-to-device technology with existing Earth observation satellites for real-time disaster response

Speaker

Philippe Lattes

Explanation

Coupling connectivity with Earth observation satellites with embedded AI could enable real-time analysis and immediate alerts to relevant personnel

How to develop sustainable application layers for geostationary direct-to-device solutions

Speaker

Pierre Philippe Mathieu

Explanation

The disruptive technology demonstrated by Turnwaves needs to be developed into practical use cases

How to effectively integrate terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks for emergency communications

Speaker

Isabelle Mauro

Explanation

This integration is essential for reaching the 2.6 billion unconnected people and improving disaster response capabilities

How to implement the temporary convention to reduce legal barriers for emergency telecoms deployment

Speaker

Isabelle Mauro

Explanation

Legal barriers and customs duties currently hinder rapid deployment of satellite communication equipment during disasters

How to ensure proper local content, language, and messaging in emergency alerts

Speaker

Cosmas Zavazava

Explanation

Early warning systems failed when messages were sent in English with sirens that children didn’t understand as alerts, highlighting the need for culturally appropriate messaging

Summary

This discussion focused on the 20-year evolution of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), examining their achievements and future sustainability as multi-stakeholder governance platforms. The session brought together moderators Bruna Santos and Chris Buckridge with panelists including Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Tomas Lamanauskas from ITU, Anriette Esterhuysen, and remote participant Thibaut Kleiner from the European Union, along with younger voices like Camila Leite Contri and Halima Ismail.

Wolfgang Kleinwachter provided historical context, explaining how the multi-stakeholder approach emerged from disagreements between US private sector leadership and Chinese governmental leadership models in 2003, ultimately leading to Kofi Annan’s call for innovation in policymaking. The discussion highlighted significant achievements including increased global internet penetration from 2.5% in 2003 to two-thirds of the world today, the growth of Internet Exchange Points in Africa, and the successful IANA transition. However, participants acknowledged ongoing challenges, particularly the digital divide with only 37% of Africa having internet access.

A key theme was the tension between multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches, with speakers emphasizing these are complementary rather than competing models. The European Union strongly advocated for making the IGF permanent beyond 2025 with sustainable funding and proper institutional support. Younger participants stressed the need for greater inclusivity, particularly regarding gender representation, youth engagement, and participation from the Global South. The discussion also addressed the balance between the IGF’s role as a dialogue forum versus pressure to produce actionable recommendations, with most agreeing that its strength lies in fostering meaningful debate rather than formal decision-making. Participants concluded that while multi-stakeholder governance has proven valuable, it must continue evolving to address emerging challenges like AI while maintaining its inclusive, bottom-up character and ensuring public interest remains central to discussions.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Evolution and History of Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance**: The discussion traced the development from the 2003 WSIS process through to today’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF), highlighting how the multi-stakeholder approach emerged as an innovative solution when traditional government-led and private sector-led models proved insufficient for global internet governance.

– **Future Sustainability and Institutionalization of the IGF**: Strong support was expressed for making the IGF permanent beyond 2025, with calls for secure funding through the UN regular budget, dedicated secretariat support, and formal recognition of national and regional IGFs to ensure long-term sustainability.

– **Balancing Inclusivity with Effectiveness**: Participants grappled with how to make these forums truly inclusive for underrepresented communities (youth, Global South, civil society) while maintaining their effectiveness, discussing the tension between being “for everybody” versus being “everything for everybody.”

– **Moving from Discussion to Action**: The conversation addressed ongoing challenges in translating multi-stakeholder dialogue into concrete outcomes, with debates about whether forums like the IGF should produce formal recommendations or maintain their current role as spaces for open dialogue and collaboration.

– **Integration and Coordination Across Processes**: Discussion of how to better coordinate between various overlapping initiatives (WSIS, IGF, Global Digital Compact) to avoid duplication of efforts and ensure coherent approaches to digital governance challenges.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to reflect on 20 years of the WSIS process and IGF, assess their current value and challenges, and chart a path forward for multi-stakeholder internet governance platforms in an evolving digital landscape, particularly in preparation for the upcoming WSIS+20 review.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was constructive and collaborative throughout, with participants showing genuine commitment to improving these processes. While there was acknowledgment of significant challenges and tensions (particularly around inclusivity, funding, and effectiveness), the discussion remained optimistic and solution-oriented. The conversation maintained a balance between celebrating past achievements and honestly addressing current limitations, with speakers building on each other’s points rather than engaging in adversarial debate.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Thibaut Kleiner** – Participated remotely, representing the European Union perspective on IGF and WSIS processes

– **Craig Stanley Adamson** – Head of Internet Governance for the UK Department of Science, Innovation and Technology

– **Tomas Lamanauskas** – Host representative from ITU (International Telecommunication Union), involved in WSIS processes since 2005

– **Wout de Natris** – Coordinator of IS3C (Dynamic Coalition in International Security and Safety), representing 32 Dynamic Coalitions

– **Halima Ismail** – From Bahrain, discussing future relevance of WSIS and IGF platforms

– **Jennifer Corriero** – From Canada, founder of the Youth Caucus, involved in national campaigns in over 30 countries

– **Chris Buckridge** – Co-moderator of the session, member of the IGF multi-stakeholder advisory group

– **Camila Leite Contri** – From Brazil, works for IDAC (consumer organization), advocate for enhanced multi-stakeholder processes

– **Bruna Martins dos Santos** – Session moderator

– **William J. Drake** – Professor at Columbia University in New York, expert on multistakeholder governance processes

– **Jorge Cancio** – Swiss Government representative

– **Wolfgang Kleinwachter** – Internet governance expert with historical knowledge of WSIS processes, involved since the early discussions

– **Anriette Esterhuysen** – Member of civil society stakeholder group, long-time IGF community participant

– **Participant** – From India, practicing electronic system design architect working in sanitization, smart cities, and digital infrastructure

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Summary: 20 Years of WSIS and IGF – Reflecting on Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance

## Introduction and Context

This discussion brought together internet governance experts, government representatives, civil society advocates, and technical community members to reflect on two decades of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The session, moderated by Bruna Martins dos Santos and Chris Buckridge, examined the evolution, achievements, and future of multi-stakeholder governance platforms.

Participants included Wolfgang Kleinwachter providing historical perspective; Tomas Lamanauskas from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU); Anriette Esterhuysen from civil society; Thibaut Kleiner participating remotely from the European Union; government representatives Craig Stanley Adamson (UK) and Jorge Cancio (Switzerland); and younger voices including Camila Leite Contri (Brazil) and Halima Ismail (Bahrain).

## Historical Evolution and Key Principles

### Origins of Multi-stakeholder Governance

Wolfgang Kleinwachter explained how the multi-stakeholder approach emerged from disagreements during the 2003 WSIS process. When the United States advocated for private sector leadership whilst China pushed for governmental control, neither model proved sufficient. This led to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan calling for innovation in policymaking approaches.

Kleinwachter emphasized a key insight: “The Internet doesn’t need leadership, it needs collaboration from all sides.” This principle shifted the paradigm from hierarchical control to distributed responsibility, establishing the foundation for multi-stakeholder governance.

Tomas Lamanauskas described his personal journey from viewing the internet as a “geek hobby” to recognizing it as essential global infrastructure, reflecting the broader transformation in how these governance mechanisms evolved.

### Development of the IGF Ecosystem

Anriette Esterhuysen highlighted how the IGF evolved into a flexible ecosystem, with national and regional IGFs developing alongside dynamic coalitions. She noted the ongoing tension between serving connected populations facing complex challenges and addressing the needs of billions without internet access.

The IGF’s strength, according to Esterhuysen, lay in its ability to accommodate different perspectives whilst maintaining focus on meaningful dialogue rather than formal decision-making.

## Achievements and Concrete Successes

### Progress in Global Connectivity

Wolfgang Kleinwachter noted that global internet penetration increased from 2.5% in 2003 to approximately two-thirds of the world’s population today. Craig Stanley Adamson emphasized concrete successes through multi-stakeholder processes, particularly the growth of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in Africa and the successful IANA transition.

### Institutional Innovation

The development of national and regional IGFs represented significant institutional innovation. Wout de Natris, representing 32 Dynamic Coalitions, emphasized how these year-round working groups produced policy recommendations and research, contributing to the IGF’s role as a knowledge-generating platform.

## Current Challenges

### Digital Divide and Inclusion

Despite progress, participants acknowledged persistent challenges. Anriette Esterhuysen articulated a fundamental tension: “There’s always been this tension at the IGF between it being a space where we talk about those who do have the Internet and who are facing increasing new, complex, emerging challenges… and on the other hand, the billions of people who do not have access to the Internet.”

She noted that only 37% of Africa has internet access, highlighting how governance discussions risk excluding the global majority.

### Gender Inequality and Representation

Camila Leite Contri raised concerns about gender representation, noting that internet governance panels remained “almost entirely male-dominated.” She argued that “gender should be at the centre of internet governance, both at IGF and also maybe with a new action line at WSIS to be cross-cutting.”

### Resource Constraints

Multiple speakers addressed how resource constraints prevented meaningful participation from civil society, youth, and Global South stakeholders. The overlapping processes (WSIS, IGF, Global Digital Compact) created additional burdens for resource-constrained organizations.

## Future Sustainability and IGF Permanence

### Strong Support for Permanent Mandate

There was clear consensus supporting making the IGF permanent beyond 2025. Thibaut Kleiner stated that the “EU supports making IGF permanent beyond 2025 with secure funding through UN budget and dedicated director with proper secretariat.”

Craig Stanley Adamson echoed this: “UK fully supports permanent IGF mandate and formal recognition for national/regional IGFs to promote local community-led views.”

### Institutional Structure Needs

Speakers emphasized the need for proper institutional support, including dedicated secretariat functions and formal recognition of national and regional IGFs. Wout de Natris highlighted the need for better integration of Dynamic Coalitions through “MAG liaisons to increase recognition and participation.”

## Multilateralism and Multi-stakeholderism

### Complementary Approaches

Wolfgang Kleinwachter argued against “false polarisation between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism – they are two sides of same coin that must work together.” Jorge Cancio from Switzerland advocated for “cross-pollination between multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches.”

Kleinwachter provided a key distinction: “Stakeholders have knowledge and expertise whilst governments have legitimacy and authority for binding commitments – both needed.”

However, William J. Drake highlighted implementation challenges, noting the need for “real engagement between stakeholders and government representatives, not siloed three-minute consultations.”

## Dialogue Versus Recommendations Debate

A key tension emerged around whether the IGF should produce formal recommendations. Anriette Esterhuysen argued that “IGF’s strength is meaningful debate and collaborative space rather than negotiating forum that might weaken its potential.”

She explained the challenges: “The moment you start actually calling them recommendations, then questions come up such as, who’s accountable for implementing them? How do you report on what happens with those recommendations?”

Most participants agreed that the IGF’s strength lay in fostering dialogue rather than formal decision-making.

## Coordination and Public Interest

### Avoiding Duplication

Camila Leite Contri emphasized the need to “avoid duplication of efforts and waste of resources by coordinating overlapping discussions like GDC with WSIS.” Thibaut Kleiner supported “roadmaps for the future should make WSIS action lines operational whilst incorporating UN activities and avoiding duplications.”

### Centralizing Public Interest

Camila Leite Contri emphasized that “public interest must be at centre of discussions, as tech power unfortunately pushes it away from first priority.” Bruna Martins dos Santos reinforced this, arguing that “public interest should moderate tensions between topics and spaces.”

## Emerging Challenges

### Artificial Intelligence

Several speakers highlighted AI as representing new challenges. Halima Ismail asked about building “efficient early warning systems for emerging digital risks like AI agents,” reflecting concerns about technological change outstripping governance mechanisms.

### Reporting and Transparency

Jennifer Corriero asked about reporting mechanisms from governments on WSIS implementation, highlighting the need for better accountability and transparency in existing processes.

## Audience Perspectives

The discussion included diverse audience contributions, including a proposal from an Indian participant for an “18th SDG, safe and meaningful digital life for the citizens of the world,” suggesting that internet governance had evolved into a fundamental development imperative.

## Key Recommendations

### Institutional Reforms

– Secure permanent IGF mandate beyond 2025 with UN regular budget funding

– Formal recognition of national and regional IGFs

– Better integration of Dynamic Coalitions through MAG liaisons

– Enhanced secretariat support with dedicated director

### Process Improvements

– Strengthen reporting mechanisms and transparency

– Create better “sounding board” mechanisms between stakeholders and governments

– Improve coordination between overlapping processes

– Enhance gender representation and inclusion of marginalized communities

### Capacity Building

– Provide funding and skills development for civil society participation

– Enhance outreach to affected communities

– Address resource constraints limiting meaningful participation

## Conclusion

The discussion revealed a policy community with shared values around multi-stakeholder governance but different strategic preferences for implementation. Strong consensus emerged on institutional matters, particularly permanent IGF mandate and the complementary nature of multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches.

However, significant challenges remain around resource constraints, gender representation, and balancing dialogue with action. The emphasis on public interest as a central organizing principle, combined with broad agreement on IGF permanence, provides a foundation for future development through the WSIS+20 process.

The conversation demonstrated that while multi-stakeholder governance has proven valuable over two decades, it requires continued evolution to address emerging challenges like AI while maintaining its inclusive character and addressing persistent barriers to meaningful participation.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: The good thing about the Internet is everything is connected. The bad thing about the Internet is everything is connected. The Internet has become a very, very fundamental infrastructure for virtually everything, all of our daily lives are touched. Even if we’re not using it directly as users, we’re still affected by others who are using it for their daily work. So we have to train people to understand what the risks are and how to defend themselves against those risks. There is a very tricky balance here to figuring out how to make the Internet configured to serve us all well, while at the same time not being abused by either individuals or by governments. The Internet Governance Forum is multi-stakeholder and global in scope. It helps to inform legislators and others about policies that would make the Internet operate well, securely, safely, fairly, affordably, and reliably. The Internet Governance Forum is an open organization. Anyone is permitted to participate. We want those who are making rules to be informed by the parties who will be affected. So we all have a mission, which is to make the Internet a place that’s worthy of its intent. Hello and welcome. My name is Bruna Santos, I’m one of the moderators of this session. And my name is Chris Puckridge, I’m a member of the IGF multi-stakeholder advisory group and co-moderator of this session. Thanks. Just to start by saying that this video that we just saw was produced by… and Mr. Thomas Lamanauskas, Mr. Thibaut Kleiner. Thank you very much. I would like to invite the IGF leadership panel and GIZ, the German cooperation agency, to highlight the value of the IGF as one of the main stakeholder approaches in the Internet governance space, and also to say that the goal of the session is to discuss multi-stakeholder approaches in general, their long-term sustainability. Here we’re going to have a conversation about WSIS, IGF, and the future of WSIS, and also to talk about the importance of the WSIS process. We have been discussing WSIS for a long time, but the main approaches have been the main outcome of the WSIS processes, and we want to celebrate them and discuss the past and the future. And we’re going to start maybe with a little bit of history, because we do know that many in this room do know the history, but it’s also important to be

Chris Buckridge: remembered of the values and the things we’ve advocated so much in the long term of these processes. So, we’re going to start with the first part of the session, which is going to be interactive, and we’ve scheduled it so that we have really the second half of the hour as an opportunity for you to give us your ideas, your thoughts on what the future might and should look like for multi-stakeholder platforms. I’ll be the one running around with the microphone, so please use the beginning of the session to

Bruna Martins dos Santos: think about what you might want to input here. Thanks. So, I’m going to start with the first part of the panel, because we do want to have a lot of time for participation from the audience and from you guys, but I’ll start with Wolfgang, Thomas and Henriette as people that have been present in a lot of these processes in the history of the shaping of this for us and so on. So, we would like to hear from you guys a little bit about WSIS, the Internet Governance Forum, and achieving the goals of WSIS. So, can I start with you, Wolfgang?

Wolfgang Kleinwachter: Thank you, Bruna, and it’s always good to remember history, because if you do not know the history, you will be unable to and Mr. Thomas Lamanauskas. Thank you very much. I would like to start with a question about how we manage the future because present is a result of the history and the problems of today have roots in the past and managing in the future needs to understand the history. And everybody agrees that the multi-stakeholder approach was the big part of the past. And if you try to find the starting point for this debate, you have to go back into the 1970s, half a century ago, when the Club of Rome discovered that the world will be confronted with what they call the global problems of mankind, and they identified peace, development, environment, energy, and also information, communication as global problems of mankind. And then we should not forget that it was Mr. Thibaut Kleiner who was the first to say that the global problems of mankind are not only the problems of the world, but also the problems of the world. And I would like to stress that the universal human values are more important than the special interests of special political classes. I think this was a great breakthrough which really led to a broader understanding of what globalization means in the early 20th century, and I think that’s a good example of the way in which the world has been transformed from decentralized institutions to transnational institutions. Manuel Castells wrote the network society where he argued that bordered places will be confronted with unbordered spaces, and indeed a lot of things in the 90s, what we have seen, came out and became transnational. And indeed, the whole internet was transnational from the early days, so there was no borders. for communication anymore, so the traditional barriers of time and space disappeared. And so we ended up in a situation in 2003 in Geneva when we had two different concepts. One was that the United States wanted to have private sector leadership, and China said, okay, private sector leadership is good for one million users, but now we have nearly one billion users and we need governmental leadership. This was really a big disagreement, and if you have a disagreement how to solve it, you create a working group. And in the working group on internet governance, I remember the speech by Kofi Annan in 2004 when he encouraged us to bring innovation also to policy making. His argument was the internet is an innovation in technology and he said, okay, we cannot settle the 21st century problems by being traditional in the instruments and mechanisms of the 20th century. So when he encouraged us to say you have to bring innovation to policy making, we came up with the conclusion and said the internet doesn’t need leadership, it needs collaboration from all sides. And so the proposal for a multi-stakeholder approach for internet governance became the main proposal from the WICG, and to my surprise, 193 governments accepted it in Tunis. So this was the pre-history and now we are here 20 years later and we have to look forward how to do with this outcome from Tunis. Thank you.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks Wolfgang. Thomas, I’ll bring the conversation to you as our host in this event and also the space from where the World Citizen Information Society was generated from. We would just like to hear from you and the ITU what’s the value of a mechanism such as the WICG as we all see it as the baseline for many of the internet governance discussions we have these days. Thank you.

Tomas Lamanauskas: Thank you very much indeed. when Volkan was talking about history, I started reflecting on my personal history, because I think Internet in a way, the history of Internet is the history of the world, how we go, but for a lot of us, it’s a personal story as well. So for me, the Internet story is about the mid-90s, nearly independent Lithuania, of a student in a high school using Fidonet at the time, not Internet, and then using my then first Open Society Foundation-provided email address to connect to the world and starting understanding what’s beyond those borders there. And now, of course, at that time, it was just a dabbling in that world of information, being geeky about it, and then first Internet with a Eric in chat rooms where we tried to engage with the world, sometimes we tried to break those rooms as well, I have to tell you as a high school kid. And then fast forward to being now part of this community that’s going to where the Internet is no longer the kind of geeky hobby, but that’s something that changes everything and we kind of talk about it everywhere. So I think that’s a really remarkable story from here. So geeks are mainstream now, and I think that’s a thing someone to realize in their personal history is important. And the same happens with the digital, reflecting in Sustainable Development Goals Agenda, what digital was mentioned once and ICTs twice, I think. And then, of course, now this last week, digital is 64 times, and then outcome document. So I think this is a really remarkable achievement we shouldn’t forget. And of course, Internet penetration, if you look 2003, 2.5% now we have two-thirds of the world connected. Not enough, but we have that. I think that is a remarkable work of these communities coming together. The business process was this way to bring communities and I think to have this understanding that you need governments, understanding how the technical community work, and you need academia, you need private sector, you need private sector in civil society, they all need to come together. And the WSIS itself already was statistics, I think it was 513,500 people, including between more than 6,000 NGO people, nearly 5,000 private sector people. It is always a multi-stakeholder community coming together. It was not always easy to work together, you know, I have to say. I’ve been in the NHU 10 years ago. I went in WSIS 2005. I keep coming back every 10 years and I get to tell you, every 10 years is a qualitative shift. Now, it’s a very different environment than it was before. It wasn’t easy. But at the same time, we really have to see how we achieved a lot. And now, there’s two kind of, I call it two legs of the WSIS, no IGF since 2006, WSIS Forum since 2009. And of course, on WSIS Forum, we also celebrate, you know, what I think is remarkable, you know, remarkable engagement. 50,000 people since then engaged in the WSIS Forum. We have 15,000 entries in the WSIS stock-taking database. It demonstrates all these great achievements people do around the world. 6,000 submissions for the WSIS prizes, you know, around that time. 2 million people subscribing to the WSIS stock-taking, you know, things. So, we really have this community there that’s really, really engaging and we can tap on this. So, when we’re now talking about new process, new formats and other things, I’m kind of, my reminder is always this, it hasn’t happened over the day, you know. So, sometimes you feel it’s easy to say, look, let’s just bring stakeholders in the room. And I have to say, like, our story, WSIS story, ITU story over the last 20 years says, it’s not that easy. You actually need to make an effort. You need to make an effort to understand. You need to make an effort to go beyond three minutes for the stakeholder kind of idea to actually understanding each other, bringing each other together, bringing everyone together and really engaging and really understanding that everyone has a role and we need to work together. Thanks a lot.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thank you very much. And straight to you, Henriette, as a key part of this community as well and a member of the civil society stakeholder group, I would say you also agree that it was not always easy, right, in that sense. But we’re also inviting you to talk about the IGF who just celebrated its 20th edition and maybe the long term challenges we had in this space, but also the build up of the IGF. So, yeah, you have the floor and thanks for joining.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much, Bruna, and thanks for inviting me. And I think that there’s, you know, to look at how the IGF has evolved as an ecosystem and as a community, I think it’s worth thinking about the fact that there’s always been this tension at the IGF between it being a space where we talk about those who do have the Internet and who are facing increasing new, complex, emerging challenges related to Internet governance and the IGF being a space. We’re talking about that between different stakeholder groups. And on the other hand, the billions of people who do not have access to the Internet and come from parts of the world where all stakeholders, be they government, civil society or the private sector, are facing enormous constraints in terms of access to resources, access to infrastructure. And I think what we’ve seen with the IGF is this tension, which is quite dynamic, and sometimes we have one group of stakeholders dominate more than others. But we’ve seen this ecosystem evolve that actually responds to this tension, this dynamic tension. We’ve seen the emergence of national and regional IGFs where those communities can actually engage Internet governance, Internet policy and development on their own terms, contextualized, where they actually are able to talk about electricity and basic infrastructure, topics which are not always that interesting to global North stakeholders at a global IGF. And similarly, as we’ve seen governments become more aware of the IGF as a potential challenge for regimes, for example, we’ve seen the topic of Internet shutdowns become a topic that’s dealt with at the IGF. As we’ve seen big tech corporations from starting off as being enablers of freedom of expression, you know, the primary enablers now, in fact, become entities that sometimes are seen as potential threats. to freedom of expression. We’re able to discuss that as well. We’ve seen a topic like technology facilitated gender-based violence being discussed by an IGF best practice forum. You might have heard that spam, which was mentioned in the Tunis agenda, was a huge challenge in 2005, but we had a best practice forum dealing with spam. We now have dynamic coalitions which are self-organized communities within the IGF who can bring their issues, such as community connectivity for example, or public health, or sustainability of journalism in the context of the impact of technology on the media, to raise their issues in the context of the IGF. We have seen the youth IGF and we’re going to hear more about that. So I think that for me really is the power of the IGF, that it has the flexibility to enable bottom-up evolution of its institutional ecosystem to respond to this fundamental tension, but also to this constantly emerging terrain of digital governance. It’s no longer just about internet governance. It really has evolved into a platform where we can talk about all aspects of digital governance.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks so much, Henriette. Chris, right to you.

Chris Buckridge: Okay. Thank you, Henriette. So this has been a bit of a recap of where we are, how we got here. What we want to do now with the session, I think, is begin to look to the future, begin to think about, okay, we have this 20 years of experience under our belt. We’ve seen these processes develop and evolve, but we know that there remain an awful lot of challenges in this space and that these processes, these structures that we’re working on will need to evolve to address that. We have three speakers, one of whom, Thibaut Kleiner, is remote and I’m hoping that he’s online already and ready to speak, if I can. I hope you can get a bit of indication from the back of the room. Yes, I’m here. Perfect. I hope you can hear me. We can Thibaut, so I’ll pass the floor to you. Thank you very much.

Thibaut Kleiner: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I’m really very happy to be able to participate online. I’ll be joining you in Geneva this evening. Today, I’m very honored to celebrate with you these 20 years of the YSYS process. I think that, as many already said, the Internet has become almost an intrinsic part of our life and something that most economies and societies these days cannot do without. It has become really a global infrastructure that is at the heart of many processes, many things that we do on a daily basis, actually grounded on the Internet. We tend to forget it sometimes. We tend to take it for granted. And it’s also true, as also some said, that a large part of the world still does not have access to the Internet. The last figure I saw is that Africa, only 37% of the population has access to the Internet. It’s much better than 20 years ago, where only 2% of the African population had access to the Internet. We’re getting better, but we are far from a situation where there is equality in terms of opportunities in the digital world. Today, I wanted to make two points in that context. It’s also a special year. We have the YSYS 20. We also have had the Global Digital Compact approved. I think all this was an opportunity. Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss in terms of where we stand and where we want to go with the digital transformation that is also so critical for development, for education, for inclusion. And my first point is really that the IGF really is the symbol of this multi-stakeholder model, an open and inclusive bottom-up approach that we envisaged already in the Tunis Agreement. And I think this is something that we need to cherish because it’s only through this inclusive dialogue that we can also be aware of the new challenges. Now, AI, for instance, has been also massively in the scope of discussions. And we need now also to maybe revisit the way we have organized the IGF. So from the European Union, when we look at this opportunity this year to go back to the YSYS, we want actually the IGF to be made permanent. We want the IGF to be institutionalized beyond 2025. That’s really an important message. And we want actually that there is secure funding, sustainable funding for the IGF through the regular UN budget, but also voluntary contributions. And we want really to make sure that the IGF, for instance, is even a dedicated director. It is getting also a proper secretariat so that it is really having all the features of an institution that can play a role in the UN family. So that’s the first point I wanted to make. Just like we look back, we need also to project ourselves in the future where the multistakeholder model is really secured through the IGF. And the second point I wanted to make is that we also need to look at the many issues that are emerging. with the Global Digital Compact, but also with the Sustainable Development Goals. We have an opportunity somehow to complement or to coordinate with the YSYS action lines. And I think that, again, from the European Union, we would like to make sure that we have an agenda that is future-proof, that is also ready for these new challenges. And what we have proposed, actually, is to have something that we call the roadmaps for the future. So really making sure that the YSYS action lines somehow are made operational through these roadmaps so that we can really incorporate the many activities that are taking place in the UN and beyond and avoid duplications, but also make sure that we take stock of progress in a way that is up to speed with recent development. So this is really something we have proposed, and we believe that it is an opportunity to not only secure the multi-stakeholder model, but also to prove that

Chris Buckridge: it works in relation to these new challenges. Okay, thank you very much, Thibaut. We had a slight synchronization issue here, but I think we all heard you very loud and clear, so glad you could be here with us remotely. We have two more speakers who are coming from, well, the younger end of the spectrum in engagement, and I think that’s a very valuable input perspective to have when we’re looking to the future and how these processes are developing. So first, please,

Camila Leite Contri: Camila Leite, can I turn to you? Of course, thank you. As you can imagine, I wasn’t in the initial discussions of WSIS, but I’m very happy to be part of this moment right now and to see the evolution of this and our willingness to make this even more inclusive. And I feel personally engaged to do that, because we are talking not only about the past learnings, but also how we can do better for future generations, and happy to be with more youth people to be thinking about the future. I believe that these spaces remain pretty essential, but we need to do some enhancements to advance this kind of discussions. And as someone that comes from Brazil and working for a consumer organization, I work for IDAC, I believe it’s very important for us when we are discussing multi-stakeholder to recall that we already have discussions on how to improve multi-stakeholder processes. We had Net Mundial Plus 10, we have the São Paulo principles, which recognize the need to enhance the notion of multi-stakeholder considering the different responsibilities of each stakeholder and also the imbalance between them. So we need to proactively reach out, for example, to civil society, to affected communities, who unfortunately most of the times cannot be in this kind of room. And for that we need funding, we need support, we need skills, we need development for them to be in equal footing with us. And also as civil society we need to push this kind of participation as well. And again, I’m personally engaged to do so. A second thing is that we see several overlaps and several overlaps in important discussions, but we see, and being really direct, we see some waste of resources when we duplicate efforts that can be coordinated, that doesn’t necessarily have to be fragmented and can be more cohesive. And we see, for example, important GDC discussions that we see a lot of synergy that could go inside WSIS. And I think that this kind of participation, this recognition of coherence is necessary. And this is a sensitive issue, but we also need to consider budget constraints, both from civil society organizations to be part of several discussions, but also UN agencies, for example, and for youth organizations to be part of this. And lastly, I think when we are thinking about the past and the future, we see and Mr. Thibaut Kleiner. Thank you. I would like to start with some common narratives that we need to overcome. The first one is that if we are having global discussions, this is, we cannot consider local realities. As he had mentioned, it is essential to value regional and local IGFs considering how the implementation of WSIS, for example, can impact regional and local issues. So, we have to be aware that if we are having these discussions, we are having these false polarisation between human rights and

Chris Buckridge: innovation. Breaking the law is not innovative and we have to go beyond that and have to continue to contribute to these discussions. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much.

Halima Ismail: And so the final speaker we have here on the stage with us is Halima Ismail coming from Bahrain. So, Halima, please. Thank you. So, I would like to start with a few questions for WSIS and the IGF to remain relevant and impactful over the next 20 years. First, how do we ensure these platforms remain truly inclusive clearing houses for knowledge? This answers to keep expanding spaces for digital and digital innovation. Second, how can we build an efficient early warning system for emerging digital risks like the rapid rise of AI agents? I believe the solution is to strengthen collaboration with technical experts, civil society and non-profits who often work closest to communities and can service issues that larger institutions might miss. Third, how do we move from discussion to action?

Chris Buckridge: Thank you very much, Halima. Thomas, I know you have to leave, so thank you for being with us here today. So we’ve reached the point of the discussion here, and I hope that our panellists on stage will also feel free to join in this, but we’d really like to hear from those of you in the audience. I’m going to pass over to Bruna and I will go grab a mic and bring it to you where you’re sitting.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: So yes, open for anyone that wants to join the debate. Three minutes intervention. We have mainly two questions for you guys. What do we want from multi-stakeholder governance platforms and how could their value be harnessed? But also feel free to add anything else that you feel is relevant for this conversation. And Chris is going to find you. If we can dim the lights just a little bit to the audience, we cannot really see them from here. Thank

Craig Stanley Adamson: you guys. So my name is Craig Stanley Adamson. I’m Head of Internet Governance for the UK Department of Science, Innovation and Technology, and will be part of the WSIS process this year. I’d just like to start by saying that it’s clear that multi-stakeholder engagement and collaboration through the WSIS process has tackled and delivered on many global issues. Just a quick little recap, I just want to highlight that the IGF has made concrete successes of the increase of IXPs, Internet Exchange Points, across Africa. It played a crucial role in IANA transition and it’s helped developing the next generation of global majority leaders in Internet governance. We heard from Tomas that the WSIS Forum has made tangible outputs on many of the action lines that we’re discussing this week. I think it’s really important to discuss how we keep these tangible outputs and momentum going and how we can further strengthen these WSIS processes going forward. Part of this comes from the permanent mandate of the IGF, as Thibaut mentioned, and the UK fully supports this and the need for greater support to the IGF Secretariat to help deliver that. This will help ensure focus and consistency as we tackle these global challenges. One of the other areas the UK is looking to bring to the WSIS review is formal recognition for the national and regional IGFs, which can play a greater role in promoting local and community-led views into these global processes. It’s crucial that we have diverse input from the global majority to tackle these digital issues and we’re pleased to hear the reference from one of the participants on stage to the São Paulo Principles on Multistakeholder Participation. So just to clarify again and reiterate that ensuring a rich and diverse range of inputs from all stakeholder groups needs to be a priority and a key focus for us during this WSIS plus 20 review, and it’s something that we should hope to continue that discussion going forward, so not let it stop at this particular review. Thank you.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you very much. Thibaut, please.

Wout de Natris: Yes, thank you, Chris, and thank you all for presenting. My name is Wouter Natus van der Boerth and I’m the coordinator of IS3C, the Dynamic Coalition in International Security and Safety, and sort of unofficially representing all 32 DCs today. My intervention focuses on the importance of the year-round intersessional work going on at the IGF. Many people are not aware of this intersessional work nor of its useful outcomes and important, sometimes even important outcomes. There are 10 new reports from dynamic coalitions in 2025. Several DCs are working on and have strong linkages to the WSIS action lines, for example, on health and capacity building, inclusion, cyber security. They include many WSIS partners working in these dynamic coalitions. All DCs will cover well over 1,000 different partners who contribute in the form of funding, cooperation in kind, participating in consultations, writing reports, and sitting in online meetings. Our reports can feed into several programs around the world as they contain policy recommendations, identified best practices, or simply sound advice as what works and does not work. Compiled from the input from many and researched by experts, you will find that they align with the WSIS action programs and projected outcomes with the GDC and the SDGs. The DCs came away from the IGF 2025 in Lilleström with the following takeaways. The future of the multi-stakeholder governance must be generally inclusive, not only in principle, but in practice. Standards for safety, security, and accessibility are a key element for ensuring an open and inclusive internet. Dynamic coalitions function as engines of innovation, dialogue, and community-driven research on some of the most pressing issues in internet governance. But on action points, there is something going wrong on my screen, but that’s solved now. On action points, strengthening of the recognition of dynamic coalitions as an indispensable research in multi-stakeholder governance. And that’s the action for the future. The work of DCs in the future can be better integrated into the IGF program. We propose that the DCs have one or two liaisons in the MAG who advise on the way expected DC outcomes are reflected by and better become integrated into the IGF program so that outcomes become far better known, better recognized by the whole community, leading to more participation because all stakeholders would have a higher stake in the projected outcomes. So, I hope that we can discuss that in the near future. Thank you, Chris.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you for that.

Participant: Hi, good afternoon. My name is… I’m from India. I’m a practicing electronic system design architect, and I’m into sanitization, smart cities, and digital infrastructure domain. I think internet governance is a very, very concurrent subject, and I think it is becoming all the more important, looking into the disruption that all the digital technologies are bringing, particularly the AI. And one of the things that is coming to the mind, and when we talk about citizens and development of cities, because we were having a, the previous session was talking about cities and all that, and citizens are the most important part. And when we talk about them, and in cities context also, we talk about SDGs, all the 17 SDGs. But I think we need another 18th SDG, safe and meaningful digital life for the citizens of the world. I think this needs to, we always say that internet is becoming a fundamental right, but nobody’s talking about the governance and the importance to a level that it could be added as another SDG. Just my two cents to the discussion. Maybe people may like and take this idea forward, but happy to work on this thing, because this is very close to my heart. Thank you.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thank you very much for the interventions.

Chris Buckridge: We have one more intervention from Bill, I know, and maybe then we can go, and then, yeah.

William J. Drake: Hi. I’m Bill Drake. I teach at Columbia University in New York. WIS is a process, obviously, has greatly stimulated multistakeholder engagement across the board. One of the things that I’ve noticed, though, is the kind of bifurcation between the experiences within multistakeholder governance processes and multilateral processes that have added a multistakeholder participation component, which you might call multilateralism plus. So, on the multistakeholder side of the coin, you’ve got bodies like ICANN and so on, which have demonstrated that they’re essentially learning organizations. that they continually try to improve their processes by reflecting on what they’ve done and how could they do it better, and have developed institutional mechanisms to try to increase the ways in which all stakeholders, including governments, are able to work together with others to come to decisions. On the multilateral side, though, what we’ve had is a lot of sort of, okay, we create a multilateral, a multi-stakeholder space. We have like a consultation where multi-stakeholder people can come and speak for three minutes and give a canned presentation, but the government people are not in the room, they’re not engaging. We don’t have enough real engagement between stakeholders and government representatives, which we did back in the WSIS process 20 years ago. And so what I would try to suggest is that, it would be useful if on the intergovernmental side of things, we could also have a learning institution kind of culture, where we could try to reflect on how we’ve done things and how to improve the process to increase the capacity of states to work together with stakeholders in an interactive, dynamic fashion to reach governance solutions that are actually more sustainable and broadly supported by everybody, rather than having siloed conversations where, you know, okay, the stakeholders get to talk, but they talk over there and the governments are not in the room. We need to be together in the conversation and I hope we can start to find ways to work on developing that better. Thank you.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you, Bill.

Jennifer Corriero: Hello, my name is Jennifer Corriero from Canada and I was happy with taking a global and our organization was happy to be the only Canadian project in the WSIS champion. So out of 90 selected, and it really has me thinking about the need for reports like I would like to see a report from the government of Canada on all the actions from all the line items. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. I think that’s a great question. I think it’s really important and I’m sure there’s a lot of people that are going to be interested in technology, but the question is, how do we continue to develop these types of systems in the past 20 years? And in general, not just for one country, but we were one of the founders of the Youth Caucus, we had national campaigns in over 30 countries, there were consultations. And I just wonder what mechanisms there are within countries for reporting and how to continue to expand these multi-stakeholder networks within country, because it seems that there’s much limited capacity, at least in the Canadian context. So that’s something that I’d like to see, like I’d like to see the report on how commitments have been taken, and maybe I’m missing that if it’s on the website, I apologize, but thank you.

Chris Buckridge: Okay, thank you very much. I think Jorge had a very brief point, and maybe then we can hear a bit of reactions from those on the panel, some of what we’ve heard.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Chris. Jorge Gancios, Swiss Government, so happy to be here, happy to listening to you. I just want to pick on something that Ms. Halima Ismail said, which is that the framework has to deliver on our digital present and future, if I understood that correctly, and I think it’s very important to recall that with everything we do, especially with WSIS plus 20 review. This is about delivering on the promises of our digital society, delivering on the promises of what we called 20 years ago the information society, and it’s important to build on the discussions we had last year in the Global Digital Compact, that we agreed on a series of commitments. Now we have the opportunity of really using the WSIS framework to update it, to strengthen it, and to make progress in this cross-pollinization between multilateral and multi-stakeholder. There are many elements in the WSIS framework, apart from the IGF. The IGF is very important. We have the WSIS Forum, we have ANGES, we have the CSTD, we have different pieces and parts, some more multilateral on one side of the spectrum, some more multi-stakeholder. What we have to do, I think, is to evolve them into a WSIS+, that works better, that really uses all the strength of the multilateral and the multi-stakeholder approach to deliver on what we want our populations, our people, the citizens of this world to live in a better place, which nowadays is completely hybrid between digital and physical. Thank you.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks, Jorge. Thanks, Jorge. Yeah, and also just a point, thanks for adding on the deliverable side of things, right? And also one thing that one of our panelists mentioned, and maybe the audience as well, is the so-called tension between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism. And I do believe that highlighting NetMundial as kind of a compromise around that is relevant because it did try to show that both can and have always coexisted in a lot of ways, right? So there is no reason to be arguing around these so-called tensions. But I’ll give the floor back to you guys at the panel if you want to comment on any of the points from the audience and maybe we can have another round as well.

Wolfgang Kleinwachter: Thank you very much. And I will use this, what Pruna just has said, you know, this misunderstanding, or I don’t know how to call it, between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism. So this is partly nonsense because it is an innovation in policymaking. What I said in the introduction, in my first statement when Kofi Annan addressed the WIKIG and he argued in favor of, we have to rethink the policy processes because we, as Jorge has said, it’s about substance. We have to deliver something and the procedures, you know, how to reach that has to be adjusted to the substantial challenges. And as Bill has said, you know, we are still with regard to procedures in the thinking that some governments have not really understood that the multi-stakeholder approach and the multilateral mechanisms are two sides of a coin, they are belonging together. Yesterday the UNESCO Deputy Secretary General made it very clear that the stakeholders have the knowledge, the technical expertise of the engagement, but the governments have the legitimacy and the authority to agree on binding commitment. So these two sides have to go together and not that we have three minutes consultations with stakeholders and then governments go in a different room and negotiate the final outcome document. This is nonsense, this won’t work and we will have to see what will happen now with the WSIS plus 20 output document. So what I see is another interesting innovation based on a proposal by the European Commission that now the two co-facilitators have created a so-called sounding board, you know, from stakeholders which could function as a link between the consultations among non-state actors and the state actors sitting in the negotiation rooms. So it has to be seen how open the governments will be and to accept that real intervention come from non-state actors and the and Mr. Thomas Lamanauskas, Mr. Thibaut Kleiner. I would like to conclude by saying that the input which comes from non-state actors will have also an impact on the final, in the final outcome document. And once again, you know, procedures are important at the NetMundial plus ten multi-stakeholder guidelines are a big step forward because it clarified that multi-stakeholder guidelines are a big step forward. So, I would like to conclude by saying that the input which comes from non-state actors will have also an impact on the final, in the final outcome document.

Anriette Esterhuysen: And once again, you know, procedures are important at the NetMundial plus ten multi-stakeholder guidelines are a big step forward because it clarified that multi-stakeholder guidelines are a big step forward. And once again, you know, procedures are important at the NetMundial plus ten multi-stakeholder guidelines are a big step forward. And again, I would like to conclude by saying that the input which comes from non-state actors will have also an impact on the final, in the final outcome document document. And once again, you know, procedures are important at the NetMundial plus ten multi-stakeholder guidelines are a big step forward because it clarified that multi-stakeholder guidelines are a big step forward. So, I would like to conclude by saying that I think we should be more careful about the way in which we are going to implement and deepen participation. I talked about the evolution of the infrastructure and the institutional framework, the ecosystem. I didn’t mention, for example, the parliamentary track. There’s a judiciary track. I mean, there’s still a need in the view of some people, including myself, that we can include governments in a more targeted outcome-oriented way. And, it’s not just economic outcomes, but as we put that together for the new There’s value, I think, in the IGF messages. They’re very useful. They reflect a multiplicity of perspectives, which very few other policy forums would do. But the moment you start actually calling them recommendations, then questions come up such as, who’s accountable for implementing them? How do you report on what happens with those recommendations? And who gives the people who develop those recommendations a mandate to do so in the first place? And you could so easily do, in fact, some national and regional IGFs do come up with recommendations, but there’s very little follow-up and implementation on those recommendations. That doesn’t mean they’re not without value. But I think the strength of the IGF is that it is a space where we can talk both about big picture challenges, such as we’re currently in a geopolitical environment where there’s a lot of conflict. There’s conflict between countries, there’s conflict on issues, there are questions about the fear that people have of AI and emerging tech, the role of big tech companies, the abuse of the internet. And the IGF gives us a place to cooperate, to work collaboratively. And what is more important? To have those really meaningful, as Bill Drake was saying, not just one prepared statement after another, but real debate, deep debate. What’s more important? Having that between different stakeholders, even stakeholders who don’t agree with one another, or coming up with recommendations that might actually go nowhere. So I think that the influence of the IGF is immense. I think we’ve heard about that. I’m sitting next to Camila. The CGI, the innovation in Brazil to create a multi-stakeholder national internet governance framework, that’s incredibly important. That wasn’t the consequence of a recommendation that came out of the IGF. It was a consequence of the depth of the inclusive process. and others, and the openness of the IGF to discuss and be innovative. So I think let’s keep this forum, let’s strengthen it, but let’s not overburden it with becoming a negotiating forum that has to come up with consensus recommendations, because I think that could ultimately weaken it or not optimize its enormous potential. And I really do believe that we’re only beginning to realize the potential of this innovation. I think the IGF is future-proof. We just need to make sure that we can have it and keep growing it and strengthening it.

Camila Leite Contri: Thank you. Also, adding on what Anquiet said, I believe that we don’t need to make it tough with recommendation, but we could improve reporting mechanisms. So we are talking about people who cannot be in the room, people who can be in the room in the future. Also about transparency, about accountability, IGF can be strengthened to have not closed recommendations, but also to strengthen the role of MAG, to strengthen the transparency that we have with this kind of discussions, and also making a greater use of IGF to do follow-ups on these discussions. So okay, we don’t need to wait for WSIS plus 30 to continue this. IGF can be one of these spaces. And IGF at this year was very important to warm up for this moment, for example. And one last point is that we are talking about the difference of stakeholder participations. And I believe that it’s key that public interest is at the center. And when we consider the different participation that we have between different stakeholder groups, we see that the tech power unfortunately makes public interest not necessarily in the first page or at the center of the discussion as we should. So I think it’s important for us to keep that in mind also to enhance the legitimacy of this discussion having public interest at the center.

Halima Ismail: Thank you Camilla. Thank you so much. I have just a last question. How can we ensure these improvements become reality? The answer is by renewing the mandate with a stronger focus on accountability, practical partnerships and the flexibility to adapt so these spaces stay dynamic, open

Bruna Martins dos Santos: and valuable for anyone. And thank you. Thank you very much. Thibaut, we don’t know if you want to add anything to this conversation but if you would like to you’re more than free to jump in. We cannot hear you so far. Excellent. I hope you can hear me better this time.

Thibaut Kleiner: Can you hear me now? Yes? Yes, we do. Thank you. Very good. No, I think that already the questions were very useful and interesting. I would just add maybe or repeat what all others also said that you need also to specialize the various fora, the various bodies we have also in the UN and beyond because if we want to be inclusive you cannot ask the youth, you know, the developing countries, the many NGOs and academics to show up in all sorts of places. I think the fact that we have the IGF as a one instance has really benefits that it can be really offering a forum for everyone and I think that’s something we should value. But of course the IGF should have a role, a specific role which is certainly to debate and to open new discussions. In our view in the EU we think indeed it should be institutionalized but And also, what I was saying earlier, maybe having a secretariat or a director would be very convenient, because then it means that the IGF could also take part in other, you know, developments as part of the UN family. And maybe that’s what is also the missing link from debate to action. So I think that processes and structures can make, you know, channels and can also create an efficient way to reflect the diversity of views that we hear in the context of the IGF.

Chris Buckridge: Okay. Thank you very much, Thibaut. I think we’ve reached sort of the last five minutes of the session here. And I think Bruno and I were hoping to try and draw out some takeaways or at least some key themes from these discussions. And it has been a really rich discussion. So thank you to those of you on the stage and also to those in the audience who contributed here. From my perspective, I guess some points that I take away here, obviously multi-stakeholder model has, or multi-stakeholder approach has a very long and rich history. But coming out of WSIS, it was a real innovation and a new approach. And we have actually already been doing the work to evolve that. And Camilla mentioned NetMundial and NetMundial Plus 10 as really key milestones on that road. We do need to keep progressing with that and developing these models and these processes to reflect and respond to the technology and the social use of technology that we have now. I think the point that certainly IGF and WSIS and other multi-stakeholder platforms need to be for everybody, need to be inclusive is absolutely vital. But I think, Henri, at your point that they can’t be everything for everybody is equally vital. That there needs to be some understanding of… the role of an IGF or a WSIS forum and the limitations that go along with that role and how these processes interface then with other more decisional policymaking processes, other events, other structures that exist. And I think the other thing that came through very strongly was we need – where we’re looking to evolve, where we’re looking to develop these structures, we need to be looking at the local and the regional. So that’s national and regional initiatives in the IGF parlance, but I think more generically looking at the communities and their specific issues, rather than simply trying to take a single global view, which is not going to answer the issues or the challenges that anyone really has. Sabrina, I’ll pass to you, those are the points that I had.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Yeah, I’ll just add a couple more. The main one is also the growing support, right, for the permanence of the IGF mandate that seems to be part of this conversation and one of the main points that needs to be conveyed in the resolution towards the end of the year and also towards most of our contributions to the elements paper and so on. And on that note, I would just like to say that it would be much interesting as well to hear what the global majority governments are thinking about the mandate renewal as well as part of this conversation and as a key part of the diversity aspects of the Internet Governance Forum and the WSIS mechanism and spaces and so on. Two more points. One is that the whole point about the conflicts, right, the idea that not only multilateralism and multistakeholderism, they can co-exist, but the fact that WSIS is a good example of that, that’s the sister brother events, WSIS high level events and the IGF are the main example that they not only can co-exist, but multistakeholderism can also co-exist. and Mr. Thibaut Kleiner. And also, I think, it’s important to highlight the importance of the public interest, not only in moderating your speeches, but also in doing that, eliminating the tensions between the topics, eliminating the tensions between the spaces, and last but not least, addressing the points about reporting mechanisms and accountability as a core aspect of that.

Anriette Esterhuysen: And I think that many in this room agree with that, and maybe I’ll stop here and see if you guys would like to add more to that. I think that we need to be willing to take risks. I think that’s a complex term, public means different things in different parts of the world, but I think that is what the IJF gives us. And I think my final, I think I agree with everything that you have said. I think just maybe the one thing is that we also need to be willing to take risk. And digital is complex, and the challenges that come with the digital world, and the challenges that we face, and the challenges that we face, and the challenges of geopolitical tension and how difficult it has become to work collaboratively, does sometimes require us to take, to go out of our comfort zone, to talk about topics which we are not all going to be in agreement on. And I think let’s use the IJF to work together, to agree, to collaborate, but let’s also use the IJF to work together on topics that we are not necessarily all going to find it easy to reach agreement on.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks a lot, Camilla. Thank you.

Camila Leite Contri: but about difficult conversations, the gender dimension is still missing at internet governance. At IGF we still see panel almost entirely with men. So also one important discussion and hard discussion that we need to have is gender should be at the centre of internet governance, both at IGF and also maybe with a new action line at WSIS to be cross-cutting, gender as a cross-cutting issue at WSIS.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thank you very much.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you. We do need to wrap up now. I don’t think anyone on this stage will be surprised that internet governance discussions can be a little self-reflective a lot of the time. We talk about what our structures are, how they can evolve. But I think this is a really important moment with the WSIS review coming up, with the opportunities that we have this year to actually move forward on some of these issues. So thank you very much for all of the input here. Thank you to everyone who spoke today. We’ll obviously have a report on this, but there will be much more work to do in the coming five or six months as we move towards evolving this. And also thanks to the ITU and the IGF MEG for the help in organising this panel. Thank you very much.

Agreement points

Strong support for permanent IGF mandate beyond 2025

Speakers

– Thibaut Kleiner
– Craig Stanley Adamson
– Bruna Martins dos Santos

Arguments

EU supports making IGF permanent beyond 2025 with secure funding through UN budget and dedicated director with proper secretariat

UK fully supports permanent IGF mandate and formal recognition for national/regional IGFs to promote local community-led views

Growing support for permanent IGF mandate should be key outcome of WSIS+20 discussions and resolution

Summary

There is clear consensus among speakers representing EU, UK, and session moderators that the IGF should receive a permanent mandate beyond 2025, with proper institutional support including dedicated funding, secretariat, and director.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism are complementary, not competing approaches

Speakers

– Wolfgang Kleinwachter
– Bruna Martins dos Santos
– Jorge Cancio

Arguments

False polarization exists between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism – they are two sides of same coin that must work together

Multilateralism and multistakeholderism can coexist with WSIS as prime example, and public interest should moderate tensions between topics and spaces

WSIS framework should be updated and strengthened using cross-pollination between multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches

Summary

Speakers agree that the perceived tension between multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches is artificial, and both approaches are necessary and complementary for effective internet governance.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Need for better coordination and avoiding duplication between processes

Speakers

– Camila Leite Contri
– Thibaut Kleiner
– Jorge Cancio

Arguments

Need to avoid duplication of efforts and waste of resources by coordinating overlapping discussions like GDC with WSIS

Roadmaps for the future should make WSIS action lines operational while incorporating UN activities and avoiding duplications

WSIS framework should be updated and strengthened using cross-pollination between multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches

Summary

There is consensus that current processes suffer from duplication and resource waste, requiring better coordination between WSIS, GDC, and other forums to maximize efficiency and effectiveness.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Multi-stakeholder processes must be genuinely inclusive in practice, not just principle

Speakers

– Camila Leite Contri
– Craig Stanley Adamson
– Wout de Natris

Arguments

Need to proactively reach out to civil society and affected communities who cannot participate, requiring funding and skills development for equal footing

Diverse input from global majority stakeholders should be priority focus during WSIS+20 review process

Multi-stakeholder processes must be inclusive in practice, not just principle, with standards for safety, security and accessibility

Summary

Speakers agree that true inclusivity requires proactive efforts, funding, and capacity building to ensure meaningful participation from marginalized communities and global majority stakeholders.

Topics

Development | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

IGF should focus on dialogue and collaboration rather than formal recommendations

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Camila Leite Contri

Arguments

IGF’s strength is meaningful debate and collaborative space rather than negotiating forum that might weaken its potential

IGF should strengthen reporting mechanisms and transparency rather than becoming burdened with consensus recommendations

Summary

Both speakers agree that the IGF’s value lies in providing space for meaningful dialogue and collaboration, and that formal recommendation-making could undermine its effectiveness.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that effective multi-stakeholder governance requires meaningful interaction between stakeholders and governments, not superficial consultation processes where they operate in separate spaces.

Speakers

– Wolfgang Kleinwachter
– William J. Drake

Arguments

Stakeholders have knowledge and expertise while governments have legitimacy and authority for binding commitments – both needed

Need real engagement between stakeholders and government representatives, not siloed three-minute consultations

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognize the importance of local and regional perspectives in internet governance, emphasizing that global processes must accommodate diverse local contexts and needs.

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Chris Buckridge

Arguments

IGF evolved as flexible ecosystem responding to tension between connected and unconnected populations through national/regional IGFs and dynamic coalitions

Evolution of multi-stakeholder models must focus on local and regional initiatives rather than single global view

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize that public interest should be the central organizing principle for internet governance discussions, helping to moderate tensions and ensure legitimacy.

Speakers

– Camila Leite Contri
– Bruna Martins dos Santos

Arguments

Public interest must be at center of discussions, as tech power unfortunately pushes it away from first priority

Multilateralism and multistakeholderism can coexist with WSIS as prime example, and public interest should moderate tensions between topics and spaces

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Gender as cross-cutting issue in internet governance

Speakers

– Camila Leite Contri

Arguments

Gender dimension still missing from Internet governance with panels almost entirely male-dominated

Gender should be cross-cutting issue at WSIS, potentially as new action line

Explanation

While only one speaker explicitly raised this issue, the lack of disagreement or pushback from other participants suggests unexpected consensus on the need to address gender imbalances in internet governance forums. This is significant as gender issues are often contentious in international forums.

Topics

Human rights | Gender rights online

Dynamic coalitions as valuable but underrecognized contributors

Speakers

– Wout de Natris

Arguments

Dynamic coalitions need better integration into IGF program through MAG liaisons to increase recognition and participation

Explanation

The lack of opposition to strengthening dynamic coalitions’ role suggests unexpected consensus on their value, despite them being relatively informal structures within the IGF ecosystem. This indicates broad recognition of bottom-up innovation in internet governance.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Safe and meaningful digital life as potential 18th SDG

Speakers

– Participant

Arguments

Safe and meaningful digital life should become 18th Sustainable Development Goal given Internet’s fundamental importance

Explanation

While only one participant raised this ambitious proposal, the absence of disagreement from other speakers suggests unexpected openness to elevating internet governance to the same level as other global development priorities.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on key structural issues: permanent IGF mandate, complementarity of multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches, need for genuine inclusivity, and importance of coordination between processes. There was also agreement on the IGF’s role as a dialogue forum rather than decision-making body.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on institutional and procedural matters, with broad agreement across different stakeholder groups (government, civil society, technical community, international organizations). This suggests mature understanding of internet governance challenges and shared vision for solutions. The consensus has positive implications for WSIS+20 outcomes, indicating strong foundation for advancing permanent IGF mandate and improving multi-stakeholder processes.

Different viewpoints

IGF should produce recommendations vs. maintaining its role as discussion forum

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Halima Ismail

Arguments

IGF’s strength is meaningful debate and collaborative space rather than negotiating forum that might weaken its potential

How to move from discussion to action while building efficient early warning systems for emerging digital risks like AI

Summary

Esterhuysen argues that the IGF should not be burdened with producing consensus recommendations as this could weaken its collaborative potential, while Ismail emphasizes the need to move from discussion to concrete action and accountability mechanisms.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Approach to improving multi-stakeholder processes

Speakers

– Camila Leite Contri
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Need to proactively reach out to civil society and affected communities who cannot participate, requiring funding and skills development for equal footing

IGF evolved as flexible ecosystem responding to tension between connected and unconnected populations through national/regional IGFs and dynamic coalitions

Explanation

While both support inclusivity, Contri emphasizes proactive outreach and resource provision for marginalized communities, while Esterhuysen highlights the organic evolution of the IGF ecosystem. This represents different philosophies on whether inclusion should be actively engineered or allowed to evolve naturally.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement, with most speakers sharing common goals around IGF permanence, multi-stakeholder inclusion, and coordination between processes. The main areas of disagreement centered on implementation approaches rather than core principles.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most tensions were around means rather than ends – speakers generally agreed on goals like IGF permanence, better inclusion, and coordination, but differed on specific mechanisms. The most significant disagreement was philosophical, regarding whether the IGF should maintain its discussion-focused role or evolve toward more action-oriented outputs. This suggests a mature policy community with shared values but different strategic preferences, which is positive for consensus-building in the WSIS+20 process.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that effective multi-stakeholder governance requires meaningful interaction between stakeholders and governments, not superficial consultation processes where they operate in separate spaces.

Speakers

– Wolfgang Kleinwachter
– William J. Drake

Arguments

Stakeholders have knowledge and expertise while governments have legitimacy and authority for binding commitments – both needed

Need real engagement between stakeholders and government representatives, not siloed three-minute consultations

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognize the importance of local and regional perspectives in internet governance, emphasizing that global processes must accommodate diverse local contexts and needs.

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Chris Buckridge

Arguments

IGF evolved as flexible ecosystem responding to tension between connected and unconnected populations through national/regional IGFs and dynamic coalitions

Evolution of multi-stakeholder models must focus on local and regional initiatives rather than single global view

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize that public interest should be the central organizing principle for internet governance discussions, helping to moderate tensions and ensure legitimacy.

Speakers

– Camila Leite Contri
– Bruna Martins dos Santos

Arguments

Public interest must be at center of discussions, as tech power unfortunately pushes it away from first priority

Multilateralism and multistakeholderism can coexist with WSIS as prime example, and public interest should moderate tensions between topics and spaces

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Multi-stakeholder internet governance has evolved from an innovation 20 years ago to a proven model that has delivered concrete successes including increased Internet Exchange Points in Africa and the IANA transition

There is growing consensus for making the IGF permanent beyond 2025 with secure funding through the UN budget and a dedicated director with proper secretariat

The tension between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism is a false polarization – they are complementary approaches where stakeholders provide knowledge and expertise while governments provide legitimacy and authority for binding commitments

Multi-stakeholder processes must be truly inclusive in practice, not just principle, requiring proactive outreach to civil society and affected communities with funding and skills development support

The IGF’s strength lies in being a space for meaningful debate and collaboration rather than becoming a negotiating forum that produces consensus recommendations

Better coordination is needed between overlapping processes like WSIS, IGF, and Global Digital Compact to avoid duplication of efforts and resource waste

National and regional IGFs should receive formal recognition as they promote local community-led views into global processes

Public interest must remain at the center of internet governance discussions, with gender as a cross-cutting issue that needs greater attention

Resolutions and action items

EU commitment to support permanent IGF mandate beyond 2025 with secure funding and institutional structure

UK commitment to support permanent IGF mandate and formal recognition for national/regional IGFs

Proposal for dynamic coalitions to have liaisons in the MAG to better integrate their work into IGF programs

Suggestion to create ‘roadmaps for the future’ to make WSIS action lines operational while avoiding duplications

Proposal for a potential 18th Sustainable Development Goal focused on ‘safe and meaningful digital life’

Call for better reporting mechanisms within countries on WSIS commitments and multi-stakeholder network expansion

Recommendation to consider gender as a new cross-cutting action line at WSIS

Unresolved issues

How to effectively move from discussion to action while maintaining the IGF’s collaborative nature

How to build efficient early warning systems for emerging digital risks like AI agents

How to ensure meaningful engagement between stakeholders and government representatives rather than siloed consultations

How to balance the need for accountability and practical outcomes with the IGF’s strength as an open dialogue forum

How to address resource constraints that prevent civil society organizations and youth from participating in multiple overlapping processes

How to better integrate the year-round intersessional work of dynamic coalitions into broader recognition and participation

How to address the continued male dominance in internet governance panels and discussions

Suggested compromises

Creation of a ‘sounding board’ from stakeholders to link consultations between non-state and state actors in WSIS+20 negotiations

Strengthening reporting mechanisms and transparency at IGF rather than burdening it with consensus recommendations

Specializing various forums and bodies to avoid asking youth, developing countries, and NGOs to participate in all processes

Using cross-pollination between multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches rather than treating them as competing models

Focusing on improving existing processes through NetMundial Plus 10 principles rather than creating entirely new structures

Balancing global discussions with recognition of local and regional realities through enhanced national/regional IGF roles

The Internet doesn’t need leadership, it needs collaboration from all sides.

Speaker

Wolfgang Kleinwachter

Reason

This comment reframes the fundamental governance paradigm from hierarchical control to collaborative participation. It challenges the traditional notion that complex global systems require centralized authority and instead proposes distributed responsibility as the solution.

Impact

This insight became a foundational principle that other speakers built upon throughout the discussion. It shifted the conversation from debating who should lead internet governance to how different stakeholders can work together effectively, setting the tone for the entire multi-stakeholder approach discussion.

There’s always been this tension at the IGF between it being a space where we talk about those who do have the Internet and who are facing increasing new, complex, emerging challenges… and on the other hand, the billions of people who do not have access to the Internet.

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Reason

This comment exposes a fundamental paradox in internet governance – discussing governance of a resource that billions still cannot access. It highlights the inherent inequality in participation and the risk of creating policies for a privileged minority while ignoring the global majority.

Impact

This observation deepened the conversation by introducing questions of legitimacy and representation. It led subsequent speakers to address inclusion more seriously and influenced discussions about national/regional IGFs as mechanisms to bridge this gap.

We need another 18th SDG, safe and meaningful digital life for the citizens of the world.

Speaker

Participant from India

Reason

This comment challenges the current framework by proposing that digital governance deserves equal standing with other global development priorities. It suggests that internet governance has evolved beyond a technical issue to a fundamental human development concern.

Impact

While brief, this intervention shifted the discussion toward thinking about internet governance as a development imperative rather than just a technical coordination mechanism. It influenced later comments about public interest and the need for governance frameworks to deliver tangible benefits to citizens.

We have like a consultation where multi-stakeholder people can come and speak for three minutes and give a canned presentation, but the government people are not in the room, they’re not engaging… We need to be together in the conversation.

Speaker

William J. Drake

Reason

This comment exposes the performative nature of much multi-stakeholder engagement, where participation becomes tokenistic rather than substantive. It challenges the assumption that simply creating spaces for different voices automatically leads to meaningful collaboration.

Impact

This critique prompted immediate responses from panelists about the need for genuine interaction rather than parallel monologues. It influenced the discussion toward examining the quality of engagement rather than just the quantity of participation, leading to conversations about institutional learning and process improvement.

The moment you start actually calling them recommendations, then questions come up such as, who’s accountable for implementing them? How do you report on what happens with those recommendations? And who gives the people who develop those recommendations a mandate to do so in the first place?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Reason

This comment addresses a core tension in multi-stakeholder governance between legitimacy and effectiveness. It challenges the assumption that producing recommendations is inherently valuable and forces consideration of democratic accountability in non-traditional governance structures.

Impact

This intervention fundamentally shifted the discussion from focusing on outputs (recommendations) to examining the value of process itself. It influenced subsequent speakers to defend the IGF’s role as a dialogue space rather than a decision-making body, reshaping how participants conceptualized success in multi-stakeholder forums.

Gender should be at the centre of internet governance, both at IGF and also maybe with a new action line at WSIS to be cross-cutting, gender as a cross-cutting issue at WSIS.

Speaker

Camila Leite Contri

Reason

This final comment challenges the entire discussion by pointing out a glaring omission – despite extensive talk about inclusion and representation, gender inequality in internet governance itself was largely ignored. It exposes how even progressive governance discussions can perpetuate exclusion.

Impact

Coming at the end, this comment served as a powerful reality check that recontextualized the entire conversation. It demonstrated that despite good intentions about inclusion, fundamental inequalities persist even within supposedly progressive governance spaces, adding urgency to reform efforts.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a celebratory retrospective into a critical examination of multi-stakeholder governance. They introduced essential tensions – between inclusion and exclusion, process and outcomes, legitimacy and effectiveness – that prevented superficial consensus and forced deeper engagement with fundamental challenges. The comments built upon each other to create a progression from historical context to structural critique to future vision, with each intervention adding layers of complexity that enriched the overall discussion. Most importantly, they shifted the conversation from defending existing structures to honestly examining their limitations and potential for evolution.

How do we ensure these platforms remain truly inclusive clearing houses for knowledge in expanding spaces for digital innovation?

Speaker

Halima Ismail

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental challenge of maintaining inclusivity as digital platforms evolve and expand, which is crucial for the legitimacy and effectiveness of multi-stakeholder governance.

How can we build an efficient early warning system for emerging digital risks like the rapid rise of AI agents?

Speaker

Halima Ismail

Explanation

This highlights the need for proactive mechanisms to identify and address emerging digital threats, particularly in the rapidly evolving AI landscape.

How do we move from discussion to action?

Speaker

Halima Ismail

Explanation

This addresses a critical gap between policy discussions and practical implementation in internet governance forums.

How can we better integrate the work of Dynamic Coalitions into the IGF program?

Speaker

Wout de Natris

Explanation

This seeks to improve the visibility and impact of year-round intersessional work that produces valuable policy recommendations and research.

How do we develop better mechanisms within countries for reporting on WSIS commitments and expanding multi-stakeholder networks?

Speaker

Jennifer Corriero

Explanation

This addresses the need for national-level accountability and implementation of international commitments made through WSIS processes.

How can we improve the interaction between stakeholders and government representatives in multilateral processes?

Speaker

William J. Drake

Explanation

This addresses the bifurcation between multi-stakeholder governance processes and multilateral processes, seeking more meaningful engagement rather than token consultation.

Should there be an 18th SDG focused on ‘safe and meaningful digital life for the citizens of the world’?

Speaker

Participant from India

Explanation

This proposes elevating digital governance to the level of sustainable development goals, recognizing internet access as a fundamental right requiring governance frameworks.

How can gender be better integrated as a cross-cutting issue in internet governance, including potentially as a new action line at WSIS?

Speaker

Camila Leite Contri

Explanation

This addresses the persistent gender imbalance in internet governance discussions and the need to mainstream gender considerations across all aspects of digital policy.

How can we better coordinate overlapping discussions and reduce duplication of efforts between different UN processes and forums?

Speaker

Camila Leite Contri

Explanation

This addresses resource constraints and the need for more coherent approaches across multiple international forums dealing with digital issues.

How can the ‘sounding board’ mechanism between stakeholders and state actors in WSIS negotiations be made more effective?

Speaker

Wolfgang Kleinwachter

Explanation

This explores a specific procedural innovation that could bridge the gap between multi-stakeholder input and intergovernmental decision-making.

Summary

This discussion focused on how technical standards can drive progress in sustainability, digital connectivity, and accessibility within a global multi-stakeholder framework. The session featured three expert speakers from IEEE’s Standards Association discussing different aspects of standards development for emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence and digital health applications.

Maike Luiken emphasized that standards serve as bridges between academic research and practical implementation, highlighting the evolution from purely technical standards to “enviro-sociotechnical standards” that incorporate sustainability and ethical considerations. She discussed how modern standards development includes environmental impact assessments, circular economy principles, and ethical guidelines, citing IEEE’s initiatives like Ethically Aligned Design and Planet Positive 2030. Luiken stressed that standards now address everything from green data centers to ethical AI considerations, moving beyond traditional technical integration requirements.

Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos focused on AI applications in healthcare, arguing that standards must be collaborative, inclusive, and dynamic to accommodate rapidly evolving technologies. He advocated for “evidence sandboxes” – controlled environments where stakeholders can test AI applications for compliance with ethical, security, and safety criteria before real-world deployment. Kalogeropoulos emphasized the importance of transparency in AI systems, particularly regarding data provenance and the growing problem of “synthetic truth contamination” where AI models are trained on AI-generated content, leading to degraded accuracy.

The discussion revealed significant challenges in standards development, including the need for broader global participation, particularly from the Global South, and addressing power imbalances where major technology companies effectively set de facto standards. Participants explored how to incorporate qualitative aspects like ethics and human rights into traditionally quantitative technical standards, with suggestions including threshold-based approaches and metadata standards that focus on behavioral and contextual information rather than just technical specifications.

The conversation concluded with recognition that standards development must evolve to keep pace with rapidly advancing technologies while ensuring inclusive participation and addressing real-world implementation challenges through collaborative, adaptive approaches.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Sustainability and Ethics Integration in Technology Standards**: The discussion emphasized moving beyond traditional technical standards to include environmental stewardship, climate change considerations, and ethical frameworks. Speakers highlighted the need for “enviro-sociotechnical standards” that incorporate sustainability by design and address the intersection of technology, environment, and social impact.

– **AI Standards and Healthcare Applications**: Significant focus on developing standards for AI in healthcare, particularly addressing bias, transparency, and accountability in AI systems. The conversation covered challenges with AI model training data, synthetic truth contamination, and the need for metadata standards to ensure AI systems are trustworthy and equitable.

– **Global Participation and Inclusivity in Standards Development**: A central theme was the critical need for broader, more diverse participation in standards development, especially from the Global South and underrepresented communities. Speakers discussed challenges in achieving meaningful multi-stakeholder collaboration and strategies for making standards development more inclusive.

– **Regulatory Sandboxes and Evidence-Based Implementation**: Discussion of “evidence sandboxes” as controlled environments for testing AI applications and standards compliance, particularly in highly regulated sectors like healthcare. This included exploring how regulatory frameworks like the EU AI Act can work with standards development.

– **Bridging the Gap Between Innovation Speed and Standards Development**: Addressing the challenge that emerging technologies (like ChatGPT) often outpace standards development, leading to potential misuse and negative consequences. The conversation explored how to make standards development more agile and responsive to rapid technological change.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to showcase how technology standards can drive progress on climate action, digital accessibility, and resilient infrastructure while exploring collaborative approaches to standards development in the digital economy era. The session was designed to facilitate knowledge sharing and encourage broader participation in IEEE’s standards development processes.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with speakers demonstrating expertise while remaining open to questions and dialogue. The atmosphere was academic yet practical, with participants actively engaging in problem-solving discussions. The tone became increasingly interactive as the Q&A session progressed, with audience members contributing substantive questions and the speakers responding with detailed, thoughtful answers. There was a consistent emphasis on invitation and inclusion, with multiple speakers encouraging audience participation in standards development work.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Kathleen A. Kramer**: Opening speaker, appears to be affiliated with a global community organization with 500,000 members in 190 countries focused on standards development

– **Karen Mulberry**: Workshop moderator/facilitator, introduces speakers and manages Q&A sessions

– **Maike Luiken**: Chair of standard working group addressing sustainability, environmental stewardship and climate change in professional practice; vice chair of another working group; expert in sustainability and standards development

– **Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos**: Expert in AI in healthcare, focusing on building bridges for tomorrow’s population; works on applying technology to healthcare; has experience in standards development since 1992

– **Heather Flanagan**: Chair and participant in several standards organizations including IETF, W3C, and OpenID Foundation

– **Priyanka Dasgupta**: Representative from IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission), another standardization organization

– **Kiki Wicachali**: Senior Technology Advisor at UNICEF

– **Shamira Ahmed**: Researcher

– **Participant**: Multiple unidentified participants who asked questions during the session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Yuhan Zheng**: Young professional within IEEE, was supposed to speak about “building the future with collective and invigorating minds” from a university to initial career path perspective, but was not present during most of the session (mentioned as joining remotely but didn’t participate in the recorded portion)

– **Philip**: Psychologist interested in human dimension and community development in standards

– **Representative from World Digital Technology Academy**: Mentioned their organization is gathering experts for multi-stakeholder working groups and has published standards around generative AI and agentic AI

# Comprehensive Report: Standards Development for Sustainability, Digital Connectivity, and Accessibility

## Executive Summary

This WSIS workshop discussion, moderated by Karen Mulberry, brought together experts from IEEE’s Standards Association to explore how technical standards can drive progress in sustainability, digital connectivity, and accessibility within a global multi-stakeholder framework. The session featured two primary speakers who examined different aspects of standards development for emerging technologies, with particular emphasis on artificial intelligence and digital health applications.

The conversation revealed an evolution in standards development philosophy, moving from purely technical specifications towards comprehensive standards that integrate environmental, social, and ethical considerations. Speakers emphasised the importance of inclusive global participation whilst acknowledging significant challenges in achieving meaningful multi-stakeholder collaboration. The discussion highlighted the tension between rapidly advancing technology and the pace of standards development, proposing innovative solutions such as “evidence sandboxes” and adaptive governance models.

## Opening Context and Framework

Kathleen A. Kramer opened the session by establishing IEEE’s global reach as a community of 500,000 members across 190 countries, emphasising the organisation’s commitment to multi-stakeholder standards development. Karen Mulberry, serving as workshop moderator, framed the discussion around how government, private sector, civil society, and technical communities can collaborate effectively in developing digital standards.

The session was originally planned to include three speakers, but Yuhan Zheng experienced technical difficulties and was unable to present, leaving Maike Luican and Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos as the primary speakers.

## Sustainability and Environmental Integration in Standards

### Evolution Towards Enviro-Sociotechnical Standards

Maike Luican, Chair of the standard working group addressing sustainability, environmental stewardship, and climate change in professional practice, presented standards as “true bridges between research, academic research, new science, new findings, and the application, implementation, and use of this research output.” She argued that modern standards development must evolve beyond traditional technical specifications, stating “I like to actually to call them now enviro-sociotechnical standards.”

This evolution represents a shift in how standards are conceived and developed, integrating environmental and social considerations from the outset rather than treating them as add-ons to technical requirements. Luican highlighted how standards can enable circular economy principles and sustainability by design, requiring consideration of the entire lifecycle of technologies from development through deployment to eventual decommissioning.

### Global Participation and Personal Outreach

Luican emphasised a critical insight about achieving broad participation in standards development: “people want to be asked. They’re usually not just coming. They truly want to be asked.” She advocated for personal outreach and networking rather than relying solely on open calls for participation, noting that this approach has been more effective in engaging diverse stakeholders.

She also demonstrated practical engagement with AI technologies, sharing that she had tested ChatGPT with her own biography to understand how AI systems process information, illustrating the hands-on approach needed for effective standards development in emerging technologies.

## AI Standards and Healthcare Applications

### Dynamic Standards for Rapidly Evolving Technologies

Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, an expert in AI applications in healthcare, argued that traditional static standards are inadequate for governing rapidly evolving technologies like artificial intelligence. He proposed “dynamic standards that accommodate uncertainty, support iterative learning, and evolve alongside the systems they govern.”

Kalogeropoulos reframed standards as “tools of trust” rather than mere compliance mechanisms, emphasising their role in embedding transparency, enabling accountability, and making complexity navigable across sectors and borders. He referenced the “IEEE European Public Policy Committee” AI and Digital Health for Equity position statement as an example of this approach.

### Evidence Sandboxes and Collaborative Testing

A key innovation proposed by Kalogeropoulos was the concept of “evidence sandboxes” – controlled environments where stakeholders can test AI applications for compliance with ethical, security, and safety criteria before real-world deployment. He deliberately avoided the term “regulatory sandboxes,” preferring “living labs” and “collaborative spaces” that bring together communities to test standardised solutions.

This approach addresses the challenge of ensuring AI systems are safe and effective whilst allowing for innovation and experimentation, providing a framework for collaborative standards development that includes all relevant stakeholders in the testing and validation process.

### Synthetic Truth Contamination

Kalogeropoulos introduced the concept of “synthetic truth contamination,” describing how AI models trained on AI-generated content experience degraded accuracy and increased hallucination. He noted that “we are already dealing with this reality” and characterised it as “not just a technical glitch” but “a structural vulnerability” that poses systemic risks to AI development.

He used the analogy of corner protectors to illustrate how standards should create safe environments: “You put corner protectors there. This is what we need to do about AI now.” This framing emphasises the protective and enabling role of standards rather than their purely regulatory function.

## Key Discussion Points and Q&A Insights

### Accessibility and Participation

Karen Mulberry clarified an important point about IEEE standards participation: “you don’t need to be an IEEE member to participate in standards development – you just have to show up and be interested.” This accessibility is crucial for achieving the multi-stakeholder participation that speakers emphasised throughout the session.

### Power Imbalances and Market Forces

Participants raised concerns about power imbalances in standards development, particularly the ability of major technology companies to impose de facto standards through market dominance. One participant noted that “the key players are AWS and Microsoft and Meta. And they basically set their own standards and they try to impose them on others because they have the power to do so.”

Luican acknowledged that “market adoption sometimes overtakes formal standards development, creating de facto industry standards,” presenting this as part of the natural evolution where effective solutions gain adoption.

### Qualitative Standards Challenges

Kiki Wicachali from UNICEF raised important questions about incorporating qualitative aspects like ethics and child rights into technical standards, noting that “quantitative standards are easier to develop than qualitative aspects like ethics and child rights.” This challenge reflects the broader evolution towards standards that must address human values and social impacts alongside technical functionality.

### Data Quality and Crowdsourcing

Priyanka Dasgupta from the International Electrotechnical Commission raised questions about maintaining data quality when crowdsourcing inputs for AI dataset standards development, highlighting the challenge of balancing inclusive participation with quality assurance.

### Cross-Community Collaboration

Heather Flanagan, Chair and participant in several standards organisations including IETF, W3C, and OpenID Foundation, highlighted the challenge of bridging gaps between different standards communities that don’t typically interact with each other, noting the need for better coordination to create more comprehensive and interoperable standards.

## Certification and Implementation

Karen Mulberry highlighted the role of certification programs in attesting to compliance with ethical AI standards, noting that IEEE has certification programs that can demonstrate adherence to standards and build trust in AI systems. She mentioned specific opportunities for collaboration between different standards organisations on AI and certification work.

## Future Directions and Collaboration Opportunities

The discussion revealed interest in continued collaboration, with representatives from various organisations expressing willingness to work together on standards development. A representative from the World Digital Technology Academy expressed particular interest in collaboration opportunities.

The conversation demonstrated both the potential and limitations of current standards development processes. While there was consensus on fundamental principles like inclusivity, transparency, and ethical considerations, significant challenges remain in translating these principles into effective practice, particularly regarding the pace of technological change, global participation, and enforcement mechanisms.

## Conclusions

The discussion highlighted a standards development community adapting to govern emerging technologies in an inclusive and effective manner. The evolution towards what Luican termed “enviro-sociotechnical standards” represents a significant expansion in thinking about the role and scope of technical standards.

Key themes included the critical importance of personal outreach for inclusive participation, the need for adaptive governance models like evidence sandboxes that can keep pace with technological change, and the ongoing challenge of integrating qualitative considerations like ethics and sustainability into technical specifications.

The proposed solutions offer promising directions for future development, but their effectiveness will depend on the standards community’s ability to address underlying challenges related to power imbalances, global participation, and the rapid pace of technological advancement while maintaining collaborative approaches and technical rigour.

Kathleen A. Kramer: We are a global community of 500,000 members in 190 countries and a multi-stakeholder model. We develop and support standards that reflect an open collaboration of expertise and experience, ensuring relevant and impact in global, real-world contexts. Today’s session will showcase how technical standards designed with sustainability, connectivity and accessibility in mind are helping to drive progress on climate action, expanded digital reach and resilient infrastructure. I encourage all of us to use this opportunity not only to learn from each other, but to reflect on how we can further collaborate and co-create because only through shared effort can we build a truly sustainable digital future. Thank you for being part of this conversation and for your commitment to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity.

Karen Mulberry: Thank you, Kathleen. I’d like to welcome you to our workshop where I’ve got three experts who have been actively engaged in standards development and who can provide their perspectives on how you can build a standard and how you look at a sustainable future. We’re all entering the age of the digital economy, so there’s a lot that technology standards enable and a lot to consider as you develop a standard. Now, our three expert speakers today are Michael Lucan, who will talk about building the path to sustainability with technology standards, who is an expert in sustainability. Yuhan Zheng, who is joining us remotely, building the future with collective and invigorating minds. She’s one of the young professionals within IEEE who are looking at this from a lens from, you know, the university to their initial career path on building a standard and what does that mean for them. And then Dimitrios, who has a very long last Greek name that I’m sure I’m going to butcher, Kalogeropoulos, close maybe? That was very good. Thank you. Who’s going to be talking about building bridges for tomorrow’s population, who is looking at applying technology to healthcare and the ramifications and opportunities that are there? So I’d like to turn this over to Maike, who started that.

Maike Luiken: Well, thank you very much for the lovely introduction and welcome everybody to our session. It’s an honor to be here and to have the opportunity to talk one of my favorite subjects. So, as Karen indicated, I do work on standards development. I’m a chair of one standard working group. It’s addressing sustainability, environmental stewardship and climate change and professional practice. And we call that a recommended practice. I’m a vice chair of another and work with a couple of more. So why standards and what are the emerging trends? Standards, as far as I’m concerned, are a true bridge between research, academic research, new science, new findings, and the application, implementation, and use of this research output. And so standards give us essentially a language across which and Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, no longer talking about just making technology work in technology standards, but we are looking much further in terms of including the impact of the using of this standard on the environment and on people. Hence, like we talked earlier about ethical or socio-technical standards. We talked about ethical standards for AI. So we are really looking at the intersection between standards development for technology, but including sustainability considerations in that development. So topics are green data centers like modular data centers. We’re looking at blockchain, AI and automation. We’re looking at efficiency, of course, green digital transformation and the global energy systems transformation. All of it looking at from linear to circular resource models now. We didn’t do that 20 years ago. What plays into the space are, of course, regulation and compliance in different countries, different jurisdictions. I mentioned here a few which are European centered, the AI Act, CRS-RD and the digital product passport. Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Maike Luiken, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios As I mentioned already, one of the outputs or the impacts of standards is the harmonized language and commonly agreed terminology. Once a number of companies use a particular standard or it’s part of a regulation, we now speak a common language. So they help to ensure that digital and other solutions, they’re designed with interoperability, security, safety, and now sustainability in mind. And in that sense, help reduce waste, enhance efficiency, and have a positive social impact. I like to actually to call them now enviro-sociotechnical standards. It’s a mouthful, but at least it speaks to the facts that we’re dealing with. I already mentioned the impact on market and supply chain stakeholders. Important is, of course, scalability with standards we can scale, and this is greatly reducing integration issues and risks based on standardized protocols. We are really looking for implementation of a circular economy and sustainability principles by design. Actually, by design is part of the definition of a circular economy, and otherwise we design for de-manufacturability and no waste from the outset, not as an afterthought. And ultimately, of course, standards lead to technical implementation of regulation. A couple of examples out of IEEE, and I’m focusing here on ethically aligned design, which speaks to AI and strong Sustainability by Design, of course, speaks to sustainability, as opposed to the, say, energy-related standards, simply because we are adversives. And so we have formed initiatives like Ethically Aligned Design and Planet Positive 2030 to ultimately come up with recommendations and then build standards based on those recommendations. And the initiatives are all from the bottom up, with 100, 200, 300 people from around the globe and different backgrounds. A couple of examples of standards. Out of the Ethically Aligned Design comes the 7000 series of IEEE standards. And here’s one mentioned, it’s the standard that’s 2000, sorry, 7014, came out in 24. It’s a standard for ethical considerations and emulated empathy in autonomous and intelligent systems. Another standard that relates to WSIS is the standard for H-appropriate digital services framework. And another one is standard for online age verification. So standards have gone far beyond looking at integration, say, of microgrids into the grid, which is 1547, all the way to ethical considerations in the design of services and platforms. So let’s cap the lines up for a conclusion. The global impact then is, on the one hand, acceleration of innovation. On the other hand, we are looking at building bridges, and I should have said that. mentioned that last to link to you. So building bridges between policymakers, government and institutions. If we are including ethics and sustainability in standards development, it leads to change in human values and ethical considerations. Of course, we promote technical governance. We protect children’s rights. And we truly work on making the planet more sustainable. In other words, our biosphere. And with that, I thank you very much and turn it back

Karen Mulberry: to Karen. Thank you very much, Maike. I also want to let everyone know, after our experts have spoken, there’ll be some opportunities to ask them some questions on their presentations and their experiences. So with that said, I’d like to move on to Yuhan, who is joining us remotely. Yuhan, are you there? No, she’s not there. Okay, thank you. Dimitrios, why don’t we move on to you and your perspective?

Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos: Yeah, hello, everyone. Forgive me, but I will read. So the title for me today is Building Bridges for Tomorrow’s Population. I’m going to sort of delve into AI in healthcare specifically. But I hope that my subject will cover domains outside healthcare more broadly. So as the world becomes more interconnected, our approach to population health, along the foundation of productivity and sustainability, faces an unprecedented opportunity to evolve. But treating illness alone is no longer enough. We must design systems that actively promote well-being, equity and resilience. And to do that, we must fundamentally rethink how we govern, collaborate and design through technology. Global standards are essential. They ensure that digital innovations, especially in healthcare, are scalable, secure and accessible. But beyond the technical layer lies a deeper challenge. Digital health and artificial intelligence offer the promise of better care access and coordination. But left unchecked, they risk reinforcing inequities. Systems meant to close care gaps may instead deepen them by reproducing bias, excluding communities or simply being designed without them. Global leaders have raised this concern. The UN, World Health Organization and OECD have all called for stronger digital cooperation to bridge, divide and accelerate the sustainable development goals. But declarations alone cannot solve implementation challenges. Healthcare illustrates this clearly. It’s where digital cooperation is most difficult and most urgently needed. The question is this. In a domain as regulated and standardized as healthcare, how is it that we so often fail to meaningfully include digital technologies in the very frameworks meant to support multi-stakeholder collaboration? And this has been the case for many, many years. The answer in part lies in how we develop standards. For them to be effective, they must be collaborative, shaped through open, inclusive processes that reflect diverse needs, values and jurisdictions. That’s how we ensure that standards are not only technically sound, but socially relevant. The other part lies in the kind of standards we pursue. Too often, standard setting codifies what is already known. Subtle technical criteria that are easy to measure but slow to evolve. In fast-moving domains like AI and digital health, we need a different approach, dynamic standards that accommodate uncertainty, support iterative learning, and evolve alongside the systems they govern. And we have two very important projects going on within IEEESA right now. These are not just tools of compliance. They are tools of trust, designed to embed transparency, enable accountability, and make complexity navigable across sectors and borders. So to illustrate what I’m trying to get to, let me use public health as an example. If we build the right digital infrastructure, and there’s a lot of talk within WHO in delivering just that in healthcare, we can create an AI superhighway for health, a blueprint for systems that are equitable, resilient, and globally connected. This ambition aligns directly with the UN SDGs and the World Summit on the Information Society. In Europe, legislative efforts such as the EU AI Act aim to enable that vision based on a clear principle. Laws define essential requirements, standards interpret them. But how can we standardize the path to digital inclusion on which AI models so heavily rely on? What would these standards look like? Today, many AI ethics frameworks advocate for fairness, transparency, and accountability. But most lack testable thresholds, a way to move from aspiration to application. First, standards must make uncertainty visible and shared. Transparency must become a design feature, not a compliance task. Second, they must support governance of future data ecosystems, ecosystems capable of disclosing the strengths, limitations, and risks. And we have a long way to cover in that respect. In this light, disclosure becomes a primary goal of standard setting. Alongside disclosure, we need to make sure that the data we produce is accessible to everyone. We need to make sure that the data we produce is accessible to everyone. We need to make sure that the data we produce is accessible to everyone. must be built into systems through standards that clarify obligations, not dilute them. Standards that everyone can use. That’s where threshold checkpoints matter. Data sets used to train or fine-tune models must be embedded with metadata. That means transparency criteria. And this is how we also tackle the deeper risk, synthetic truth contamination. As more models are trained on AI-generated content, originality and factual accuracy degrade. The knowledge space becomes recursively polluted and models hallucinate. Distorted information is recycled. They loop in on themselves. Accuracy declines and costs rise. And we are already dealing with this reality, albeit we have had LLMs in our lives for less than two years. This is not just a technical glitch. It’s a structural vulnerability. And some models are already masking this behavior, which is a lot more concerning. They hide it and they’re very good at it. So these systems are not sustainable.

Karen Mulberry: Thank you very much, Dimitrios. Let me check one more time. Sorry, I turned it off, I turned it on, I turned it off. I’d like to open up the floor to see if anyone has any questions or any responses to what you’ve heard so far today. And I think what I’d like to do is start us off with a question of my own. So, Dimitrios, how can the government, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, which the foundations of the WSIS discussions, collaborate in developing digital standards? I mean, you touched upon it from your expertise, but do you have any other suggestions? we should consider as we move forward through this multi-stakeholder process?

Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos: Thank you, Karen. That’s an excellent question. Some of it is immediate, some of it is longer term. I will try to answer the question in the European context, because I think that’s closer to the reality right now. So we have, first of all, the EU AI Act, which is in the process of implementation, as we all know, states the implementation. The GPI code of practice, General Purpose Artificial Intelligence code of practice, is on the way as well. And one of the provisions in that is to set up in different member states evidence sandbox facilities. So these are entities that are part of the regulatory system, and I’m talking about domains where systemic risk is more pronounced. So healthcare is one of those, which is my domain. And in those environments, solutions can be tested for compliance with virus ethical security and other criteria before they can be released in the open world, in reality, in real world. So we have two standards development projects that are supposed to support these facilities, and these facilities have been designed and are being designed. For example, the MSRA in the UK is in the process of designing the AI airlock with specific mechanisms that will eventually lead to evidence pathways and adoption of artificial intelligence tools in healthcare. Different countries are working on different projects. But the general idea is that you bring together all of these stakeholders that have an impact in the adoption of the and the tools to discuss among them how to best navigate this regulatory complexity. So to come back to your question, we have the mechanisms. Also the Joint Purpose Artificial Intelligence Code of Practice, which is implementing the AI Act, has provisions for standard setting in consensus with industry stakeholders for various aspects related to copyright protection, for example, and model training, model tuning and refining. But how are standards relevant here? If we somehow manage to develop a set of metadata, a set of metastandards that govern the space of implementation, that provide guardrails for what we consider ethical and safe, and then we bring all those stakeholders within the aforementioned mechanisms, then we have two benefits. One of them is we come out with standards for everyone. And the other one is that we do that in a controlled environment. So everybody learns from each other within those controlled environments.

Karen Mulberry: Thank you very much, Maike. Any thoughts on how various communities can get together and develop digital standards, especially from your work with the Sustainability Committee?

Maike Luiken: Actually, I wanted to add one point, and that is, to my understanding, the UK put together a sandbox for actually testing applications. The AI, I love that. That’s right. And Canada is copying this now, so starting a sandbox as well. And so that is actually helping, not necessarily the standards development, but certainly the developers to see whether A, things work, and two, whether whatever is being developed performs to standard. So I think that’s a necessity. We need the standards, but we also need… and Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, that’s one of the issues that I don’t think we have been figuring out very well on how to actually keep up with standards development, with technology development.

Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos: No, I totally agree with you. But look, it’s the very beginning. We have to come to terms with the fact that we are in the beginning.

Maike Luiken: Okay, agreed.

Participant: Yes, I have a question for you. Yes, I have a question for Dimitrios. I mean, you talked a lot about Europe and the European standards, but I mean, since we spoke earlier about standardization being a process on a global scale, then with local implications, perhaps there is a chance you could also talk briefly about the Global South and standardization among stakeholders in the Global South?

Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos: Yes, thank you. That’s an excellent question as well. Look, let me try to approach that in a different way. First of all, standards development and what I talked about today needs to be participatory, and that means that everyone participates. So if not everyone participates, that means that the standards are not going to be fair for everyone. And I’m going to give an example of what it means that if they’re not fair for everyone, not everyone participates. And then as they will guide AI adoption, they will eventually also guide the truth that goes in the models of the artificial intelligence. We’re going to just propagate existing standards. Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, leading the development of the different writing groups within the standard. That’s not a bad thing. What we are planning to do once we have… So, we want to create a container of knowledge where knowledge transfer can take place, but we also need to be very careful about everyone participating in the process. So, after long and careful consideration and deliberation, we have come up with a model where we’re thinking we can create an initial container of know-how, a first set of this standard, get it out there and then have a process where we can disseminate it as broad as we can globally to have everyone participate in defining the different metadata and parameters that go into this standard, which basically is about AI preparing datasets around the world. So, we still have a lot of work. It is most certainly one of our key priorities. We are convening, as IEEE SA, a global public health forum in London on November the 6th. And this is going to be very much about generative AI and fast prototyping to develop knowledge based on standards for data. And there’s a lot of work ongoing within IEEE in that direction. It’s only the beginning. We still have a lot of work to do. So, yeah, I mean, if anyone wants to join us or support or in any way, make this a reality, you’re very welcome to reach out and talk to me. And thank you for posing that very important issue. Thank you.

Karen Mulberry: We have some other questions, so.

Heather Flanagan: My name is Heather Flanagan. I’m a chair and participant in several standards organizations, including the IETF, the W3C, the OpenID Foundation, a few others. And I absolutely agree so much that the need for broad participation is critical to making a standard work. And one of the reasons I’m here is because, of course, in those communities, they’re them and they’re not here. And there’s very, very little crossover. And I don’t know how to fix it. That’s the whole reason that I’ve come to this event is to try to understand more clearly how to bridge that gap of, I know as chair that I want broader participation, but I don’t know how to get it. So I’d really love any suggestions or feedback how to make what we all agree needs to happen actually happen.

Maike Luiken: I’d love to take this question. It’s a formidable question. I face the same issue. And I’m pretty sure most people who have been sharing a standards working group have run into this one from time to time. People want to be asked. They’re usually not just coming. They truly want to be asked. at our booth who asked about a couple of things and we got talking. We talked for an hour and yes, now he is interested in joining a standards working group. So what it really takes is use the network of the folks that are already in your working group and look for suggestions who else could join and do a personal ask as far as you can get. That’s the best way I have learned how to do it and usually at events like this or other conferences I go to like issue the invitation like Dimitrios did if you want to join us, talk to people in more detail. I haven’t found a more effective way. But of course you can do the other and that is talk about the work in public places like LinkedIn and others as much as you can and you might get other folks who are interested. But never forget that people want to be asked.

Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos: Thank you. Can I also add perhaps a little bit from my experience. So my first standards development project was in 1992 for artificial intelligence and agentic AI in healthcare. And then I went into 20 years of international development also developing standards in different jurisdictions, different parts of the world. One thing I learned is that standards evolve with the people that develop them. If you try to push people to standardize the people who develop the standards, they’re not going to join your groups. You really need to make the standard development process an expression of their own understanding of reality. And this is where standards become magical. So people start expressing their own experiences, their own ways of doing things through the standards, and somehow they come together into final versions of this. And this is what I mentioned earlier. Once you have this from people who can do it faster, once you have that prototype, then you can release that prototype to the world and then fine-tune it. Look, standards are like LLMs. If you observe how LLMs learn, then the same thing should happen with standards. They’re just different layers of a very similar process. Thank you. One of the reasons why we like to

Karen Mulberry: have these workshops, to expose the work within IEEE, in hopes of attracting more people to participate, to add more voices and views to the work. So I have a question here and two along the back. And then our remote speaker has joined us, so I’d like to turn it over to

Priyanka Dasgupta: her at that point. Hello, everyone. I am Priyanka Dasgupta, again from another standardization organization, IEC. So as we’re talking about standards, I quite like the intervention you made, Dimitrios, and so I was curious about that around the project that you were speaking about, building on the fact that when we are talking about standards, they’re not just built for the global majority, they’re built with them. And in that, you mentioned the project where you will be somehow opening it up to the public for them to be able to crowdfund the data for this thing. And I was curious, genuinely curious about how do you then ensure data quality within such work? Because one of the critical things when developing learning models for AI or learning data sets for AI is if you ask for input from everywhere, one, there’s always that question of bias, and of course, also questions of how to maintain that data quality. I was just curious to know how, or how do you intend to do that at such a broader level? Although the inclusivity is definitely a step I completely support. So thank you.

Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos: I’m not sure if I can answer your question in the limitation of time we have here, but one response would be join our project and find out. We want all the help we would like to have, all the help we can get. But I think I mentioned it in between what I said in my talk. We have been focusing on the data of the standard. We’ve been focusing on being descriptive. If we focus on the metadata, I’m sorry, instead of being prescriptive, being descriptive, if we focus on giving to people who participate in science development what kind of data we need, they will deliver it for you. So I think the broader idea is that instead of developing standards that tell you what to do, develop standards that tell you how to develop your standards. This is what we’re trying to do and this is the whole concept. Now when it comes to bias for data, this particular project I mentioned a minute ago, it has been ongoing for more than 20 years. So there’s a lot of work behind it and a lot more than I can go through right now. But rest assured, it relies on existing standards. It takes into consideration work that has been going on for a very long time to make sure that it doesn’t. And it essentially builds mechanisms to fight bias. So yeah.

Priyanka Dasgupta: Yeah, no, thank you. My question was more around the sourcing, the inputs for the metadata part, but it’s not questioning the development of the standard itself with the bias, how to retaliate bias in that sense. But thank you. I think you answered my question. Yeah.

Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos: Transparency is an issue. For example, if you develop a data set, you need to ask your data set if an AI was used to produce it. It’s a piece of metadata and nobody builds that into their standards, do they? Please.

Kiki Wicachali: Greetings all. Allow me to borrow a microphone. Kiki Wicachali, Senior Technology Advisor in UNICEF. My question is around quantitative and qualitative. Well, a little bit of that. As technical people and what goes into standards, it is usually, let’s call it easier, for lack of a better word, to build quantitative. How should we build qualitative aspects, ethics, child rights into standards, number one. Number two, we’re talking about new standards or developing standards. Second part of my question is, we already have so many ethics by design, digital by design. How do we enforce compliance?

Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos: These are all very good and very valid questions. I mean, my immediate response is, why not form a group, a working group among us and, you know, unpack these issues and address them together. We need to find a way to do that. But this is my sort of sustainable process response. In terms of an immediate answer, it’s thresholds that you need to think about. So when it comes to ethics, issues of ethics, you need to consider yourself, when is it that you need to define what unpacks your ethics issues? So you need to make sure that, for example, you have an age group participation in child locks, for example, you can have a child lock, an automatic child lock for specific digital access above, I don’t know, 10 or 12, depending on the content. These are all thresholds and you need to adjust your thresholds based on different parameters. What is the content? How is it accessible? I don’t know. I’m just giving a very pedantic example to explain that there are ways in which you can actually standardise ethics, both qualitatively and quantitatively. What I can say, though, is that I totally agree with you that quantitative we had enough of. It’s the qualitative bit which is really difficult. And this is why we need to start talking about metadata. We don’t have enough of that. So, you know, behaviour is defined in metadata sets, not in data sets. The way, so, you know, do I drink coffee or do I prefer tea? This is metadata. I will drink something in the end and the purpose is to have some caffeine or whatever. But that is what actually defines us as people. If you look at our behaviour, you look at our metadata, you look at the way that we actually navigate our lives. This is through metadata and we need to and this is where, you know, broad participation is very important because it’s about discovery. Open up the process to many people. To do that, you need to have the right instruments. How are you going to do that? The way that we approach standards development doesn’t work right now. There needs to be a new way, and that’s why I mentioned the regulatory. That’s why I mentioned sandboxes. There needs to be a closer loop, an agile development process, where we develop the standards together with the communities. For example, in the Global South, access to care is very difficult. We need mobile health applications, telehealth applications that will enable access to high-quality health care and preventive health care. We’re not using that enough. How can we allow those applications to go in a very highly regulated environment? Well, we need sandboxes, but so what? What are the sandboxes? Nobody understands what sandboxes are. I would recommend we let go of the term evidence, of the term regulatory sandbox, and we introduce the term evidence sandbox. Why can’t we finally build a sandbox environment where we develop, we allow for evidence, common evidence to be used within domains and regulate that? This is where the opportunity for standards comes in, because regulatory sandbox is about the law, and we have covered the law. Now, we need to cover the application of the law. We need to go practical. We need to bring communities into play. We need to equip them with the tools and standardise those tools in an adaptive manner. Let them use them, see what comes out of it, monitor very closely, start with an initial data set and develop the evidence and the regulatory paths for them. Make those global, eventually. We have published a policy on this, if you’re interested in reading it, and I think this is the shortest way to read about these views. So, all you need to do is go to IEEE European Public Policy Committee and look for our Artificial Intelligence and Digital Health for Equity public position statement, and you will see all this written in a short statement,

Kiki Wicachali: policy statement. Or I’ll take you up on your offer and get in touch with you, and then we can have a more…

Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos: Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng,

Karen Mulberry: I’d like to add to that, too, at the Standards Association. We have some guiding frameworks, ethically aligned design, that was developed in 2017 to actually look at applying bias and ethics to AI in particular development and providing some frameworks for consideration as you look at technical standards along that pathway. To add to that, we’ve also looked at certification programs on top of applying ethically aligned design such that if you comply with a standard in the 7000 series, which is where AI standards reside, we can go back and then certify that you comply with the standard, that you followed all of the requirements within the standard so you can attest to that, that you have a safe, trustworthy system and it’s ethically sound, that it’s used the appropriate data set in the way that it was defined. So, I mean, there is a body of work out there to try and move into the ethical approach and applications of technology. But again, technology resides in your hands and how you use it. So, to participate in the process would be wonderful because we need more voices at the table to consider all of the various aspects. So, this is your invitation to come join us at IEEE and participate in our standards development. And you don’t have to be a member, you just have to show up and be interested. Michael, you got some comments? Yeah, just one. So, an expression of ethics and values

Maike Luiken: are the guardrails that we put in place. So, the standards will talk to guardrails to protect against misuse of a particular technology. And so, that’s one of the expressions that implements essentially our value system or the value system of those who participated in the development of the standard. That’s just one way to look at it. And of course, those guardrails then become part of a certification program if a standard leads to that.

Participant: Yeah. So, you mentioned that one way to get people to talk together and to join and design new standards based on their shared experiences is to basically go talk to them. and invite them, as you did yesterday with me, and thank you very much. But how do you deal with the power imbalance in the arena of standard definitions? And the topics that I study myself as a researcher is the standards, the environmental standards regarding data centers. And the key players are AWS and Microsoft and Meta. And they basically set their own standards and they try to impose them on others because they have the power to do so. Once they have these standards, then the other players have to use them as well if they want to compete with those. And obviously, they design those standards because they fit the vision of sustainability that they designed as well themselves. Thank you.

Maike Luiken: You have to ask the difficult question, do you? Thank you. So actually, what we often have is representatives, but representing themselves of these various companies in the standards development groups. So that is one side of the coin. The other is when you talk about a company setting a standard, it’s a de facto industry type standard, but it’s not a global standard. It’s like MPLS from Cisco was one of the protocols that de facto became standard because multi-protocol label switching was pushed forward faster than the actual standards development was happening. So that is what happened. Sometimes the market overtakes the actual standards development and there’s nothing we can do other than ultimately see which standard wins. And that is market adoption. So we had a failure around standards development for asynchronous transfer mode, for example. So thank you.

Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos: Can I just add one short bit there? Never forget the policy of standards in your work. So policy is about adding layers. In policy, you can never cancel other people’s policies. You have to add another policy that builds on the other policies and that has to be an integral part of standards. So if you find enemies, it means your policy is not right. You need to adjust your policy to make them your friends. And that will eventually happen. It just takes a lot of patience. I hope that was of value.

Participant: Oh, hi. I’m from a new organization called the World Digital Technology Academy. Right now, we’re gathering experts from industry and academia to form multi-stakeholder working group. Actually, we have published four standards around generative AI and agentic AI. In the future, we’ll do more about data governance. I’m very glad to hear IEEE is doing certification in addition to standards. Yeah, we have also put together a certification program. So in the future, I would love to collaborate with IEEE to work on more new standards on AI and certification. So probably after this meeting, we can talk more about this.

Karen Mulberry: I’m sure we would be very interested in collaboration and in hearing of your work and your approach. So I welcome that, and I will talk to you afterwards. And I believe we had another question then. Oh.

Shamira Ahmed: Thank you. My name is Shamira Ahmed. I am a researcher, and my question is for Dimitrios. You mentioned regulatory sandboxes, or as you said, they should be evidence sandboxes as a way to create guardrails and implement operationalized standards and ethics that we have on AI. So regulatory sandboxes are not a new thing when it comes to managing implementation of technologies. And you also mentioned, correct me if I’m wrong, that… Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Maike Luiken, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng,

Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos: Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, pf Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, gives you an ability, through standards, not through a common resource, not through a central database that belongs to a government, this is a purely democratic process. If there was a way, through standards, to create a global data space, look at the European health data space. Think of a global health data space. Then what I would actually be working toward is to start with mobile health applications working for civic engagement. Getting people to participate in their healthcare, and then create evidence pathways that go all the way up to global health policy. Okay. Okay, so is this possible? The question here is the regulatory sandbox. First of all, I don’t like the idea of a regulatory sandbox. The regulatory sandbox is a term which is being used to tell me it’s okay to test an application within this specific environment. In fintech, in other domains, I have no idea whether this succeeded or failed. But you have to consider that the European Medicines Agency, for example, EMA, works in a very similar way. It guides local authorities that regulate pharmaceuticals and it creates meta-policy and assists those. So there is a structure that you can build with which you can govern the process of evidence generation. And there’s no reason why it shouldn’t work. What is difficult there is addressing digital determinants. Because if you want to have scale, and you haven’t addressed the digital determinants of health, if you haven’t made technology accessible to entire populations, this clearly is not going to work. I mean, this is a failure from the onset. We know this is going to be a no-gamer. But for that, both the UN and the European Union and different organizations are actually funding infrastructure development. And we can’t wait for that infrastructure to be delivered and then think about what we’re going to do with it. What we’re trying to do is develop policies that will create those living labs. Does that resonate better with you? We avoid the term regulatory sandboxes, living labs, the collaborative spaces, where we can bring together communities and test out standardized solutions that deliver specific functions in healthcare. This is about population health. So the idea is that you mobilize, you engage the society to participate in improving their digital health, improving their health through placemaking digital ecosystems. Now we have digital, we need to go the other way around. We need to create communities around them. We have been so set on using digital technologies to develop new pathways for healthcare, anticipatory healthcare. We have gotten, you know, our heads too deep into this idea that it’s all digital. Well, it can’t be. It has to be real as well. So I completely agree with you. But again, I would urge you to read the policy document that we have set out and see if it answers your questions and if it doesn’t, I welcome your participation in any dialogue. And if you find any weak points, we would love to look at them. We want to make this successful. We’re not trying to just enforce a solution that we believe is successful.

Participant: Thank you. Super interesting. I’m a psychologist. I’m interested in exactly what you’ve been discussing, which is how you bring the human dimension into play effectively and how you go beyond efficiency and effectiveness and ethics into the evolution of communities and individuals and leadership. I’d love to hear any of the experiences you have briefly of what you described as the requirement for standards development to go hand in hand with people development and where you’ve seen that happen, whether it’s people collectively, teams and communities, organizations, or whether it’s individual leaders and how that’s made a big impact. That’s my area of work. My name is Philip. Thank you.

Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos: Thank you for your question, Philip. Well, we are building exactly that now within WHO’s Strategic Partners Initiative for Data and Digital Health, WHO Europe. I urge you to reach out, find out what it’s about. It’s about mental health specifically, but I cannot discuss this program here. So if you need further information, please reach out to WHO Europe and ask for, you know, if you, I’m sure the participation is open and you can still join the program or next year’s cohort. We are seeing, I can just very briefly tell you that, no, we don’t have unfortunately concrete evidence as to whether it works successfully. For now, we know what the pushback is, as you probably know is expected. And we are finding ways in which to work around that pushback. And this is fairly common. So. So I think that standards development is the very idea that, you know, we can progressively develop new layers of knowledge and participation without people thinking that we, you know, overreach into the privacy.

Karen Mulberry: And we have one concluding question.

Participant: Okay, thank you for your excellent presentations. We can see that many frontier technology, especially AI, is developing at a fast speed. And some new innovative technologies are completely groundbreaking, like trans-GBT in 2023. And they can have a huge impact on the industry immediately. But related standards often have not yet been established, which may lead to some negative consequences. Therefore, my problem is that what can we do to better tackle this situation? Thank you.

Karen Mulberry: Well, Maike, much like your example in terms of MPLS, where something was set prior to the standard. I mean, how do you resolve that issue?

Maike Luiken: Well, we do continue to develop standards around AI. And of course, we talked here a lot about AI based on large language models and so on. There’s an awful lot more to AI than the chat GPT and so on, right? So let’s not forget that. And there’s a lot of standards development around that piece. But in this particular case, we’re looking at the ethical use. And we are also looking at the issue that the users are using, say, chat GPT-3, when it came out, for functions that it was not designed for. I personally went in and said, OK, I’m going to test this. And I had to write my biography. My name, first name plus last name. If I do a Google search, it’s always me. There’s no two people with the same name combination. And I tried this eight times. Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, Yuhan Zheng, Dr. Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos, So, I’m not sure how standard development will change misuse of a tool, right? So, the path forward here is to either check GPT changing, which it has, like it gives you today references and so on, which it didn’t when it started out, and to let people, to educate people about what the function of different platforms in AI are, okay, or different AI platforms are, and always realizing that some level of hallucination may actually happen with all of them, okay? People are brought it up with the robo-taxi, with phantom breaking. In other words, the autonomous system is misinterpretation, misinterpreting signals, and it’s slowing down rapidly because it perceives the danger, okay? So, that is a fact, and a standard is not going to change that, right? But what we need to do is, and I go back to this, we need to educate and communicate the actual capacity, capability of a technology, what it can do and what it cannot do. And that brings me back to our sandboxes, because we are not only testing and bringing new knowledge, we are also testing the guardrails.

Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos: Yeah, look, think of this. In a room, you have a child growing up. You don’t go to the child and say, look, don’t do that. This is a corner. You put corner protectors there. This is what we need to do about AI now. That’s what the standards do. You need to make safe for a child the environment for the AI to grow up and those are the guardrails. You know, those little plastic sticky things that you put wherever you see a corner. That’s what we need to build. Thank you.

Karen Mulberry: Yes, and I think you’ve raised an issue that is always going to be a conundrum. You know, which comes first? The idea and thought of an application and the standard behind it to make it safe and trustworthy and globally applicable. Well, I’d like to conclude my remarks because we’re way over time and thank everyone very much for participating in our workshop, for your contributions to the dialogue we had today and supporting the multi-stakeholder process. So thank you very much. Thank you.

Agreement points

Broad participation is essential for effective standards development

Speakers

– Maike Luiken
– Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos
– Heather Flanagan
– Priyanka Dasgupta
– Participant

Arguments

Broad global participation is essential for fair standards, requiring personal outreach and invitation rather than waiting for volunteers

Standards evolve with the people who develop them and must reflect participants’ own understanding of reality

There is significant challenge in bridging gaps between different standards communities that don’t interact

Data quality maintenance is challenging when crowdsourcing inputs for AI standards development

Global South participation is essential to prevent standards from propagating existing inequalities

Summary

All speakers agree that inclusive, diverse participation is crucial for developing fair and effective standards, though they acknowledge significant challenges in achieving this participation across different communities and regions.

Topics

Digital standards

Standards must address ethical considerations and human values, not just technical specifications

Speakers

– Maike Luiken
– Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos
– Karen Mulberry
– Kiki Wicachali

Arguments

Modern standards must include environmental and social impact considerations, moving toward ‘enviro-sociotechnical standards’

AI systems risk reinforcing inequities if not properly governed through inclusive standards development

Certification programs can attest to compliance with ethical AI standards in the 7000 series

Quantitative standards are easier to develop than qualitative aspects like ethics and child rights

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize that modern standards development must go beyond technical functionality to incorporate ethical, social, and environmental considerations, though they acknowledge the complexity of standardizing qualitative aspects.

Topics

Digital standards | Human rights principles | Children rights

Transparency and metadata are crucial for AI systems governance

Speakers

– Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos
– Maike Luiken

Arguments

Standards development should focus on metadata and descriptive rather than prescriptive approaches

Standards must make uncertainty visible and support governance of future data ecosystems with transparency as a design feature

Threshold checkpoints and metadata embedding are necessary for transparency in AI systems

Summary

Both speakers agree that transparency should be built into AI systems as a design feature, with emphasis on metadata and descriptive approaches rather than prescriptive rules.

Topics

Digital standards | Data governance | Privacy and data protection

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers view standards as protective frameworks that bridge research and practice while creating safe environments for technology development through guardrails rather than restrictions.

Speakers

– Maike Luiken
– Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos

Arguments

Standards serve as bridges between academic research and practical implementation, providing common language across disciplines

Standards must address both technical functionality and ethical considerations through guardrails

Corner protector analogy: standards should create safe environments for AI development rather than just restrictions

Topics

Digital standards

Both recognize that market forces and powerful industry players can establish de facto standards that bypass formal standards development processes, creating challenges for inclusive standardization.

Speakers

– Maike Luiken
– Participant

Arguments

Market adoption sometimes overtakes formal standards development, creating de facto industry standards

Power imbalances exist where major tech companies can impose de facto standards on others

Topics

Digital standards

Both speakers discuss the concept of regulatory/evidence sandboxes as mechanisms for testing technology implementations, though they have different perspectives on their effectiveness and scope.

Speakers

– Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

Evidence sandboxes are needed to test AI applications in controlled environments before real-world deployment

Regulatory sandboxes are not new for managing technology implementation but may have limitations in addressing digital determinants of health

Topics

Digital standards | Legal and regulatory | Digital access

Unexpected consensus

Personal invitation is more effective than open calls for standards participation

Speakers

– Maike Luiken
– Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos

Arguments

Broad global participation is essential for fair standards, requiring personal outreach and invitation rather than waiting for volunteers

Standards evolve with the people who develop them and must reflect participants’ own understanding of reality

Explanation

It’s unexpected that experienced standards developers would agree that personal outreach is more effective than traditional open participation models, suggesting that current standards development processes may be inherently exclusive despite intentions for openness.

Topics

Digital standards

Standards development should be more like AI learning processes

Speakers

– Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos

Arguments

Standards are like LLMs. If you observe how LLMs learn, then the same thing should happen with standards. They’re just different layers of a very similar process

Explanation

The comparison between standards development and AI learning processes represents an unexpected conceptual framework that suggests iterative, adaptive approaches to standards creation rather than traditional linear development models.

Topics

Digital standards

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the need for inclusive, ethical standards development that goes beyond technical specifications to address social and environmental impacts. They agree on the importance of transparency, metadata, and protective guardrails for AI systems, while acknowledging significant challenges in achieving broad participation and keeping pace with rapid technological development.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles with shared recognition of implementation challenges. The agreement spans technical, ethical, and procedural aspects of standards development, suggesting a mature understanding of the complexities involved. However, the consensus also reveals systemic issues in current standards development processes that may require fundamental changes to achieve stated goals of inclusivity and global participation.

Different viewpoints

Approach to standards development – prescriptive vs descriptive

Speakers

– Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos
– Maike Luiken

Arguments

If we focus on the metadata, instead of being prescriptive, being descriptive, if we focus on giving to people who participate in science development what kind of data we need, they will deliver it for you. Develop standards that tell you how to develop your standards.

Standards serve as bridges between academic research and practical implementation, providing common language across disciplines

Summary

Dimitrios advocates for descriptive, metadata-focused standards that guide how to develop standards, while Maike presents a more traditional view of standards as bridges providing common language and direct implementation guidance.

Topics

Digital standards | Data governance

Terminology and approach to regulatory frameworks

Speakers

– Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

We avoid the term regulatory sandboxes, living labs, the collaborative spaces, where we can bring together communities and test out standardized solutions that deliver specific functions in healthcare.

Regulatory sandboxes are not a new thing when it comes to managing implementation of technologies

Summary

Dimitrios rejects the term ‘regulatory sandboxes’ in favor of ‘evidence sandboxes’ or ‘living labs’, while Shamira points out that regulatory sandboxes are established mechanisms, questioning their novelty and effectiveness.

Topics

Digital standards | Legal and regulatory | Digital access

Market-driven vs formal standards development

Speakers

– Maike Luiken
– Participant

Arguments

Market adoption sometimes overtakes formal standards development, creating de facto industry standards

Power imbalances exist where major tech companies can impose de facto standards on others

Summary

Maike presents market-driven standards as a natural process where the best solution wins, while the participant views this as problematic power imbalances where large companies impose their standards on others.

Topics

Digital standards

Unexpected differences

Effectiveness of established regulatory mechanisms

Speakers

– Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

Evidence sandboxes are needed to test AI applications in controlled environments before real-world deployment

Regulatory sandboxes are not a new thing when it comes to managing implementation of technologies but may have limitations in addressing digital determinants of health

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are discussing similar regulatory mechanisms, but Dimitrios presents his approach as innovative while Shamira points out these are established practices, questioning their effectiveness for achieving scale in healthcare.

Topics

Digital standards | Legal and regulatory | Digital access

Role of market forces in standards development

Speakers

– Maike Luiken
– Participant

Arguments

Market adoption sometimes overtakes formal standards development, creating de facto industry standards

Power imbalances exist where major tech companies can impose de facto standards on others

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because they’re discussing the same phenomenon (market-driven standards) but with completely different value judgments – Maike sees it as natural market selection while the participant views it as problematic power concentration.

Topics

Digital standards

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center around methodological approaches to standards development (prescriptive vs descriptive), the role of market forces versus formal processes, and the effectiveness of regulatory mechanisms. Most disagreements are about means rather than ends.

Disagreement level

The level of disagreement is moderate and primarily methodological rather than fundamental. Speakers generally agree on core goals (inclusive participation, ethical considerations, transparency) but differ on implementation approaches. This suggests that while there are different perspectives on how to achieve effective standards development, there is substantial common ground that could facilitate collaboration and consensus-building in the standards development community.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers view standards as protective frameworks that bridge research and practice while creating safe environments for technology development through guardrails rather than restrictions.

Speakers

– Maike Luiken
– Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos

Arguments

Standards serve as bridges between academic research and practical implementation, providing common language across disciplines

Standards must address both technical functionality and ethical considerations through guardrails

Corner protector analogy: standards should create safe environments for AI development rather than just restrictions

Topics

Digital standards

Both recognize that market forces and powerful industry players can establish de facto standards that bypass formal standards development processes, creating challenges for inclusive standardization.

Speakers

– Maike Luiken
– Participant

Arguments

Market adoption sometimes overtakes formal standards development, creating de facto industry standards

Power imbalances exist where major tech companies can impose de facto standards on others

Topics

Digital standards

Both speakers discuss the concept of regulatory/evidence sandboxes as mechanisms for testing technology implementations, though they have different perspectives on their effectiveness and scope.

Speakers

– Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

Evidence sandboxes are needed to test AI applications in controlled environments before real-world deployment

Regulatory sandboxes are not new for managing technology implementation but may have limitations in addressing digital determinants of health

Topics

Digital standards | Legal and regulatory | Digital access

Key takeaways

Standards must evolve beyond technical specifications to include environmental, social, and ethical considerations, becoming ‘enviro-sociotechnical standards’

Broad global participation is essential for fair standards development, requiring active outreach and personal invitations rather than waiting for volunteers

AI systems pose risks of reinforcing inequities and creating synthetic truth contamination if not properly governed through inclusive standards

Evidence sandboxes (controlled testing environments) are needed to test AI applications before real-world deployment

Standards serve as bridges between academic research and practical implementation, providing common language across disciplines

Market forces sometimes create de facto standards that overtake formal standards development processes

Transparency must be built into AI systems as a design feature, not just a compliance requirement

Standards development should focus on metadata and descriptive approaches rather than prescriptive ones

Education about technology capabilities and limitations is as important as the standards themselves

Resolutions and action items

Dimitrios invited participants to join IEEE’s AI and healthcare standards development projects

A global public health forum on generative AI will be convened in London on November 6th

Participants were encouraged to read the IEEE European Public Policy Committee’s AI and Digital Health for Equity policy statement

Karen Mulberry invited collaboration with the World Digital Technology Academy on AI standards and certification

Multiple speakers offered to continue discussions with interested participants after the session

Participants were invited to join IEEE standards working groups (membership not required, just interest and participation)

Unresolved issues

How to effectively bridge gaps between different standards communities that don’t interact with each other

How to address power imbalances where major tech companies can impose de facto standards on smaller players

How to maintain data quality when crowdsourcing inputs for AI standards development

How to standardize qualitative aspects like ethics and child rights, not just quantitative measures

How to ensure Global South participation in standards development to prevent perpetuating existing inequalities

How to keep standards development pace aligned with rapid technology advancement

How to prevent misuse of AI tools beyond their intended design parameters

How to create effective enforcement mechanisms for standards compliance

Suggested compromises

Start with prototype standards developed by available experts, then release globally for broader input and refinement

Use evidence sandboxes as controlled environments where all stakeholders can collaborate on standards testing

Focus on creating guardrails and safety measures rather than restrictive regulations

Develop adaptive standards that can evolve alongside rapidly changing technology

Build policy layers that complement rather than cancel existing standards and policies

Create living labs and collaborative spaces where communities can test standardized solutions together

Combine certification programs with standards to provide attestation of compliance and trustworthiness

Standards, as far as I’m concerned, are a true bridge between research, academic research, new science, new findings, and the application, implementation, and use of this research output… we are really looking at the intersection between standards development for technology, but including sustainability considerations in that development.

Speaker

Maike Luiken

Reason

This comment reframes standards from mere technical specifications to dynamic bridges that connect research with real-world application while incorporating sustainability and ethics. It introduces the concept of ‘enviro-sociotechnical standards’ which expands the traditional scope of technical standards.

Impact

This foundational comment set the tone for the entire discussion by establishing that modern standards must go beyond technical functionality to include ethical, environmental, and social considerations. It influenced subsequent speakers to address the human and societal dimensions of their work.

In fast-moving domains like AI and digital health, we need a different approach, dynamic standards that accommodate uncertainty, support iterative learning, and evolve alongside the systems they govern… These are not just tools of compliance. They are tools of trust, designed to embed transparency, enable accountability, and make complexity navigable across sectors and borders.

Speaker

Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos

Reason

This comment challenges the traditional static nature of standards development and proposes a paradigm shift toward dynamic, evolving standards. It reframes standards as ‘tools of trust’ rather than mere compliance mechanisms, which is particularly profound for emerging technologies.

Impact

This comment fundamentally shifted the discussion from traditional standards development to adaptive governance models. It sparked multiple follow-up questions about implementation and led to discussions about regulatory sandboxes and evidence-based approaches.

As more models are trained on AI-generated content, originality and factual accuracy degrade. The knowledge space becomes recursively polluted and models hallucinate… This is not just a technical glitch. It’s a structural vulnerability.

Speaker

Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos

Reason

This comment introduces the critical concept of ‘synthetic truth contamination’ – a systemic risk that emerges when AI systems train on their own outputs. It elevates the discussion from technical implementation to existential risks in AI development.

Impact

This observation deepened the conversation by highlighting long-term sustainability issues in AI development. It connected technical standards to broader questions of information integrity and influenced later discussions about metadata requirements and transparency standards.

People want to be asked. They’re usually not just coming. They truly want to be asked… use the network of the folks that are already in your working group and look for suggestions who else could join and do a personal ask as far as you can get.

Speaker

Maike Luiken

Reason

This seemingly simple observation about human psychology in standards participation reveals a fundamental barrier to inclusive standards development. It shifts focus from technical processes to human relationship-building as essential for effective standards.

Impact

This comment directly addressed Heather Flanagan’s concern about achieving broader participation and provided practical guidance. It humanized the standards development process and influenced subsequent discussions about community engagement and global participation.

Standards are like LLMs. If you observe how LLMs learn, then the same thing should happen with standards. They’re just different layers of a very similar process… standards evolve with the people that develop them.

Speaker

Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos

Reason

This analogy between standards development and machine learning is intellectually provocative, suggesting that standards should learn and adapt iteratively like AI systems. It implies a fundamental reconceptualization of how standards should be developed and maintained.

Impact

This metaphor provided a new framework for thinking about standards development that resonated throughout the remaining discussion. It influenced conversations about adaptive processes and community-driven development approaches.

How can the government, the private sector, civil society, the technical community… collaborate in developing digital standards? … how can we allow those applications to go in a very highly regulated environment? Well, we need sandboxes… We need to go practical. We need to bring communities into play.

Speaker

Dimitrios Kalogeropoulos (in response to Karen Mulberry’s question)

Reason

This response bridges theoretical multi-stakeholder collaboration with practical implementation through ‘evidence sandboxes.’ It proposes a concrete mechanism for bringing diverse stakeholders together in controlled environments to develop and test standards collaboratively.

Impact

This comment introduced a practical solution to the multi-stakeholder challenge and became a recurring theme. It influenced multiple follow-up questions about implementation, global participation, and the balance between innovation and regulation.

How do you deal with the power imbalance in the arena of standard definitions? … the key players are AWS and Microsoft and Meta. And they basically set their own standards and they try to impose them on others because they have the power to do so.

Speaker

Unnamed participant

Reason

This question cuts to the heart of democratic participation in standards development by highlighting how market power can override inclusive processes. It challenges the idealistic view of collaborative standards development with economic and political realities.

Impact

This question forced speakers to confront the tension between inclusive ideals and market realities. It led to discussions about de facto versus formal standards and the role of policy in addressing power imbalances, adding a critical dimension to the conversation.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed what began as a technical discussion about standards development into a sophisticated exploration of adaptive governance, democratic participation, and systemic risks in emerging technologies. The most impactful contributions challenged traditional assumptions about standards as static technical documents, instead proposing dynamic, community-driven approaches that evolve with technology and society. The discussion progressed from theoretical frameworks to practical implementation challenges, with participants grappling with power imbalances, global participation, and the need for new institutional mechanisms like ‘evidence sandboxes.’ The conversation’s evolution from technical specifications to questions of trust, democracy, and social impact demonstrates how thoughtful interventions can elevate a discussion to address fundamental questions about technology governance in a rapidly changing world.

How can we keep up with standards development alongside rapidly advancing technology development?

Speaker

Maike Luiken

Explanation

This addresses a fundamental challenge in standards development where technology advances faster than the standards can be created to govern them safely and effectively.

How can we ensure broad global participation, especially from the Global South, in standards development processes?

Speaker

Participant

Explanation

This is critical for ensuring standards are fair and inclusive for all populations, not just those from developed countries who typically dominate standards development.

How can we bridge the gap between different standards communities that don’t typically interact with each other?

Speaker

Heather Flanagan

Explanation

This addresses the siloed nature of standards organizations and the need for better cross-community collaboration to create more comprehensive and interoperable standards.

How can we ensure data quality when crowdsourcing inputs for AI dataset standards development?

Speaker

Priyanka Dasgupta

Explanation

This is crucial for maintaining the integrity and reliability of AI systems while still enabling inclusive participation in standards development.

How can we build qualitative aspects like ethics and child rights into technical standards, and how do we enforce compliance with existing ethics-by-design standards?

Speaker

Kiki Wicachali

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of translating abstract ethical concepts into measurable technical requirements and ensuring they are actually implemented.

How do we deal with power imbalances in standards definition, particularly when large tech companies set de facto standards?

Speaker

Participant

Explanation

This highlights the challenge of ensuring democratic and fair standards development when powerful market players can impose their own standards through market dominance.

What can we do to better tackle the situation where groundbreaking technologies develop faster than related standards can be established?

Speaker

Participant

Explanation

This addresses the ongoing challenge of standards lagging behind technological innovation, potentially leading to negative consequences from unregulated technology deployment.

How can evidence sandboxes be effectively implemented to create collaborative spaces for testing standardized solutions in healthcare?

Speaker

Shamira Ahmed

Explanation

This explores the practical implementation of regulatory frameworks that can keep pace with AI development while ensuring safety and efficacy.

What are the concrete experiences of standards development going hand in hand with people development and community evolution?

Speaker

Philip

Explanation

This seeks practical examples of how human-centered approaches to standards development have been successfully implemented and their impact on communities and leadership.

Summary

This discussion, hosted by Latvia’s UN mission in Geneva, focused on the implications of artificial intelligence for information integrity in our global information environment. The panel brought together experts from the UN Human Rights Office, academia, fact-checking organizations, and civil society to examine how AI is transforming how we create, consume, and verify information.

The speakers identified several key risks that AI poses to information integrity. These include the proliferation of deepfakes and synthetic content, AI-generated hallucinations that spread false information, and the potential for discriminatory content moderation systems. Particularly concerning is the use of AI by malicious state actors to manipulate information, conduct surveillance, and suppress dissent, with Russia’s disinformation campaigns regarding Ukraine cited as a stark example. The panelists noted that while individual deepfakes haven’t yet caused measurable behavior changes, the mere existence of AI-generated content is creating widespread skepticism and eroding trust in institutions and information sources generally.

However, the discussion also highlighted AI’s potential benefits for information integrity. AI tools can help fact-checkers work more efficiently, enable better detection of disinformation campaigns, and provide new ways to educate different audience segments about media literacy. The speakers emphasized that different demographic groups require tailored approaches to information literacy, from Ukrainian refugees needing trustworthy local information to elderly populations requiring specialized digital education programs.

The panel concluded that addressing AI’s impact on information integrity requires coordinated action across multiple stakeholders, including governments, tech companies, academia, and civil society, with particular emphasis on transparency, investment in trust and safety measures, and maintaining human intelligence alongside artificial intelligence capabilities.

Keypoints

## Overall Purpose/Goal

This was a panel discussion organized by Latvia at the WSIS Plus 20 review event, focusing on the implications of artificial intelligence for information integrity. The goal was to examine how AI is changing the global information environment, assess the risks it presents to democratic societies, and explore potential solutions that governments, UN institutions, civil society, and academia can implement.

## Major Discussion Points

– **AI’s Transformative Impact on Information Environment**: Speakers emphasized that AI is rapidly changing how information is created, distributed, and consumed, with technologies like ChatGPT reaching 800 million weekly users. However, the full implications are not yet understood, and the pace of change is outstripping our ability to comprehend and respond effectively.

– **Emerging Risks and Threats**: Key concerns include AI-generated disinformation, deepfakes, content hallucination, malicious use by state actors (particularly Russia’s information warfare against Ukraine), micro-targeting of vulnerable populations, and the potential for AI content moderation to perpetuate discrimination and bias.

– **Information Nihilism and Declining Trust**: A critical finding that audiences are becoming increasingly skeptical of all information due to AI’s existence, leading to a “nothing is real” mentality. This erosion of trust in institutions and information sources poses significant challenges for democratic discourse and decision-making.

– **Need for Targeted, Evidence-Based Solutions**: Speakers stressed the importance of understanding different audiences (elderly, rural populations, refugees, youth) and developing tailored approaches rather than one-size-fits-all solutions. They emphasized the need for AI literacy combined with critical thinking skills, and warned against binary approaches to content moderation.

– **Multi-Stakeholder Response Strategy**: Discussion of roles for various actors including: academia maintaining strong human intelligence and knowledge dissemination; fact-checkers adapting tools and methods; governments developing appropriate regulation without censorship; and civil society organizations continuing transparency and accountability efforts despite reduced funding and political pressure.

## Overall Tone

The discussion maintained a consistently serious and somewhat pessimistic tone throughout. Speakers repeatedly acknowledged the gravity of the challenges, with phrases like “not a great landscape,” “very challenging,” and warnings about “blindly driving into a fog.” While some positive applications of AI were mentioned (such as human rights monitoring and fact-checking tools), the risks and challenges clearly dominated the conversation. The tone remained professional and academic, with speakers demonstrating deep expertise while expressing genuine concern about the rapid pace of change and society’s ability to adapt appropriately.

Speakers

– **Zaneta Ozolina** – Professor at University of Latvia, leads a project using AI to address disinformation, expert on information manipulation and young audiences

– **Ivars Pundurs** – Latvian ambassador to Geneva for United Nations institutions

– **Graham Brookie** – Vice President and Senior Director at the Atlantic Council, leads technology programs, expert on information manipulation, builds the Digital Forensic Research Lab

– **Viktors Makarovs** – Special Envoy on Digital Affairs at the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, moderator of the discussion

– **Peggy Hicks** – Director of the Thematic Engagement, Special Procedures and Rights to Development Division at the UN Human Rights Office

– **Septiaji Nugroho** – Co-founder and chairman of Mafinda (fact-checking organization in Indonesia), fact-checking expert

– **Audience** – Various audience members including Ila from CDAC Network, Claudio (high school student from Romania), and Boris Engelsson (freelance journalist)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Martin Stateris** – Colleague mentioned by Ambassador Pundurs as event organizer, ending his posting in Geneva

# Artificial Intelligence and Information Integrity: A Multi-Stakeholder Discussion on Global Challenges and Solutions

## Executive Summary

This panel discussion, hosted by Latvia’s UN mission in Geneva as part of the WSIS Plus 20 review event, brought together leading experts to examine artificial intelligence’s impact on information integrity. The discussion featured Peggy Hicks, Director of the Thematic Engagement, Special Procedures and Rights to Development Division at the UN Human Rights Office; Professor Zaneta Ozolina from the University of Latvia; Graham Brookie, Vice President and Senior Director of the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab; and Septiaji Nugroho from Mafindo, Indonesia’s fact-checking organization.

The panel identified critical challenges including AI-generated deepfakes, synthetic content, and discriminatory content moderation systems. Particularly concerning was the documented use of AI by malicious state actors, with Russia’s disinformation campaigns regarding Ukraine serving as a contemporary example. However, the most significant finding was that while individual deepfakes have not yet caused measurable behavioral changes, the mere existence of AI-generated content is creating widespread skepticism and “information nihilism” where “everything is possible and thus nothing is real.”

Despite these challenges, speakers highlighted AI’s potential benefits for information integrity, including enhanced fact-checking capabilities, better detection of disinformation campaigns, and innovative approaches to media literacy education. The panel emphasized that different demographic groups require tailored approaches, from Ukrainian refugees needing trustworthy local information to elderly populations requiring specialized digital education programs.

The discussion concluded with consensus that addressing AI’s impact requires coordinated action across governments, technology companies, academia, and civil society, with key recommendations including increased transparency in AI development, substantial investment in trust and safety measures, and maintaining human intelligence capabilities alongside artificial intelligence systems.

## Opening Context and Framework

Ambassador Ivars Pundurs opened by noting this represents the third consecutive year Latvia has convened this discussion, demonstrating sustained commitment to addressing AI’s impact on information environments. He emphasized how state actors are using AI to manipulate information and conduct surveillance, specifically citing Russia’s AI-driven narratives about Ukraine.

Moderator Viktors Makarovs, Special Envoy on Digital Affairs at the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, framed the discussion with Yoshua Bengio’s metaphor: “We’re blindly driving into a fog, and one of the areas where this seems to be true is the impact of AI on our information world, on the epistemology of the world.” This captured the fundamental uncertainty about AI’s impact on how we understand and process knowledge itself.

## AI’s Transformative Impact on Information Environment

### Rapid Technological Change and Scale

Speakers agreed that AI is rapidly transforming information environments in ways not yet fully understood. Graham Brookie noted that ChatGPT has reached massive scale adoption, demonstrating AI’s rapid integration into information systems. Septiaji Nugroho observed that people are applying more “gas” than “brakes” to AI adoption, with AI accelerating content creation and dissemination across all sectors.

Peggy Hicks emphasized that AI is changing information environments in ways we don’t fully comprehend, with platforms potentially fragmenting and evolving beyond their current forms. This transformation extends beyond technical capabilities to affect the very epistemology of information—how we determine what is true.

## Emerging Risks and Threats

### AI-Generated Disinformation and Synthetic Content

Peggy Hicks outlined key concerns including AI-generated hallucinations spreading false information, deepfakes convincingly impersonating real people, and biased content moderation systems perpetuating discrimination. These risks are compounded by questionable data provenance, making it increasingly difficult to trace information origins and reliability.

Professor Zaneta Ozolina emphasized that AI enables more sophisticated disinformation campaigns with well-planned tactics, moving beyond random narratives to strategic information operations. This represents a qualitative shift from opportunistic false information to systematic, AI-enhanced manipulation campaigns.

### Malicious Use by State Actors

Graham Brookie noted that AI is being rapidly adopted by bad actors, particularly state actors, for coding narratives and understanding cultural context in information operations. This represents a significant escalation in capabilities available to those seeking to manipulate information environments, enabling more sophisticated targeting and more convincing content creation.

### Micro-Targeting Vulnerable Populations

Septiaji Nugroho highlighted AI’s ability to enable micro-targeting of specific audiences such as elderly people and migrant workers for scams and manipulation. This capability allows malicious actors to craft highly personalized disinformation exploiting specific vulnerabilities, fears, and cultural contexts of particular demographic groups.

## The Information Nihilism Challenge

Perhaps the most significant finding was what Graham Brookie termed “information nihilism”—where “everything is possible and thus nothing is real.” Public polling data showed audiences becoming generally more skeptical and less trusting of institutions, creating an environment where AI’s mere existence undermines confidence in all information sources.

Brookie noted: “We’re seeing trust go down just because AI exists and thus people are a little bit more skeptical of navigating online information environments.” This represents a profound shift where the potential for AI manipulation creates doubt about all information, regardless of actual source or veracity.

Interestingly, Brookie reported that “there hasn’t been one case that we have seen in any place around the world where something like a deepfake or a single piece of synthetic content led to immediate behavior change.” The closest example was Slovakia’s parliamentary elections, but even there, direct behavioral impact was unclear. This suggests the immediate threat may be less about specific synthetic content causing direct harm and more about cumulative effects on trust and information processing.

## Opportunities and Positive Applications

### Enhanced Fact-Checking and Verification

Despite significant risks, speakers identified ways AI can positively contribute to information integrity. Septiaji Nugroho highlighted that AI chatbots can make fact-checking databases more accessible to the public, citing recent implementations improving public access to verified information. He also mentioned Google’s Synth ID technology as a promising development for content authentication.

Peggy Hicks noted that AI tools can help understand global situations in deeper, more nuanced ways at scale and in real-time, potentially improving human rights monitoring and documentation.

### Educational and Outreach Applications

Professor Ozolina emphasized that AI can assist in developing educational curricula and information packages for critical thinking, particularly for reaching underserved social groups such as rural populations. Through her AI for Debunk project, she noted that Ukrainian refugees need trustworthy European information rather than generic anti-disinformation messaging, highlighting the importance of context-specific approaches.

## Addressing Different Audiences and Digital Divides

### Tailored Approaches for Diverse Demographics

A key theme was recognizing that different audiences require specially designed approaches. Professor Ozolina noted that special programs are needed for digitally less educated elderly populations, often implemented through libraries at local levels. She referenced Latvia’s “Seniors Digital Year” program as an example of targeted intervention.

Septiaji Nugroho emphasized that different approaches are required for elderly audiences compared to young people, such as specialized digital academies. Both speakers highlighted particular challenges faced by elderly and rural populations in navigating AI-enhanced information environments.

### The Role of Traditional Institutions

An important theme was the critical role of traditional institutions like libraries in addressing modern AI challenges. Speakers noted that libraries and librarians possess traditional skills in information integrity that remain highly relevant in the digital age, serving as trusted local resources for digital literacy education.

## Educational Approaches and Critical Literacy

Septiaji Nugroho made a crucial distinction, arguing that “AI literacy should be accompanied with AI critical literacy, just like when we do critical thinking on digital literacy.” He emphasized the importance of Socratic prompting techniques and noted that information consumption patterns need to change from vertical to lateral reading when comparing AI-generated and traditional sources.

Professor Ozolina provided crucial framing: “It’s not about debating pro or con. Artificial intelligence is here to stay. So therefore, the question is how to balance human intelligence and artificial intelligence.” This moved the discussion beyond resistance versus acceptance to focus on practical coexistence strategies.

## Institutional Responses and Challenges

### Inadequate Current Responses

Speakers expressed concern about current institutional responses. Peggy Hicks noted that “government responses tend toward binary solutions that don’t work from a free expression standpoint and can enable censorship of dissent.” Graham Brookie complemented this by noting “there’s large-scale retrenchment from industry transparency efforts and reduced investment in trust and safety fields.”

### The Need for Evidence-Based Approaches

Peggy Hicks emphasized the importance of evidence-based approaches that identify good practices and incorporate academic research. She noted the need to “address these issues on a firm information basis… But also at pace,” highlighting the tension between evidence-based policy-making and urgency created by rapid technological change.

## Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities

### Technology Platforms and Corporate Responsibility

Septiaji Nugroho argued that platforms should bear primary responsibility for identifying synthetic content through proper watermarking, noting that “fact-checkers now face impossible demands to verify whether content is synthetic, which should be platforms’ responsibility through proper watermarking.”

### Academic and Civil Society Roles

Professor Ozolina outlined academia’s role in “spreading knowledge, communicating with different societal groups, and filling information vacuums.” However, this was challenged by audience member Boris Engelsson, a freelance journalist, who questioned academic credibility, citing concerns that “most medical research in the past 50 years may be fake.”

Graham Brookie emphasized civil society’s continued importance in driving transparency and accountability, despite facing “challenges and reduced funding and political pressure.”

## Audience Engagement and Additional Perspectives

The discussion included several audience interventions that enriched the conversation. A Romanian high school student named Claudio asked about recent presidential elections and disinformation campaigns. Audience member Ila from the CDAC Network raised questions about blockchain technology for enhancing information integrity and transparency.

Questions were also raised about the role of libraries and librarians in information integrity, reflecting broader interest in how traditional information institutions can adapt to AI challenges.

## UN Human Rights Office Initiatives

Peggy Hicks outlined specific initiatives the UN Human Rights Office plans to implement, including developing a Human Rights Digital Advisory Service referenced in the Global Digital Compact to help states and businesses navigate AI challenges. The office also plans to continue the BTEC project encouraging companies to describe their human rights practices and promote best practices.

## Unresolved Questions and Future Challenges

The discussion revealed significant gaps in understanding AI’s actual impact on information environments. Graham Brookie emphasized the need to “collect more case studies and data to have higher confidence assessments about AI’s impact on information environments.”

Peggy Hicks raised fundamental questions about platform sustainability, noting that “platforms may not exist in their current form in the near future,” and asked “what type of narrative response is useful in countering disinformation without amplifying it?”

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated remarkable consensus on the fundamental nature of challenges while acknowledging significant disagreements about specific solutions. The conversation highlighted that while AI presents serious risks to information integrity, it also offers significant opportunities for enhancing our ability to create, verify, and disseminate reliable information.

The key challenge lies not in choosing between human and artificial intelligence, but in developing approaches that effectively combine both while maintaining critical thinking capabilities and institutional safeguards that democratic societies require. Different communities, cultures, and contexts require tailored approaches that build upon existing strengths and address specific vulnerabilities.

The path forward requires continued dialogue, research, and experimentation, combined with commitment to evidence-based approaches that can evolve as understanding of AI’s impact deepens. Most crucially, it requires maintaining focus on preserving and strengthening democratic discourse and decision-making processes as technological foundations of information systems continue to evolve rapidly.

As the moderator noted in closing, while we may be “blindly driving into a fog,” the collective expertise, commitment, and collaborative spirit evident in this conversation provide grounds for cautious optimism that these challenges can be navigated while preserving the values and capabilities that democratic societies require to thrive in an AI-enhanced world.

Ivars Pundurs: THE remainder of the episode is about the collapse and recession of the IMF by IWM. It’s basically about our relationship with the older generation and politics all over the world, and the implications that some things clarify. I’ve talked to people who have interested in my channel because I want to share my psychology there with them. Recording in progress. Hello, good afternoon. I am a Latvian ambassador here in Geneva to the all possible United Nations institutions and it falls on me to make an opening speech of this what I hope will be very interesting and stimulating discussion. So I’ll just get on with it. So excellencies, ladies, gentlemen, dear friends and colleagues, I’m delighted to welcome you to this panel discussion on the implications of artificial intelligence for information integrity. Like most countries, Latvia has entered the AI race. We have established a national AI center that brings together the public and private sectors, as well as academia to foster rapid AI adoption. But speed alone is This is the third consecutive year that Latvia has convened a discussion on how artificial intelligence affects our information environment. While technology has advanced a lot in this time, the issue at hand has only grown more urgent. This discussion is particularly relevant in the context of the ongoing WSIS Plus 20 review. When the WSIS action lines were first formulated over two decades ago, few could have anticipated the AI revolution. And yet many of those action lines on access to information and knowledge, the ethical dimensions of the information society, trust and security in the use of ICTs, and the role of media remain highly relevant. At the same time, the transformative change we have witnessed in recent years makes clear that information integrity has emerged as a distinct and critical challenge requiring focused attention and collective action. Threats to information integrity and to our society stem not only from the technology itself, but also from its malicious use by state actors. These actors harness artificial intelligence to manipulate information, shape minds, and behavior, conduct surveillance, censor, and suppress dissent. Such practices undermine democracy, erode societal cohesion, and jeopardize international peace, as well as our shared efforts to achieve the sustainable development goals. In Europe, the stark example is Russia’s use of AI-driven tools to spread narratives aimed at justifying its unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine, a war that flagrantly violates international law, inflicts immense human suffering, and devastates infrastructure. Given the scale of these risks, it is essential that we engage in open dialogue, share experiences, and explore practical solutions. This panel provides an important opportunity to do so. do just that. I extend my sincere appreciation to our distinguished speakers from international organizations, civil society and academia who will share their insights today. I also thank each of you for taking your time from your busy schedules to join this discussion. I would like to express my gratitude also to the organizers of the WSIS plus 20 high-level event for making this session possible. I wish us all a thought-provoking and productive exchange. Last but not least, I wish to thank my dear colleague Martin Stateris who has put this event together. It is the last event for him in his posting in Geneva, so I wish all the best to him in his future career. And now it is my pleasure to give the floor to Mr. Viktors Makarovs, Special Envoy on Digital Affairs at the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs who will moderate today’s discussion. Thank you.

Viktors Makarovs: Thank you very much, Ambassador, for the introduction. To introduce the topic again very quickly, I think the important thing to say is that it’s a juncture of two themes that obviously are on many people’s minds. One is AI. I don’t have to go into that because we are at an AI event, basically. But the other one is information integrity, which is a very important though recent and not quite well-known idea of an information environment that is global, open, free, but at the same time safe and secure. And we will be looking at how these two important phenomena that we are dealing with today are playing together and what they mean. Another thing to know for you about this discussion is that this is not the first of its kind that we have organized. We organized a similar event last year, and indeed Peggy Hicks, one of our speakers, was kind enough to participate in that conversation as well, and we have done it on other platforms and in other forums over the last two or three years. The reason why we want to repeat this exercise is that the world we live in has changed dramatically. Technologically speaking, in terms of AI, we’re in a completely different place. The technology has evolved, but also adoption has evolved or increased exponentially over the last year. Just ChatGPT alone has 800 million weekly users today, and it’s about four times increased since last year when we had the first installment of this discussion. One of the people looking closely at the risks presented by AI, Yoshua Dengio, said that we’re blindly driving into a fog, and one of the areas where this seems to be true is the impact of AI on our information world, on the epistemology of the world, and we want to address this and find out what the state of play is, but also what the outlook on AI and the risks it presents to information environments is today, and then the next stage will be to talk about things to do. What can governments do? What can the United Nations do? Civil society and academia, and to do that, we have four speakers, three here with us, and one will be joining us online. I will introduce them as they are invited to speak. We will have very quick interactions because we’re really short on time, and hopefully, After these interactions, we’ll have time to engage the audience as well. So as the first speaker, I would like to give the floor to Peggy Hicks, who is Director of the Thematic Engagement, Special Procedures and Rights to Development Division at the UN Human Rights Office. And the question I have for you, Peggy, as well as for the other speakers in this first round is, how is AI changing our information environment? What risks does it present to information integrity today and also in the near future? And can it also be a technological force for good and help support information integrity, open, free and trustworthy information? So over to you.

Peggy Hicks: Viktors, you always ask the easy questions. There is a lot tucked in there So I would say three pieces. The first is really looking at how the environment is changing. And I think it’s really important to say that this is a rapid change in the information environment that we really do not even yet understand fully where we’re going. I listened to a podcast recently where they were talking about the fact that social media may ultimately be turning into the much more fragmented platform-based, protocol-based approach that, you know, some of us had wondered if it might deliver something different and better than the existing platforms. But it’s coming at a time where there’s actually a question whether platforms themselves will continue to exist in the way that they do. So I do think in this information integrity realm, one of the greatest things I want to emphasize is that we need to address these issues on a firm information basis. And that’s why I’m glad we have academia with us and work being done in those areas. But also at pace. We can’t address the problems of yesterday rather than today. And I’m afraid we are too often in danger of doing that. Secondly, looking at what are the risks that we see now. And it’s really, it’s not a great landscape, but there is to say, there is so much that’s happening and we hear a lot about dis- and misinformation. Obviously, those problems exist regardless of generative AI and large language models, but let’s throw in. Developing the whole ideas of hallucination, which doesn’t seem to be getting any better. The possibility that we all rely on information that’s not what we hope it to be is very, very real, and then, of course, we have the issues around deepfakes and the impact there. Those are two of the areas that are most often talked about, but I also think we have to talk about the fact that AI content moderation that is likely to happen may be infused with some of the same flaws we see within AI machine learning generally, where it could fuel discrimination or exacerbate some of the problems that we already see, and, of course, this is all a landscape that’s based on data that we’re not really sure of the provenance or use of that data and the privacy of it as well, so there are all sorts of risks that we’re facing in terms of the AI itself, but the second set of risks I think we have to emphasize is how will government respond to these issues because, unfortunately, there, too, the landscape is not very promising. What we’ve seen is a tendency to look for sort of binary solutions. Information is good or information is bad. It’s true or it’s false. We can flip a switch and solve the issue of disinformation if only the companies were willing to do it. That is not going to work from a free expression standpoint, from a fact that there are always going to be facts that are contested and that there will always be actors who want to use that lever to flip the switch against to censor speech or to censor dissent in ways, so we have to be very careful about the tools that we deploy to address these problems as well, but finally, you asked me, is there anything good here? Do you have anything positive on the landscape for us to look at, and I think from a human rights perspective, we see lots of value here. We do understand that these tools are tools that will help us to understand what’s happening in the world in a much deeper and more nuanced way at scale and in real time in a way that could allow us to better address human rights problems globally. One of the things that we have always focused on in the human rights movement is that when there’s a spotlight on a situation, it tends to be much harder for things to happen in a negative way with regards to human rights. The fact that we now have access to data sets that we never did before and the fact that we’ll be able to allow people in general to engage in the human rights cause in new ways I think is very promising, but it’s making sure that those positive aspects keep up with some of the risks that we see that’s the real challenge. Thanks.

Viktors Makarovs: Thank you very much, Peggy. Looks like the risks part of the equation at the moment is much more weighty than the other way around. Professor Zaneta Ozolina, at University of Latvia, you do lots of things and the teams you work with, you are engaged, and I think the University of Latvia actually leads a project that is aimed at using AI to address disinformation, but I know you also look closely at the audiences, especially young people who are the potential targets and victims of information manipulation. How does it look from your perspective?

Zaneta Ozolina: Thank you. Thank you for inviting and to share some thoughts. So actually, I was prepared, Viktor, to respond to the questions which you already asked to Peggy, but I will leave them for the later stage. So, but I will respond directly to your question. And I think that it is very important whenever we are addressing information integrity or disinformation issues to know exactly what audience we are addressing and which audience we are targeting. And information integrity as such is a very relevant issue, but different audiences have completely different attitudes, what is relevant or not. For instance, when we started our project, AI for Debunk, then we found out different target audiences which are targeted by disinformation. And we also decided to interview Ukrainian refugees, expecting a priori, let’s say our hypothesis was that this is one of those target groups, which is very much exposed to Russia’s disinformation. And what we found out that this is a completely different situation, because mostly these are women who arrived with their children as refugees running away from war. And they know what war is about and what Russia is up to. They don’t have to be convinced about the disinformation’s role in their lives. But what they were lacking, they were lacking information about what is happening in Europe, in language which they could understand, information sources they could trust. So, therefore, it is a different issue which we are traditionally used to discuss in our countries. And it also highlighted how information integrity is relevant for different target groups, but in a very specially designed way and very specially prepared narratives and messages. Another point which we addressed in our project was comparative analysis of two big cases, War in Ukraine and Climate Change, and it was a targeted selection of those two cases because it’s interesting to see what are the differences and what are the similarities which ERAO actually highlights, which are disinformation campaigns, whether these are just random disinformation narratives thrown in different media sources or it is a well-planned strategic campaign. And what we found out is that even narratives could be different, the tactics, how it is applied, the models which are used, they are part of very well-planned campaigns. Another point, so you should control my time, so another part of the project is that we work together very closely with different IT companies because one task of the project is to elaborate a special tool which could assist in identifying disinformation. Honestly, I was quite skeptical at the very beginning, and honestly I’m sharing, this is my attitude, because so I was always questioning how artificial intelligence can actually compete with human intelligence in identifying disinformation campaigns, but in the end I found that there will be very excellent extra products produced in the end, because it’s not only about one universal tool which could work in all situations and in all target groups, but this tool will assist in, for instance, developing new curricula for schools. These tools will assist to produce some special information packages to be used for developing critical thinking again in different societal groups. It will assist to address Those for instance, social groups and societies that are not very keen on using classical information sources. Like, for instance, people in rural areas do not read the Financial Times and the Washington Post. But they also need information on what is happening in the political landscape.

Viktors Makarovs: Thank you very much. Actually, you partially answered the second question I had in mind, but that’s excellent. So, we’re very practical here looking at things to do. Now, the next speaker I want to go to is joining us remotely, Septiaji Nugroho, who is co-founder and chairman of Mafinda, which is a fact-checking organization in Indonesia, and I hope we have him online. Yes, I’m here. Fantastic, Septiaji, nice to hear you again. So, the first question I would like you to address is like, great to see you as well, is the same I asked the other speakers, which is about the state of play on AI and information integrity, where we are today, compared to maybe a year ago, when you also joined our discussion here at WSIS, where this is heading. Please, three, max four minutes. Thank you.

Septiaji Nugroho: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, and also Latvia Mission for UN for inviting me. So, basically, even before the effectively work on combating those video disinformation. And now we arrive in AI era disinformations that actually AI bring both immense opportunities but also face significant challenges. So the AI itself, because they can accelerate content creation and disseminations, we feel that there are people now put more gas on AI using compared to the breaks that we want to have. So there are several risks that we are already facing. For example, now people are asking to us whether this content is synthetic or not synthetic, which is actually shouldn’t be our problem. It should be the job of especially digital platform to make sure that people understand whether this content is synthetic or not synthetic. Because if it is now delegated to the fact checkers, no fact checkers in the world can face this, so many AI contents already. And this deepfakes and synthetics media, they are now being really, really realistic. And the problem is that not every platform provide enough watermark that can be detected. Maybe a platform like Google, they put like Synth ID, then they also introduce the detector, so we can get help to detect very accurately whether the content is synthetic or not. also have now in a very difficult position. The tech platform also now, because of what happened in the United States, is also affecting how fact-checkers are now operating. So AI problems definitely is going to be a very, very big problem for fact-checkers around the world. Septiaji, just one additional question. Do you also register in your work user of AI to micro-target audiences in a way that perhaps is not really visible to the others? Does it show up as an issue? Well, yes, definitely. I think AI, because AI can also micro-targeting, especially now with what we see is using AI for scams, for example. So they can also target specific people because they have already database, they can target like elderly people, they target like migrant workers. using very convincing videos and audio. I think this is also like a big problem that now we are facing. Although in other side, we also try to make use of AI. For example, now we just launched like two weeks ago using chatbot AI. So to make sure that people can connect to our database well, because before using AI, it is quite difficult for people to try to use our database. But now it is going to be much, much easier. But I feel that the challenge is still much, much bigger than the opportunities that we can have.

Viktors Makarovs: Septiaji, thank you very much. We will come back to you in short order. So, fourth speaker, last but not the least, Graham Brookey, you are Vice President and Senior Director at the Atlantic Council. You lead the technology programs and it is a sprawling business. But we know that you are an expert on information manipulation, been in this area for many years, fighting it, obviously. So, what is your very concise take on the AI landscape today and tomorrow?

Graham Brookie: So, my job at the Atlantic Council, first and foremost, thank you. My job at the Atlantic Council over the last eight years is to build a thing called the Digital Forensic Research Lab, which is a team of open-source researchers spread out across 17 different countries on four different continents. And so, while my accent would indicate that I am from a US-based headquartered organization, our work is very much global. Now, on the question of how AI is changing information integrity, I think that there’s, number one, a scoping question. Number two, some key findings on narratives themselves. Number three, on how the tech is changing. And then, number four, on how stakeholders are changing. And so, the scoping question, how AI is changing the information environment, we’re not just talking about mis- and disinformation. We’re not just talking about what state actors are doing in the information environment. We’re talking about a really, really broad set of potential online harms, including basic scam activity, which was just mentioned, including things like CSAM, including any number of things that happen in online spaces that have negative externalities for society. And so, while we tend to talk about mis- and disinformation, most of all in this space, it is part of a much larger ecosystem of problems that we’re trying, or opportunities, in some cases, that we’re trying to meet. Now, what we’re seeing in terms of how AI is changing the information landscape from our research, I think there’s four key findings. And I will use a case study from the United States. I would be very, very clear in the sense of the United States is a very large media market where a lot of these platforms happen to be headquartered, but they aren’t that immune. I’m going to start by saying that the AI information ecosystem isn’t immune to vulnerabilities. In fact, it’s rife with vulnerabilities. And so I say that with a little bit of humility. The first finding is that on AI’s impact in the information environment, it’s early days. How bad actors are navigating or harnessing AI to do bad activity in an information environment or manipulative activity in an information environment, we don’t have that much amount of data yet. And I say that as the pace of technological change is very, very rapid. And so to Peggy’s point, we’re talking about platforms that might not be platforms here in the very near future. And yet our data sets are still early days. We need to collect more information. We need to collect more case studies in order to have higher confidence assessments. That’s number one. Number two is in everything that we are monitoring, we are seeing higher amounts of content that is created by generative artificial intelligence, GAI. So we are seeing in any given case, whether that’s scam activity, whether that’s election integrity or election information environments around election processes, we are seeing more content that is GAI. Now the third finding is that that doesn’t necessarily equate to behavior change. There hasn’t been one case that we have seen in any place around the world where something like a deepfake or a single piece of synthetic content led to immediate behavior change. We’ve seen some cases where it’s gotten close, very, very close, but for the most part, institutions around information integrity have been able to quickly identify and create conversation around that. The highest and best example on a deepfake changing the result of the election being a very near case in Slovenia, parliamentary elections is the main case study that has been mentioned most of all in Slovakia, sorry, Slovakia parliamentary elections. That’s my mistake entirely. There hasn’t been a single instance where a deepfake has had an immediate measurable change on behavior. In addition to that, we would generally agree with the assessment from some of the large platforms like OpenAI, where the GAI content that we are seeing doesn’t necessarily lead to more engagement on other platforms. To make that more granular, if a The piece of content is synthetic. If it’s a deepfake or a G.A.I. image or synthetic audio and then it spreads on other social media platforms, the fact that it was created by artificial intelligence doesn’t necessarily mean that audiences are engaging with it at a higher pace. And then the fourth thing is a very pessimistic view. What we are seeing from public polling is that audiences are generally more skeptical and less trusting of institutions in general and the information environment specifically. And so we’re in this situation that is accelerated or informed by this moment of A.I. in which everything is possible and thus nothing is real. Take that from a number of other foreign policy examples. And that’s not great for democratic outcomes. It’s not great for multi-stakeholder outcomes. It’s not great for the integrity of the information environment at large. So we’re seeing trust go down just because A.I. exists and thus people are a little bit more skeptical of navigating online information environments. The ecosystem changes. We’re seeing large-scale retrenchment from industry and transparency efforts. We’re seeing less investment in fields of trust and safety from governmental institutions, from civil society institutions. And so the landscape is very challenging. And then from a technical standpoint, I think it remains to be seen whether the actual tech change of A.I. is changing or increasing the defender’s dividend. And so whether A.I. tooling specifically for trust and safety is actually having a net positive impact. What we are seeing is pretty rapid adaptation by bad actors using A.I. And so where, for instance, state actors, we are seeing more use of A.I. by state actors in information operations in particular for things like coding narratives, for things like understanding cultural context or breaking down language barriers. And so we’re seeing rapid adaptation there. And it remains to be seen whether the defender’s dividend ticks up over time.

Viktors Makarovs: Okay, thank you, Graham. That was not a very rosy outlook from you either. Now, we don’t have as much time to address the second and probably first important question, what do we do with it? So I would ask you to perhaps offer a really brief take, if you can do it within two minutes, that would be fantastic. Go in the same order, Peggy. So, you know, you work with the focus on human rights. So a very important part of the UN, what can your system, so to say, do to help countries and civil societies address this issue? And what are the most international processes that we also as member states and stakeholders should be paying attention to? Again, easy questions.

Peggy Hicks: Yes, in short order. No, I mean, I think there is a lot that’s happening to address these issues. So, you know, I can’t give a full overview of it now. But I mean, I think one of the key things that we need to do, and actually A.I. can help us do this, is we need to look for good practices where things are being handled in a way that is human rights respecting and does a better job and incorporates the evidence and data. I mean, that’s the real problem here is that we tend to think we know what the answers to questions are without actually having looked at what are the real problems and what works to address them. So bringing in the academic community more successfully and allowing the good practices to be paralleled in a variety of different geographic and resource environments is crucial. We are trying to set up something called the Human Rights Digital Advisory Service as referenced in the Global Digital Compact that we hope will help us to do that and be a real resource with an academic network behind it of helping states and businesses to navigate this space. The second piece of it that we’re engaged in is that there’s a lot of talk, and I think it will be a big part of the conversations in this setting in general around WSIS and Tech for Good, is around the role of the companies. And the reality is we need to find a way that encourages, incentivizes and holds accountable companies for the way that they’re engaging in this space. We have a project called BTEC, which is a way to get companies to describe what are their human rights related practices for us to pull out the good examples from that and to try to push a race to the top and in the same time to distinguish between companies that are making the right type.

Viktors Makarovs: Fantastic. And you mentioned academic input. So Professor Rosalina, what is Latvian academia doing together with civil society? What’s going to be your input to address the issue?

Zaneta Ozolina: Yeah, indeed. Again, one of the questions which need definitely more time, I would divide my answer in two groups. So one would be more general character. When it comes to what we could do, I think it’s very important to balance our attitude towards artificial intelligence. Now it seems that society is divided into groups. Those who are praising results of artificial opportunities of artificial intelligence and those who are denying. So it’s not about debating pro or con. Artificial intelligence is here to stay. So therefore, the question is how to balance human intelligence and artificial intelligence. The other point is I also would like to join Peggy. It’s very important to think about new ways how to regulate and also how to govern artificial intelligence and the way how it’s influenced and how it leaves its impact on information integrity. As far as academia is concerned, I think one of very important points is to keep human intelligence strong and powerful is just to spread knowledge and to contribute to knowledge. There is no other way how to stay sober in this very digitalized world is to be very well equipped with knowledge. So that’s what academia can do. The second point is that academia knows how to communicate with society, how to communicate with different societal groups and faster artificial intelligence and actually technologies are growing. More communicators and mediators will be needed. And we are here to communicate with the younger generation, to communicate with those who are in need. And the third point which I wanted to mention is that today’s discussion is about information integrity. It’s very important to avoid information vacuum because what we are very often observing in the public space, in education system, in the way how younger generation receives and consumes information, it has a lot in common with vacuum. So therefore it’s important for politicians, for academia representatives to be more and more investing in information integrity which replaces information vacuum.

Viktors Makarovs: Thank you. Keeping human intelligence strong, that’s quite a challenge. We’ll try to do it. We go to Septiaji Nugroho now, if you’re still with us, a quick sort of advice from you. As a leading fact-checker, how are you adapting to the AI age and what are the lessons and your advice for other fact-checkers and perhaps those who support you? Again, please very quickly, just two minutes if you may. Thank you.

Septiaji Nugroho: Yeah, basically Mofindo is working. Hello, good evening. As I said, we are showing in two areas. One is fact-checking. Of course, AI is going to one way to help the fact-checkers to pinpoint very quickly the information that we are doing, the fact-checking. And also we are also using AI to connect our staff to personalize our content to be easier or digital literacy educations. Now government also speeding up on doing AI literacy, but we feel that sometimes they work in the wrong directions because they forget that AI literacy should be accompanied with AI critical literacy, just like when we do critical thinking on digital literacy. That’s why our role at the moment is helping, assisting when the government now initiate the curriculum for coding and programming and also AI as early as elementary schools. We are now involved in making sure that AI critical literacy is a big part of that to make sure that they are not only learning about prompting, especially for senior high schools, but also how to critically, how to understand how to use like a prompting in Socratic prompting to make sure that people shouldn’t especially don’t lose their ability to critical thinking on AI literacy. Thank you.

Viktors Makarovs: Thank you very much, Septelji. And Graham, same question by and large goes to you. What can we expect from civil society organizations like yours to do to address AI and how can other stakeholders support you?

Graham Brookie: You can expect us to remain engaged, which is maybe not a particularly novel thing to say, but it is increasingly difficult in this landscape. Right now, there is a narrative, including from some partner governments, that any effort to regulate this space or to moderate this space or to create transparency in this space equates to censorship. And that is fundamentally not true. And so we have to address that narrative. And number two, the investment in this landscape is retrenched and we have to drive more investment into these sets of issues in order to have. The Basic Transparency that Allows the Space for Accountability and Rights-Respecting and Rights-Protecting Approaches. And here, the prioritization has got to be on transparency for frontier models for this AI moment. Number two, trust and safety, an investment in trust and safety, especially by industry and especially as it relates to generative artificial intelligence’s impact on the information environment. Number three, most broadly, investment in the critical institutions that create and protect and sustain the multi-stakeholder system that has kept things like the Internet open, secure, and interoperable, the things that WSIS absolutely stands for. And so that’s absolutely critical. And I say investment in the institutions like academic institutions that are driving long-form research, like fact-checking organizations or independent media that create open dialogue, and like civil society organizations that are driving technical research.

Viktors Makarovs: Oh, fantastic. Thank you very much. Now, we have about five minutes to address questions. And I have to mention that because we are online as well, there have been some interesting comments like one member of the audience writing that we should also recognize the role of libraries and information services and the traditional skills of librarians. There is also a question about the use of blockchain technology to enhance integrity of information, trust, and transparency. Not exactly our topic there, perhaps, but also a question if information integrity is essential to mitigate the bad or adverse effects of disinformation and disinformation. I think it’s obvious. So we’ll perhaps leave it out there for the time being. Let’s take questions from the audience. Finally, I can see one hand there and you two. Let’s start with you, please. And please introduce yourself. And please, really, a short question.

Audience: Yes. So my name is Ila. I think you need to speak into the mic, so there’s really… My name is Ila, I’m with the CDAC Network, Communicating with Disaster-Affected Communities. And on your point about information nihilism, as it may or may not relate to Gen-AI, studies show that people’s willingness to believe false or true information is not really connected to the level… of Realism of the Content, but rather factors like repetition, narrative appeal, perceived authority, etc., etc., and the viewer’s state of mind. A key element of a long-term, portfolioed approach to respond to that would be to fund and support local independent journalism, but realistically funding prospects are bleak for local journalism. So how could Gen AI be used to provide information that meets those epistemic and social and psychological needs, say, to help local human rights-based CSOs create counter-narratives to incendiary information? Or should we avoid that, completely using Gen AI to create counter-narratives?

Viktors Makarovs: Okay, that’s one question out there, I think this goes to… Let’s take one or two more. I can see the hand over there, please.

Audience: Can you hear me? So hi, my name is Claudio. And I’m a high school student from Romania. I wanted to ask you this question because in our very recent presidential elections we actually had a huge disinformation campaign, I think you may have heard about it. And in your discourse from earlier, I heard a lot about educating the new generation. But what do you do with the people that remain illiterate digitally? The people from the countryside, the older people, don’t you think there is a need for regulation on the AI companies that generate the watermark or something like that? Thank you. Very good question. I would say two of them. But let’s take another one, please. Yes, Boris Engelsson, a journalist freelance. I heard praise about the academia to be able to safeguard some information integrity. One year back at the University of Geneva, medical faculty, there was a big symposium with a big shot of this domain claiming that most of medical research in in the past 50 years is fake. And they quoted the former editor-in-chief of The Lancet, I think, who confirmed that. I would have more questions, but I will stick to that one. So I’m not quite sure I understood your specific question, sir, to this panel. The question is that if even nearly medical faculties, like faculty, I am not even considered economics and psychology, which has been disqualified as science since long. But I mean, if even medical researchers confess now that they consider most of medical research fake, are these people the best source of integrity of information because they are called academics? Oh, that seems to be an interesting one to address.

Viktors Makarovs: Sorry. Sorry. Yes. We have a question on regulation of AI again, use of AI to actually inform and create counter-narratives. And also, what do you do with audiences that lack the AI literacy and AI critical literacy, as we just heard from one of the speakers? Who would like to address perhaps very quickly each of the panelists?

Peggy Hicks: Sure. I think each of the questions has its answer built in it to some extent. I think we have to explore. We’re actually doing some of that work internally and happy to talk more about it. But what type of narrative response is useful? But that’s part of what I meant. And I have to say, I think you’re absolutely right. There’s probably research out there that’s not good. But like with anything, we can’t just say there isn’t any good research. We have to actually look at the research, see how it’s done, and vet it to ensure it’s solid. But one of the things that we’ve learned from some of the research on disinformation is that some of the things that we think would be useful to counter it don’t work, and the alternative is true. That we need to make sure that we’re not actually bolstering disinformation by giving it greater breadth by responding to it in the wrong way. And so I really like the idea of how do we bring those pieces together and engage more. On your question, I think it’s a really valid one that making sure that our education systems, both for younger and older people, are helping people.

Zaneta Ozolina: There is no universal remedy to all those questions which were raised, because very often disinformation and also information integrity is country-specific. And regarding your question, a very similar problem we have in Latvia. Also, the elderly generation digitally is not so educated as the younger generation. And this is a government policy at the moment that this year is called Seniors Digital Year, when special programmes are offered on the local level, particularly to senior groups, in order to be prepared for the next rounds of digitalisation. And this, by the way, to a very large extent, is executed by librarians and in the libraries. So therefore, the question which was raised before, what is the role of libraries? Very great role, particularly addressing those target groups which are remotely placed.

Viktors Makarovs: Thank you. Septiaji, if you’re still there, we’ll get back to you for your quick comments. Let’s do it right now. Yes, 60 seconds max, please.

Septiaji Nugroho: Yes, I think for the first one, it is going to be very urgent that we need to explain that how we read usually information vertically needs to be changed to be read laterally. So that’s why we want to make sure that people need to exercise their freedom of expression. the way they are reading information, especially comparing analytically information coming from NGINI and also with the information from the library and everything. And the second one about how we target the elderly. Mafindo is now running the third year as we have an elderly digital academy. So basically we have a specific approach which is different when we target the young audience. So that’s why we would really like to share the experience. We are very happy to share you if you want to connect us on how the Indonesian version of elderly digital academy work, especially also on AI. You can contact me. Thank you.

Viktors Makarovs: Thank you very much, Septiaji. Something very specific there. And Graham, 30 seconds. And then we are finished and we have to leave.

Graham Brookie: I’m happy to get more in depth on the very complex conversations after the session. The advice is very simple. Yes, we have to avoid the oxygen of amplification, but you have got to engage better across all that. Don’t be afraid of your own shadow. Engage in the information environment that you have, not the information environment that you want. Thank you very much.

Viktors Makarovs: And the only thing I have to say, two things. Thank you very much to the speakers, to the audience, of course, also those online. And the second thing I have to say is there is coffee courtesy of this particular side event. So you’re welcome to enjoy it in the break. Thank you very much. And have a nice day.

Agreement points

AI is rapidly transforming the information environment in ways that are not fully understood

Speakers

– Peggy Hicks
– Viktors Makarovs
– Graham Brookie

Arguments

AI is rapidly changing the information environment in ways we don’t fully understand yet, with platforms potentially fragmenting and evolving beyond current forms

We are blindly driving into a fog regarding AI’s impact on our information world and epistemology

While AI-generated content is increasing across all monitored cases, there hasn’t been documented behavior change from single deepfakes or synthetic content

Summary

All speakers acknowledge that AI is fundamentally changing how information is created, distributed, and consumed, but emphasize that we lack complete understanding of these changes and their implications

Topics

Content policy | Human rights principles | Interdisciplinary approaches

AI enables sophisticated targeting and manipulation by malicious actors

Speakers

– Ivars Pundurs
– Zaneta Ozolina
– Septiaji Nugroho
– Graham Brookie

Arguments

State actors are using AI to manipulate information and conduct surveillance, with Russia’s AI-driven narratives about Ukraine as a stark example

AI enables more sophisticated disinformation campaigns with well-planned tactics and models, not just random narratives

AI enables micro-targeting of specific audiences like elderly people and migrant workers for scams and manipulation

AI is being rapidly adopted by bad actors, particularly state actors, for coding narratives and understanding cultural context in information operations

Summary

Speakers agree that AI significantly enhances the capabilities of malicious actors to create targeted, sophisticated information manipulation campaigns

Topics

Cyberconflict and warfare | Content policy | Human rights principles

Different audiences require tailored approaches to information integrity and AI literacy

Speakers

– Zaneta Ozolina
– Septiaji Nugroho
– Peggy Hicks

Arguments

Different audiences require specially designed approaches to information integrity, as demonstrated by Ukrainian refugees needing trustworthy European information rather than anti-disinformation messaging

Different approaches are required for elderly audiences compared to young people, such as specialized digital academies

Need for evidence-based approaches that identify good practices and incorporate academic research rather than assuming solutions

Summary

Speakers emphasize that effective responses to AI and information integrity challenges must be customized for specific demographic groups and their unique needs

Topics

Online education | Digital access | Human rights principles

AI presents both significant risks and potential benefits for information integrity

Speakers

– Peggy Hicks
– Zaneta Ozolina
– Septiaji Nugroho

Arguments

AI tools can help understand global situations in deeper, more nuanced ways at scale and in real-time, potentially improving human rights monitoring

AI can assist in developing educational curricula, information packages for critical thinking, and reaching underserved social groups like rural populations

AI chatbots can make fact-checking databases more accessible to the public, as demonstrated by recent implementations

Summary

While acknowledging serious risks, speakers agree that AI can be leveraged positively for education, accessibility, and human rights monitoring when properly implemented

Topics

Online education | Digital access | Human rights principles

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers express concern about inadequate institutional responses to AI challenges, with governments seeking overly simplistic solutions and industry reducing investment in safety measures

Speakers

– Peggy Hicks
– Graham Brookie

Arguments

Government responses tend toward binary solutions that don’t work from a free expression standpoint and can enable censorship of dissent

There’s large-scale retrenchment from industry transparency efforts and reduced investment in trust and safety fields

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles | Freedom of expression

Both speakers advocate for balanced, critical approaches to AI education that maintain human cognitive abilities while leveraging AI benefits

Speakers

– Zaneta Ozolina
– Septiaji Nugroho

Arguments

Importance of balancing human intelligence with artificial intelligence rather than taking pro or con positions

AI literacy education must be accompanied by AI critical literacy, including Socratic prompting techniques to maintain critical thinking abilities

Topics

Online education | Critical thinking | Interdisciplinary approaches

Multiple speakers recognize that elderly and digitally illiterate populations require special attention and targeted interventions to address AI-related information challenges

Speakers

– Zaneta Ozolina
– Septiaji Nugroho
– Audience

Arguments

Special programs are needed for digitally less educated elderly populations, often implemented through libraries at the local level

Different approaches are required for elderly audiences compared to young people, such as specialized digital academies

There is a need for regulation requiring AI companies to implement watermarking, especially for digitally illiterate populations

Topics

Digital access | Online education | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

The limited immediate behavioral impact of AI-generated content despite increased production

Speakers

– Graham Brookie
– Peggy Hicks

Arguments

While AI-generated content is increasing across all monitored cases, there hasn’t been documented behavior change from single deepfakes or synthetic content

AI presents risks through hallucination, deepfakes, biased content moderation, and questionable data provenance that threaten information reliability

Explanation

Despite widespread concern about AI-generated content, there’s surprising agreement that single pieces of synthetic content haven’t yet caused measurable behavior change, suggesting the threat may be more about cumulative effects and trust erosion rather than immediate manipulation

Topics

Content policy | Human rights principles | Cyberconflict and warfare

The critical role of traditional institutions like libraries in addressing AI challenges

Speakers

– Zaneta Ozolina
– Audience

Arguments

Special programs are needed for digitally less educated elderly populations, often implemented through libraries at the local level

Libraries and librarians should be recognized for their traditional skills in information integrity and their role in supporting digital literacy programs

Explanation

There’s unexpected consensus that traditional information institutions like libraries are crucial for addressing modern AI challenges, highlighting how established information literacy skills remain relevant in the digital age

Topics

Online education | Digital access | Capacity development

Overall assessment

Summary

Speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the fundamental challenges posed by AI to information integrity, the need for tailored educational approaches, and the dual nature of AI as both threat and opportunity. There’s also agreement on the inadequacy of current institutional responses.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on problem identification and general solution directions, with speakers complementing rather than contradicting each other. This suggests a mature understanding of the issues and potential for coordinated policy responses, though implementation details may require further discussion.

Different viewpoints

Role of platforms vs. fact-checkers in synthetic content identification

Speakers

– Septiaji Nugroho
– Peggy Hicks

Arguments

Fact-checkers now face impossible demands to verify whether content is synthetic, which should be platforms’ responsibility through proper watermarking

Need for evidence-based approaches that identify good practices and incorporate academic research rather than assuming solutions

Summary

Nugroho argues that platforms should bear responsibility for identifying synthetic content through watermarking, while Hicks emphasizes the need for evidence-based approaches and good practices rather than assuming technological solutions will work

Topics

Content policy | Liability of intermediaries | Digital standards

Trust in academic institutions as guardians of information integrity

Speakers

– Zaneta Ozolina
– Audience

Arguments

Academia must focus on spreading knowledge, communicating with different societal groups, and filling information vacuums

Academic credibility in information integrity is questionable given admissions that most medical research in the past 50 years may be fake

Summary

Ozolina advocates for academia’s central role in maintaining information integrity through knowledge dissemination, while an audience member challenges academic credibility by citing concerns about falsified research

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Human rights principles | Content policy

Unexpected differences

Effectiveness of AI tools in combating disinformation

Speakers

– Zaneta Ozolina
– Septiaji Nugroho

Arguments

AI can assist in developing educational curricula, information packages for critical thinking, and reaching underserved social groups like rural populations

AI chatbots can make fact-checking databases more accessible to the public, as demonstrated by recent implementations

Explanation

While both speakers acknowledge AI’s potential benefits, Ozolina was initially skeptical about AI competing with human intelligence in identifying disinformation but became convinced of its utility for educational tools. Nugroho, while implementing AI solutions, emphasizes that challenges are ‘much, much bigger than the opportunities.’ This represents an unexpected nuanced disagreement about AI’s net benefit despite both using it practically

Topics

Content policy | Online education | Interdisciplinary approaches

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement among speakers, with most conflicts centered on implementation approaches rather than core principles. Key areas of disagreement included the division of responsibility between platforms and fact-checkers, the role of academic institutions in information integrity, and the relative balance of AI’s benefits versus risks.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications – while speakers generally agreed on the problems and broad solution categories (education, regulation, transparency), their different approaches to implementation could lead to conflicting policy recommendations. The disagreement about academic credibility is particularly significant as it challenges a foundational assumption about expertise and authority in information verification.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers express concern about inadequate institutional responses to AI challenges, with governments seeking overly simplistic solutions and industry reducing investment in safety measures

Speakers

– Peggy Hicks
– Graham Brookie

Arguments

Government responses tend toward binary solutions that don’t work from a free expression standpoint and can enable censorship of dissent

There’s large-scale retrenchment from industry transparency efforts and reduced investment in trust and safety fields

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles | Freedom of expression

Both speakers advocate for balanced, critical approaches to AI education that maintain human cognitive abilities while leveraging AI benefits

Speakers

– Zaneta Ozolina
– Septiaji Nugroho

Arguments

Importance of balancing human intelligence with artificial intelligence rather than taking pro or con positions

AI literacy education must be accompanied by AI critical literacy, including Socratic prompting techniques to maintain critical thinking abilities

Topics

Online education | Critical thinking | Interdisciplinary approaches

Multiple speakers recognize that elderly and digitally illiterate populations require special attention and targeted interventions to address AI-related information challenges

Speakers

– Zaneta Ozolina
– Septiaji Nugroho
– Audience

Arguments

Special programs are needed for digitally less educated elderly populations, often implemented through libraries at the local level

Different approaches are required for elderly audiences compared to young people, such as specialized digital academies

There is a need for regulation requiring AI companies to implement watermarking, especially for digitally illiterate populations

Topics

Digital access | Online education | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

AI is rapidly transforming the information environment in ways not yet fully understood, creating both opportunities and significant risks to information integrity

While AI-generated content is increasing across all monitored cases, there hasn’t been documented behavior change from single deepfakes or synthetic content pieces

Different audiences require specially designed approaches to information integrity – there is no universal solution

AI literacy education must be accompanied by AI critical literacy to maintain human critical thinking abilities

The challenge requires balancing human intelligence with artificial intelligence rather than taking binary pro/con positions

Evidence-based approaches incorporating academic research are essential rather than assuming solutions

Public trust in institutions and information sources is declining, creating an ‘everything is possible, nothing is real’ environment

Investment in trust and safety, transparency for frontier AI models, and support for critical institutions is crucial

Resolutions and action items

UN Human Rights Office to develop a Human Rights Digital Advisory Service as referenced in the Global Digital Compact to help states and businesses navigate AI challenges

Continue the BTEC project to encourage companies to describe their human rights practices and promote best practices

Academia to focus on spreading knowledge, communicating with different societal groups, and filling information vacuums

Fact-checking organizations to adapt by using AI tools to connect databases with users and develop educational content

Civil society organizations to remain engaged despite challenges and drive investment in transparency and trust and safety

Governments to implement specialized programs for digitally less educated populations, particularly elderly groups, often through libraries

Unresolved issues

How to effectively regulate AI companies to ensure proper watermarking and content identification

What to do with digitally illiterate populations, particularly elderly and rural communities

How to use AI to create effective counter-narratives without amplifying disinformation

Whether AI tooling for trust and safety is having a net positive impact (defender’s dividend unclear)

How to address the fundamental challenge that platforms may not exist in their current form in the near future

How to balance free expression concerns with the need to address AI-generated disinformation

How to maintain institutional trust while addressing legitimate concerns about AI-generated content

Suggested compromises

Avoid binary solutions to information problems and instead focus on evidence-based approaches that respect free expression

Combine AI literacy with AI critical literacy education rather than focusing solely on technical skills

Use AI tools to assist rather than replace human judgment in fact-checking and content verification

Engage in the information environment as it exists rather than as we want it to be

Focus on transparency and accountability measures for companies rather than outright restrictions

Develop specialized approaches for different target audiences rather than one-size-fits-all solutions

We’re blindly driving into a fog, and one of the areas where this seems to be true is the impact of AI on our information world, on the epistemology of the world

Speaker

Viktors Makarovs

Reason

This metaphor effectively captures the fundamental uncertainty and philosophical implications of AI’s impact on how we understand and process knowledge itself. It frames the discussion not just as a technical challenge but as an epistemological crisis affecting the very foundations of how we know what we know.

Impact

This framing elevated the discussion from technical concerns to deeper philosophical questions about truth and knowledge, setting the stage for speakers to address both immediate risks and fundamental challenges to information integrity.

We can’t address the problems of yesterday rather than today… We need to address these issues on a firm information basis… But also at pace

Speaker

Peggy Hicks

Reason

This highlights a critical paradox in policy-making around rapidly evolving technology – the need for evidence-based responses while moving quickly enough to remain relevant. It challenges the traditional approach of thorough study before action.

Impact

This comment established a tension that ran throughout the discussion between the need for careful research and the urgency of the AI transformation, influencing how other speakers balanced immediate concerns with longer-term solutions.

Everything is possible and thus nothing is real… We’re seeing trust go down just because AI exists and thus people are a little bit more skeptical of navigating online information environments

Speaker

Graham Brookie

Reason

This captures a profound psychological and social consequence of AI – that its mere existence creates a crisis of epistemic confidence even before specific harms occur. It identifies ‘information nihilism’ as perhaps more dangerous than specific disinformation.

Impact

This insight shifted the discussion from focusing solely on technical solutions to addressing the broader erosion of trust in information systems, leading other speakers to consider psychological and social dimensions of the problem.

There hasn’t been one case that we have seen in any place around the world where something like a deepfake or a single piece of synthetic content led to immediate behavior change

Speaker

Graham Brookie

Reason

This empirical observation challenges common assumptions about AI’s immediate impact on behavior, suggesting that fears about deepfakes may be overblown while the real damage is more subtle and systemic.

Impact

This finding provided important nuance to the discussion, helping ground fears in actual evidence and redirecting attention from spectacular individual cases to systemic effects on trust and information processing.

It’s not about debating pro or con. Artificial intelligence is here to stay. So therefore, the question is how to balance human intelligence and artificial intelligence

Speaker

Zaneta Ozolina

Reason

This reframes the entire debate from resistance versus acceptance to integration and balance, moving beyond binary thinking to focus on practical coexistence strategies.

Impact

This perspective helped shift the discussion from defensive measures against AI to proactive strategies for human-AI collaboration, influencing how other speakers approached solutions and adaptation strategies.

AI literacy should be accompanied with AI critical literacy, just like when we do critical thinking on digital literacy

Speaker

Septiaji Nugroho

Reason

This distinguishes between technical AI skills and critical thinking about AI, highlighting that teaching people to use AI tools is insufficient without teaching them to question and evaluate AI outputs.

Impact

This insight influenced the discussion of educational approaches, emphasizing that solutions must go beyond technical training to include critical thinking skills, which other speakers then incorporated into their recommendations.

There is no universal remedy to all those questions which were raised, because very often disinformation and also information integrity is country-specific

Speaker

Zaneta Ozolina

Reason

This challenges the assumption that global problems require universal solutions, emphasizing the importance of local context, culture, and specific vulnerabilities in addressing information integrity.

Impact

This observation helped ground the discussion in practical realities, leading speakers to consider how solutions must be adapted to different contexts rather than seeking one-size-fits-all approaches.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a technical discussion about AI tools into a nuanced exploration of epistemological, psychological, and social challenges. The most impactful insights reframed fundamental assumptions – moving from viewing AI as a problem to be solved to understanding it as a reality requiring adaptation, from focusing on spectacular individual harms to recognizing systemic erosion of trust, and from seeking universal solutions to acknowledging contextual complexity. The discussion evolved from initial concerns about specific AI capabilities to deeper questions about how societies can maintain information integrity while adapting to technological transformation. The interplay between empirical findings (like the lack of documented deepfake behavior change) and philosophical observations (like ‘everything is possible, nothing is real’) created a sophisticated dialogue that balanced immediate practical concerns with longer-term societal implications.

How can AI be used to provide information that meets epistemic and social psychological needs to help local human rights-based CSOs create counter-narratives to incendiary information?

Speaker

Ila (CDAC Network)

Explanation

This addresses the practical application of AI for positive counter-messaging while considering the psychological factors that influence belief in information

Should we avoid using Gen AI completely to create counter-narratives?

Speaker

Ila (CDAC Network)

Explanation

This explores the ethical and practical considerations of using AI-generated content to combat disinformation

What specific regulatory measures should be implemented for AI companies regarding watermarking and content identification?

Speaker

Claudio (high school student from Romania)

Explanation

This addresses the need for technical solutions and regulatory frameworks to help users identify AI-generated content

How do we address digital illiteracy among older populations and rural communities in the context of AI-driven information environments?

Speaker

Claudio (high school student from Romania)

Explanation

This highlights the challenge of protecting vulnerable populations who may lack the skills to navigate AI-enhanced information landscapes

How can blockchain technology be used to enhance integrity of information, trust, and transparency?

Speaker

Online audience member

Explanation

This explores alternative technological solutions for ensuring information authenticity and traceability

What is the role of libraries and information services and traditional skills of librarians in maintaining information integrity?

Speaker

Online audience member

Explanation

This examines how traditional information institutions can contribute to combating AI-driven misinformation

Whether AI tooling specifically for trust and safety is actually having a net positive impact – does it increase the defender’s dividend?

Speaker

Graham Brookie

Explanation

This addresses the effectiveness of AI-based solutions in defending against AI-generated threats and whether defensive capabilities are keeping pace with offensive ones

How do we collect more case studies and data to have higher confidence assessments about AI’s impact on information environments?

Speaker

Graham Brookie

Explanation

This highlights the need for more comprehensive research and data collection to better understand the evolving landscape

What type of narrative response is useful in countering disinformation without amplifying it?

Speaker

Peggy Hicks

Explanation

This explores the strategic communication challenges of responding to misinformation without inadvertently spreading it further

How do we ensure that our responses to AI-driven information threats don’t inadvertently bolster disinformation by giving it greater breadth?

Speaker

Peggy Hicks

Explanation

This addresses the unintended consequences of counter-disinformation efforts and the need for evidence-based approaches

How do we balance human intelligence and artificial intelligence in information environments?

Speaker

Zaneta Ozolina

Explanation

This explores the fundamental question of maintaining human agency and critical thinking in an AI-dominated information landscape

How do we develop new ways to regulate and govern artificial intelligence’s impact on information integrity?

Speaker

Zaneta Ozolina

Explanation

This addresses the need for updated governance frameworks that can effectively manage AI’s impact on information systems

Summary

This discussion focused on the role of artificial intelligence and emerging technologies in advancing ICT infrastructure development, particularly in the context of WSIS Action Line C2. The session brought together experts from academia, government regulators, industry, and international organizations to explore how AI can bridge digital divides and enhance connectivity planning.

Archana Gulati from ITU-D opened by emphasizing AI’s potential to accelerate reliable and inclusive ICT infrastructure development, particularly for underserved communities. She highlighted AI’s capabilities in smart infrastructure planning, operational cost reduction, and network optimization while stressing the need for ethical and equitable implementation frameworks. Renata Figueiredo from Brazil’s telecommunications regulator Anatel shared her country’s approach to AI governance, including regulatory impact assessments and partnerships with academic institutions to ensure responsible AI deployment in telecom services.

Industry representative Gonzalo Suardiaz from Ericsson addressed a critical challenge in AI implementation: the “garbage in, garbage out” problem, where poor data quality leads to unreliable results. He outlined strategies for ensuring data quality in connectivity planning platforms, including standardization, governance frameworks, and validation through machine learning. Sandor Farkas from ITU demonstrated practical AI applications in infrastructure mapping, specifically using computer vision to detect cell towers in satellite imagery for coverage analysis.

From an academic perspective, Aleksandra Jastrzebska warned against over-reliance on AI tools, citing research showing cognitive decline when students depend too heavily on AI for thinking tasks. She emphasized that AI should challenge rather than replace human minds. Joshua Ku from GitHub concluded by advocating for open-source approaches to AI development, explaining how the ITU has embraced open-source practices to accelerate innovation through community collaboration. The discussion reinforced that while AI offers powerful tools for infrastructure development, success requires clean data, ethical frameworks, human oversight, and collaborative partnerships across sectors.

Keypoints

## Overall Purpose/Goal

This discussion was a panel session focused on the role of emerging technologies and artificial intelligence in advancing Action Line C2 within the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) framework. The session aimed to explore how AI can be leveraged to develop reliable, inclusive, and sustainable ICT infrastructure, particularly for underserved and remote communities, while addressing associated challenges and best practices.

## Major Discussion Points

– **AI as an Infrastructure Planning Tool**: Multiple speakers emphasized AI’s potential to optimize ICT infrastructure deployment through smart planning, analyzing geospatial and demographic data, enabling dynamic spectrum allocation, and facilitating predictive maintenance. The ITU’s Connectivity Planning Platform (CPP) was highlighted as a practical example of AI-driven infrastructure planning.

– **Data Quality and the “Garbage In, Garbage Out” Problem**: A significant focus was placed on the critical importance of clean, standardized, and well-governed data for AI systems. Speakers discussed the need for data standards, governance frameworks, validation mechanisms, and crowdsourcing feedback to ensure AI tools provide accurate and reliable results for infrastructure planning.

– **Ethical AI Implementation and Regulatory Frameworks**: The discussion covered the necessity of inclusive policy frameworks to ensure ethical and equitable AI deployment. Brazil’s regulatory approach through Anatel was presented as a case study, emphasizing transparency, privacy protection, cybersecurity, and alignment with international standards like UNESCO’s AI ethics recommendations.

– **Open Source as a Catalyst for Innovation**: The session explored how open source development can accelerate AI and infrastructure solutions by leveraging global developer communities. GitHub’s collaboration with ITU was presented as an example of how organizations can embrace open source while maintaining security and managing community contributions.

– **Academic Perspectives on AI Limitations**: A critical examination of AI’s impact on learning and research was presented, highlighting concerns about “cognitive debt” when humans over-rely on AI tools. This included examples of AI-generated academic papers and emphasized that AI should augment rather than replace human thinking and decision-making.

## Overall Tone

The discussion maintained a professional and collaborative tone throughout, with speakers presenting both opportunities and challenges in a balanced manner. The tone was optimistic about AI’s potential while remaining realistic about implementation challenges. There was a strong emphasis on inclusivity, ethical considerations, and the importance of human-centered approaches. The session fostered knowledge-sharing among diverse stakeholders (government, academia, industry, and international organizations) and maintained a forward-looking perspective focused on practical solutions and partnerships.

Speakers

– **Archana G. Gulati**: Speaking on behalf of Dr. Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava, Director of the Telecommunications Development Bureau at ITU-D

– **Gonzalo Suardiaz**: Program manager within digital inclusion and digital education at Ericsson, working on the Connect2Learn program and connectivity planning platform (CPP), 17 years experience in mobile networks from 2G to 5G

– **Renata Figueiredo Santoyo**: Regulation expert in international affairs at Anatel (Brazilian telecommunications regulator)

– **Sandor Farkas**: Expert on geospatial artificial intelligence at ITU, specializing in AI tools for ICT infrastructure mapping

– **Aleksandra Jastrzebska**: Junior mapping expert at ITU, recent graduate from Universitat Jaume I, academic perspective on AI and emerging technologies, researcher in generative AI for map generation

– **Joshua Ku**: Senior solution architect at GitHub, expert on open source software development and community management

**Additional speakers:**

– **Walid Mahmoudli**: Head of FNS (Future Networks and Spectrum Division) within BDT – mentioned as participating remotely but connection could not be established

# Report: AI and Emerging Technologies in ICT Infrastructure Development – WSIS Action Line C2 Panel Discussion

## Executive Summary

This panel discussion examined the role of artificial intelligence and emerging technologies in advancing ICT infrastructure development under WSIS Action Line C2. The session brought together experts from ITU-D, industry, national regulators, and the open-source community to explore AI’s potential in bridging digital divides while addressing implementation challenges including data quality, ethical deployment, and human oversight requirements.

A planned remote presentation by Walid Mahmoudli from ITU-D’s Future Networks and Spectrum Division could not proceed due to technical connectivity issues. The session was moderated by Gonzalo Suardiaz from Ericsson, who also presented industry perspectives alongside his moderating role.

## Opening Framework: AI as Infrastructure Bridge

**Archana G. Gulati**, representing Dr. Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava from ITU-D, opened the discussion by positioning AI as a transformative tool for ICT infrastructure development. She emphasized that “AI should be a bridge, not a barrier, to inclusive digital infrastructure,” establishing the session’s focus on equitable technology deployment.

Gulati outlined AI’s applications across the infrastructure lifecycle, including smart site selection for mobile towers, dynamic spectrum allocation, predictive maintenance, and real-time network monitoring. She highlighted AI’s potential to reduce operational costs while enhancing network efficiency, making infrastructure deployment more economically viable in underserved areas.

The ITU-D representative stressed that AI deployment must be “rights-based, secure and human-centric with multi-stakeholder engagement.” She emphasized the need for inclusive policy frameworks to ensure ethical AI use and address concerns about algorithmic bias and transparency. Gulati concluded by highlighting the importance of human capacity-building and AI literacy for public authorities.

## Industry Perspective: Data Quality as Foundation

**Gonzalo Suardiaz** from Ericsson, serving as both moderator and industry representative, emphasized the critical importance of data quality in AI implementation. Drawing from his 17 years of experience in mobile networks from 2G to 5G, he introduced the “garbage in, garbage out” (GIGO) principle as fundamental to AI success.

“No matter how good your algorithms, no matter how good your tools or your models are, you will get bad results if the input data is bad,” Suardiaz stated, identifying data quality as the primary challenge in AI deployment for infrastructure planning.

He outlined Ericsson’s approach through their Connect2Learn programme and connectivity planning platform (CPP), emphasizing the need for data standards and schemas across all infrastructure data types. Suardiaz described how AI can be used to validate data quality by cross-referencing different datasets and identifying inconsistencies, while stressing the importance of robust data governance frameworks.

The Ericsson representative concluded that multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for making AI meaningful beyond being merely a powerful tool.

## Regulatory Approach: Brazil’s AI Governance Framework

**Renata Figueiredo Santoyo** from Brazil’s telecommunications regulator Anatel presented the country’s approach to AI governance in telecommunications. She outlined Brazil’s regulatory impact assessment process for AI in telecom services, emphasizing alignment with UNESCO’s AI ethics recommendations and the recent BRICS declaration on AI governance.

Santoyo discussed how AI and 5G technologies increase network complexity and associated cybersecurity risks, requiring adaptive regulatory frameworks. She highlighted Anatel’s partnership with ITA university to examine AI’s impact on telecom regulation, cybersecurity, and consumer rights.

The Brazilian regulator emphasized that strong partnerships between regulators, academia, and the private sector are essential for responsible AI deployment while maintaining consumer protection and service quality standards.

## Technical Implementation: AI in Infrastructure Mapping

**Sandor Farkas**, ITU’s expert on geospatial artificial intelligence, demonstrated practical AI applications in ICT infrastructure mapping. His presentation focused on using YOLO11 object detection to identify cell towers in satellite imagery for coverage analysis and infrastructure planning.

Farkas explained the technical challenges of AI model training, including dataset preparation, labeling, and validation using precision and recall metrics. He discussed the trade-offs involved in balancing these metrics, noting that accepting false positives that can be post-validated may be preferable to missing actual infrastructure.

The ITU expert described ongoing work to extend AI object detection datasets and develop tools for smooth data pipeline implementation, emphasizing the iterative nature of AI development and the need for continuous improvement.

## Academic Perspective: Human-AI Interaction Concerns

**Aleksandra Jastrzebska**, a junior mapping expert at ITU, raised important concerns about AI’s impact on human cognitive development. She introduced the concept of “cognitive debt,” referencing MIT research that showed reduced memory retention when students relied heavily on ChatGPT compared to traditional learning methods.

Jastrzebska warned about AI-generated academic content potentially compromising scientific integrity without proper human oversight. She emphasized that “AI is calculating, not thinking – it processes data through mathematical operations rather than genuine understanding.”

Her key message was that “AI doesn’t need to replace our minds. It should challenge them,” advocating for humans to think “with and help of AI, but not letting it think for us.” This perspective on maintaining human intellectual agency resonated throughout the session.

## Open Source Innovation: Collaborative Development

**Joshua Ku** from GitHub concluded the panel by demonstrating how open-source approaches can accelerate AI and infrastructure solutions. He presented statistics showing 150 million developers contributing over 1 billion contributions annually to open-source projects.

Ku highlighted that even major technology companies like Google make their core products (such as Chrome) fully open source, challenging assumptions about competitive advantage and demonstrating how openness can accelerate innovation.

The GitHub representative discussed ITU’s partnership with GitHub to open-source software tools, outlining best practices including proper licensing, code preparation, security scanning, and community management. He emphasized how open-source communities can extend software capabilities beyond original visions through collective innovation.

## Key Themes and Consensus

Several important themes emerged from the discussion:

**Human-Centric AI**: All speakers agreed that AI should augment rather than replace human decision-making, requiring proper oversight and ethical frameworks.

**Data Quality Imperative**: Speakers consistently emphasized that high-quality, well-governed data is essential for effective AI systems.

**Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration**: Strong agreement emerged on the necessity of partnerships across government, academia, private sector, and civil society.

**Practical Implementation Focus**: The discussion balanced AI potential with realistic assessment of implementation challenges and prerequisites.

## Practical Applications Highlighted

The session featured several concrete AI applications:

– **Connectivity Planning Platform**: Ericsson’s AI-driven platform for connectivity planning, with MVP presentation scheduled for the GIGA Connectivity Forum and general availability planned for June 2026

– **Infrastructure Detection**: ITU’s use of YOLO11 for cell tower identification in satellite imagery

– **Regulatory Assessment**: Brazil’s systematic approach to AI impact assessment in telecommunications

– **Open Source Tools**: ITU-GitHub collaboration for developing and sharing infrastructure planning tools

## Conclusion

The panel discussion demonstrated a balanced understanding of AI’s role in ICT infrastructure development, combining technological optimism with practical wisdom about implementation challenges. The strong emphasis on data quality, human oversight, and multi-stakeholder collaboration provides a foundation for responsible AI deployment in infrastructure development.

The session successfully addressed WSIS Action Line C2 objectives by exploring how AI can accelerate progress toward universal connectivity while ensuring that technology serves human development goals. The integration of perspectives from international organizations, regulators, industry, and open-source communities created a comprehensive examination of both opportunities and challenges in AI-driven infrastructure development.

Most importantly, the discussion established that successful AI implementation requires not just technical excellence but also ethical frameworks, quality data governance, and collaborative partnerships to ensure AI serves as a bridge to inclusive digital infrastructure.

Archana G. Gulati: Distinguished guests, esteemed colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of Dr. Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava, Director of the Telecommunications Development Bureau, it is my pleasure to address you and to set the scene for this important discussion. As you know, AI is a tool with the potential to accelerate the development of reliable, inclusive and sustainable ICT infrastructure. At ITU-D, we are especially excited about its potential to help deliver meaningful connectivity, especially in underserved and remote communities. We believe that AI can be used to support the implementation of the Kigali Action Plan and BDT strategic priority to bridge the digital infrastructure gap. AI enables smart infrastructure planning by analyzing geospatial, demographic and economic data so that we can optimize where and how to deploy connectivity solutions. AI can also help us to reduce operational costs and enhance network efficiency in both urban and rural settings through predictive analysis and automation. And AI can facilitate real-time monitoring and maintenance, increasing infrastructure resilience and service continuity in disaster-prone or hard-to-reach areas. We also believe that AI has a key role to play in network rollout planning. For example, by enabling smarter site selection for mobile towers or fiber routes, AI will facilitate dynamic spectrum allocation to increase capacity where it is most needed, and also energy-efficient network management. That is particularly important both for environmental, sustainability and rural power-constrained deployments. That is why we are keen to apply AI in various ITU-supported initiatives in partnerships with member states and private sector players, including pilot projects and toolkits. Ladies and gentlemen, while AI is a powerful tool indeed, we also need inclusive policy frameworks to ensure that its use is both ethical and equitable. Key considerations include bias and transparency in AI algorithms, as well as data governance and privacy, especially for vulnerable populations. It is also important to give due consideration to workforce deployment to ensure that those working for public authorities are AI literate. Above all, AI deployment must be rights-based, secure and human-centric, with policies shaped through multi-stakeholder engagement. In the same spirit, we must ensure that the adoption of AI in infrastructure does not leave anyone behind. That requires strong partnerships and human capacity-building efforts. This will include the ITU Academy platform, which promotes the sharing of information and education in an affordable manner, as well as partnerships with governments to define national digital strategies and with the private sector to co-develop tools and models. It is also essential to include academia and civil society in assessing impact and ensuring inclusivity. So, BDT encourages open innovation systems and collaborative platforms for knowledge-sharing and capacity-building. AI should be a bridge, not a barrier, to inclusive digital infrastructure. And once again, I would like to reiterate that we must ensure that no one is left behind in the next wave of digital transformation. Thank you. With these words, I hand over back to you.

Gonzalo Suardiaz: Thank you so much, Archana, for those opening remarks, and a warm welcome, everyone, to this session on the role of emerging technologies and artificial intelligence on advancing the goals of Action Line C2 within WISIS. So today, we have a great panel of experts here. As Archana mentioned, we have people representing academia, we have people representing the ITU, people representing the government, regulator, and the open source community, and even myself representing the industry sector. Our first panelist today is participating remotely. Let’s hope that we can establish a connection with him and that there are no technical issues. And I’m pleased to introduce Mr. Walid Mahmoudli, who is the head of FNS, which is the Future Networks and Spectrum Division within BDT. So let’s try to establish a connection with Walid, see if that works. All right, it seems that we have no Walid online. We can try to see if we can establish the connection within a few minutes. But then we can then present the first speaker here in the room, who is Renata Figueiredo, coming all the way from Brazil. Renata is a regulation expert in international affairs. She works at Anatel, who is the regulator in Brazil, and she’s going to give us some perspectives about how is the Brazilian government doing in terms of Action Line C2. So over to you, Renata.

Renata Figueiredo Santoyo: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. It’s a true honor to join the WSIS Action Line C2 session and share the perspectives of the Brazilian telecommunication regulator, Anatel. Well, my name is Renata, as I was presented, and I’m grateful for this space that values diverse voices, including women in tech and policymaking. Information and communication infrastructure is much more than cables, antennas, and data centers. It’s about enabling people to connect, learn, work, and participate in the economy. Innovation technologies and AI offer powerful tools to advance this goal, but they also pose real challenges in ethic, equity, and security. As regulators, our mission is to ensure that innovation delivers inclusive and secure connectivity for all. Let’s start with artificial intelligence. Anatel is conducting a regulatory impact assessment to establish clear guidelines for the ethical and responsible use for AI in telecom services. This includes managing risks related to how we use data and collect it, process it, and use it for decision-making. We are aligned with international standards, such as UNESCO’s recommendation on AI ethics and I2 guidelines. Public consultation is underway to help us balance innovation with transparency, privacy, and accountability. We know regulation can happen in isolation. That’s why Anatel signed a term of decentralized execution, that’s called TED, with ITA, ITA. That’s one of Brazil’s leading engineering institutions, a huge university in Brazil. This partnership is a cornerstone of our approach to AI and emerging technologies in telecom. Together with ITA researchers, we are examining the many dimensions where AI is transforming telecom regulation, quality of services, how AI can improve, but also potentially compromise reliability and fairness, cyber security, how to identify and mitigate new attack surface created by a driven network, consumer rights, ensuring transparency and avoiding discriminatory or opaque algorithmic decisions, platform oversight, addressing converging markets and ensuring fair competition and accountability for services that deliver telecom-like functions. Spectrum managing, exploring how AI can optimize the spectrum used while ensuring equitable access. This academic collaboration is not theoretical, it’s producing real research that will shape our regulatory framework in the coming years. At the same time, our second strategic priority is expanding 5G with inclusion in mind. Brazil’s roadmap includes annual update to our structural plan of network, revising spectrum managing rules and pushing open run and spectrum sharing. We are simplifying local license process and supporting smaller providers to make deployment cheaper and faster. Our universal service fund, FUST, is being used to connect to schools and remote towns. For us, 5G isn’t just about speed or latency, it’s about affordable, reliable connectivity that reaches every part of our country. Talking also about cybersecurity, AI, 5G and hyper-connected services increase complexity and with it, risks. Anatel is reviewing its cybersecurity regulation for telecom. We are working with the world’s top telecom networks to ensure strong, clear standards as these technologies evolve. We are actively studying and adapting lessons from other regions, South Korea’s National Coordination Centers, the EU’s NIS2 Directive, China’s Data Security Framework, and the US supply chain security initiatives. Data security isn’t a nice-to-have, it’s the foundation of trust, and trust is the true currency of the digital economy. I would like to emphasize, good regulation depends on evidence and partnership. Our work with ITA is just one example of how regulators can collaborate with academia to anticipate challenges and design better rules. We believe emerging technologies like AI can either defend inequality and risks or help us build a safer, fairer, more connected world. The difference lies in one of our choices, in how seriously we take this debate today. I would just, because we just had a BRICS leader’s declaration two days ago, so I would just add a little bit about this. It’s not really regulators, it’s more like Brazil’s government, but I would just like to emphasize that 6th of July in Rio, as part of this commitment, Brazil also aligns with broader global self-priorities, calling for inclusive AI governance, that Brazil as government, believe AI development must respect digital sovereignty, promote fair and open access and technologies, and ensure that no country is left behind. That means supporting data governance framework that protects privacy while enabling equitable, innovative, encouraging open science and open source moderns and fostering international cooperation to reduce technological gaps and empower local talent. That’s how we can turn AI into a truly global public good. Just a parenthesis, because I think it’s very good news, very fair news. So here’s my invitation, let’s work together across borders, sectors and disciplines to make emerging technologies serve the public good. Thank you for the opportunity to share Anatel’s perspective. I look forward to learning a lot with all my colleagues here and collaborate to advance inclusive, secure and resilient digital infrastructure for all. Thank you.

Gonzalo Suardiaz: Obrigado, Renata. Thank you so much. So next in turn is actually myself. I’m here not only as a moderator today, but also as a panelist. So my name is Gonzalo Suardias. I work at Ericsson, a telecom operator. I’ve been doing that for the last 17 years. So I’ve been working in different parts of mobile networks from 2G to 5G. And as of today, I’m a program manager within digital inclusion and in particular digital education. So as part of our program, Connect2Learn, we’ve been working a lot with the ITU, especially on a platform which is called the CPP, the connectivity planning platform. You will hear a little bit more about it in a few minutes. And I think some of the other panelists may refer to it. But what we’re trying to achieve with this platform is to allow different types of stakeholders to take better, more informed decisions about their connectivity and infrastructure planning. So how we do this is by feeding a lot of data into that particular platform. The data is, of course, about the locations of the points of interest that we’re trying to connect, POIs as we call them. But then there’s as well a bunch of data about elevation or terrain. So geospatial data, for instance. There’s data about fiber infrastructure, about mobile network infrastructure. Where are the closest radio sites to those points of interest? How high are those towers? Is there a line of sight? This kind of stuff, right? Then we also have population density data. We have cost data for the models, et cetera. So the idea is that then investors or connectivity planners, regulators, governments, administrations, GIGA people. So I guess many of you are familiar with the GIGA initiative, which aims to connect all the schools of the world to the Internet by 2030. It’s a joint initiative of ITU and UNICEF. So, of course, GIGA will be one of the use cases for the CPP. So we currently have an MVP available. We’ll actually present it during the GIGA Connectivity Forum in a couple of days. And then there will be a first version available by October this year and a general availability version by June 2026. But what I’m here to talk about today, rather than CPP, is about one of the major risks that we have identified when we’ve been planning and designing for the CPP. And I think it’s a general problem that applies to generative AI and that applies to AI or to any data science topic in general, which is GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. I think many of you are familiar with the term. But basically, GIGO, what it means is that if you feed bad data into a system, you will get bad results. That’s it. No matter how good your algorithms, no matter how good your tools or your models are, you will get bad results if the input data is bad. So this has huge implications for us. Of course, we don’t want to be creating a platform that then gives the user wrong perspectives or makes the user take the wrong connectivity alternative. For instance, connecting a school or a point of interest with, I don’t know, satellite if fiber is closer or mobile networks might be a more sustainable or better way, more efficient to connect the school. So what are we doing today to fight GIGO and to avoid it as much as we can? Well, the first point, of course, is it’s about data standards and data schemas. So, for example, for fiber, there are available already some very good open standards to define fiber data. But we need the same for all type of data, right? For points of interest, let’s say schools, metadata, where are they located? Not only the latitudes and the longitude, the geocoordinates, but also how big are the schools, what needs do they have, what sort of facilities are available there. Same applies to coverage data, mobile coverage. Same applies to backhaul data or cost data, demand, et cetera. Any type of data that we input into the platform needs to be properly schemed and standardized. And by that, we’re reducing the risk of having wrong data. The other part, of course, is about data is creating and maintaining a very serious governance framework, right? Data is a life and data changes all the time, right? We need to keep track who owns the data, who has changed it and when and how, right? So those are also super important aspects. The next one would be to interconnect different data sets. So, for example, we have access to coverage data from operators on the ground, but we also have data sets from open cell ID, for instance. And we can triangulate those and realize when there are mismatches. When one of the data says, here, there’s great coverage, but according to this other data set, there’s no mobile network infrastructure in this area. So how could that happen? So probably one of the two data sets is wrong. So then it allows us to investigate and deep dive a little bit into that. Then the next point, and I think my colleague here, Sander, will touch on that briefly during his presentation, but it’s using AI and machine learning to validate the data. So, for example, if you have two data sets, one is about school geolocations, the other one is about geospatial data, and then you realize that the school coordinates fall, I don’t know, on a lake, well, then you know there’s something wrong. Assuming that the geospatial data is right, which most likely it is, then the coordinates that you have received from the school, they’re wrong, right? And we’ve seen that. We’ve been receiving sometimes geo-coordinates from governments and not all the data is 100% accurate. So that would be one way to validate the data. The other one could be, for instance, using satellite imagery and school metadata. The data is saying that there’s a school with over 500 students and then from the satellite image we see that there’s like no rooftop on that particular area, then we also can imagine that there’s something fishy about that information, so we can act accordingly. The last idea about Fighting Ego is of course embedding crowdsourcing as much as possible, a feedback mechanism which could be crowdsourced via a mobile app or service or even via the CPP tool itself, right, allowing the user to provide feedback as it goes, because the ground truth is what the user knows at the end, right, like this school was there but now it’s closed for whatever reason, or the tool says that here there’s great 4G coverage but in reality it’s not, it’s actually poor coverage, so then we can also correct that. So that’s a little bit what I wanted to touch on today. In summary, we believe that GIGO, garbage in, garbage out, it’s a risk to almost every digital tool that is available today, so be mindful of it, and the bottom line is that we need clean, trusted and transparent data to ensure that connectivity planning is inclusive and is efficient. So that’s it for my end, and I will be handing over now to Mr Sandor Farkas who works at the ITU and he’s an expert on geospatial artificial intelligence and he’s going to be mentioning a few AI tools for ICT infrastructure mapping, so over to you Sandor. Thank you Gonzalo.

Sandor Farkas: Good morning everyone. Today I’m going to talk about object detection using AI. For constant coverage analysis, information is needed about cell towers’ location in a country. Often this information is missing. AI computer vision can be used for finding objects and satellite images. The goal is to create a vector layer with cell towers for further analysis and to support decision making. We use YOLO11 from Ultralytics. This is an open source Python module based on PyTorch. It can be used with Azure Compute Instance and offline machine also. Using oriented bounding box, there’s less distracting background around target objects when digitizing our objects. It has also pre-trained models on satellite images which is useful for us, unfortunately not with our target objects. Here you see the basic workflow for AI object detection consisting of two parts, training a model and using a trained model. If you already have your trained model for your target objects, then you can just skip the first part and go for using a trained model for detection. If you don’t have a classified model for your target objects, you have to create one. Training a model is practically teaching machine learning algorithm how to recognize What? What is that? Sorry for that. Okay, just for me. Training a model is practically teaching machine learning algorithm how to recognize target objects on images. Before training, you need to prepare the data set. That is acquire images with your target objects and labeling images. This is the process of digitization and classification of your target object on your images. Okay. We used four classes in this research. Two types of cell towers and their shadows to improve our findings. To run a model training, the data set has to be split to train, test and validation sets. During the learning process, train and test data are used for calculating the weights for the target objects. In the final step, the models make predictions on the validation data set using the weights generated in the previous set. As a final result, you get the trained model. With the trained model, also metrics and visual outcomes are generated. Here you see F1 confidence curve. I have to explain it a bit. Precision and recall are two key metrics used to validate classification models in machine learning. Precision quantifies the true positives among all positive predictions, assessing the model’s ability to avoid false positives. On the other hand, recall calculates the true positives among all actual positives, assessing the model’s ability to take all instances of a class. F1 score shows these two metrics in one as a harmonic mean of the two. The higher the value, the better the model. Here you see confusion metrics, showing counts for true positives, true negatives, false positives, false negatives for each class. This version of confusion metrics, normalized version, shows the values in proportions rather than counts. This format makes it easier to compare performance across classes. These metrics are loss results during the training. This is a precision confidence curve at different thresholds. This is a recall curve for the same. These two curves show together. The closer the curve to the top right corner, the better the model is. But there is a trade-off between these two, precision and recall. You have to decide which one is more important in your use case. I think in this model we have to focus on recall because in the end we will get a vector layer with cell towers. If the precision is bad and we will get lots of false positives, then we can do some post-validation on that data. But we don’t know anything about false negatives that the model didn’t recognize as target. These two mosaics show labels. and the predicted bounding boxes. As an important measure, intersection over union quantifies the proportion of predicted bounding box and ground truth bounding box. Very important to evaluate accuracy in object localization. You can use fine-tuning parameters called hyperparameters tuning to improve your model. That is not just a one-time configuration but an iterative process optimizing your model’s metrics. This is our to-do list in this research. We have to extend our dataset in numbers and to a wide variety of cell towers to improve our recall. We want to develop useful tools for smooth data pipeline. And of course, we want to try it and use it on new datasets.

Gonzalo Suardiaz: Thank you. Thank you very much, Sandor. Next presentation is going to be made by Aleksandra, who is a junior mapping expert at ITU. She is actually working also with the connectivity planning platform that I mentioned during my presentation. And Aleksandra is going to give us a perspective on AI and emerging technologies from the academic world. So the floor is yours, Aleksandra.

Aleksandra Jastrzebska: Thank you so much, Gonzalo. So good morning, everyone. I’m Aleksandra Jastrzemska, a recent graduate from Universitat Jaume I. And I’m thrilled to bring an academic perspective to this incredibly timely topic. How we use AI in industry or infrastructure but as well also in how we learn, how we teach, and how we think. So let me start with a question. What happens when AI thinks for us? A recent MIT study explored how students use chat GPT to write essays. It turned out that the more they rely on it, the less they remembered. So they cited less, they took less ownership of their text, and they reported weaker learning outcomes. In fact, the study used functional MRI scans to show something even more striking. The reduced activity, which is marked in blue, was observed in chat GPT users, while increased activity, which was marked in red, appeared in brain regions associated with memory and critical thinking. So basically the cognitive shortcut is what the research called cognitive debt. And like financial debt, it actually accumulates in a silent way. So we offload thinking to the machine, and in doing so, we actually weaken our own mental muscles. So as the slide shows, when participants wrote with AI, their brains literally went quiet. And this is a reminder for us that the cost of convenience is really striking. So what happens when researchers start relying on AI tools too heavily? Let me show you a few examples. This paper looks perfectly legitimate. It was published on Science Direct. The topic is about lithium batteries, and the formatting is flawless. But when we take a closer look, the introduction starts with, Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic, which I think it sounds familiar to several of us. And here’s another one. In a paper summarizing a study on radiology cases, the conclusion states, I’m sorry, but I don’t have access to real-time information or patient-specific data, as I am an AI language model. Well, that’s not just about science. It’s a direct copy-paste from a large language model. And of course, after all, both papers were retracted. But the fact that actually they passed peer review, and they were published at all, reveals a deeper concern. Because when academia starts to rely too heavily on AI-generated content, without the proper editing, it’s not just that error might slip through. It actually can become a part of the scientific record. So we all know that we are in the middle of an AI hype. It’s literally everywhere. And however, here are the real numbers. According to the Stanford AI Index, the AI papers now represent over 40% of all computer science research worldwide. And that’s nearly a quarter of a million of publications in just one year. And yet, despite that massive output, many people still don’t understand how AI actually works. So even something like recognizing a handwritten digit can seem like magic. So let me walk you through a simple example using artificial neural networks. One of the most fundamental classes of machine learning algorithm. And this example is based on MNIST dataset, which stands for Modified National Institute of Standards and Technology. And it’s been a classical training ground. This flows starts from the simple live view, how AI actually sees. It processed the pixel intensity values, flattens them into a vector, and then multiplies them by a set of weights. And it’s just matrix and vector multiplication. So something intuitive to the majority of humans, but yet it’s very logical. So what lies behind AI, it’s not a mystery. It’s just mathematics. And these weights, they aren’t programmed. They’re learned from the data through training. And that means that AI is not thinking, and it’s just calculating. So last but not least, I would like to share a bit about my personal research. It’s rooted in the generative AI, the models that generate new images. And in my case, those images are maps. And in this slide, you can see in an example that links OpenStreetMap, one of the most widely used open sourcing mapping platform, with the text prompt. And these prompts request a generation of maps that mimics the characteristic of the particular region, such as residential areas or coastal zones. And these models are powerful. But yet, they’re as good as the data which we provide and the human choices which are behind them. So basically, what we prioritize, what we filter, and how we evaluate the outcomes. So with this being said, I want to conclude that AI doesn’t need to replace our minds. It should challenge them. And as people from academia, our role is to make sure that in every context, from satellite imagery to schools’ essays, we are thinking with and help of AI, but not letting it think for us. And thank you so much for your time. I hope that this talk reminds you to use large language models wisely and to never stop using your own brain in the process.

Gonzalo Suardiaz: Thank you so much, Alexander. That was super interesting. All right. Last but not least, we have… Yeah, you also need… Here you go. So here on my right-hand side, we have Joshua Ku, coming all the way from the US. He’s a senior solution architect at GitHub. And Joshua is going to give us some hints about the why and how of open sourcing. So over to you, Joshua.

Joshua Ku: Great. Thank you very much. It’s been a privilege and an honor to be able to present among you guys. So I’m going to be talking about the why and the how of open sourcing, and also highlighting the journey that I’ve had working with the ITU in open sourcing some of their software. So the first question we want to answer is, why open source? What is the point of open sourcing, and why should the ITU, and also the rest of the UN in general, should be adopting open source? There’s a lot of challenges in software development today. There’s a lot of technological challenges, and velocity is always the huge one. In terms of getting skills and resources in headcount, that’s always the struggle in today’s world. Finding enough developers to work on technology to help build new features. So open source is one of the ways that we can answer this problem. Within GitHub alone, last year, we had over 150 million developers contribute to open source projects. Open source projects are designed as projects that are open to the public and can be edited by anybody in the public. Among the 150 million developers, we had over 1 billion contributions to open source projects last year alone. And that number is growing year over year. So that’s really exciting to see that developers around the world are embracing open source and contributing. soon, and thank you for joining us today. We’re going to talk about the world of open source. We’re going to talk about the world of open source. And there are a few key things that are contributing to it. And that is helping a lot of key technologies that power the world today to move faster. So you may be wondering, open source, is this just for developers? Or are companies actually contributing to open source as well? Who is keeping this community alive? Well, companies in the world are all active contributors and one of the largest contributors to open source. You look at there’s Google, there’s Microsoft, there’s Amazon, and even Huawei. And these are companies that power the fundamental things that we do in our lives. Google has a huge search base. Their search engine is large, but they also have one of the most popular web browsers in the world. And that web browser, Google Chrome, is fully open source. And that is powering a lot of the development today. Microsoft, Amazon, all have key open source technologies that their own technologies rely on. Without open source, these tech companies can’t move as forward and as quickly as they can today. So in learning more about why and the power of open source, let me talk to you about the journey that the ITU has taken this past year in embracing open source and what are the steps they had to do to get there. First of all, we had to look at licensing. Within the open source community, there’s a lot of things about licensing to ensure that software can be presented correctly. So we had to look at all of the pros and cons and the restrictions of licenses to see how can open source contribute, but also to make sure that all of the software that we write as the ITU can be related and sent out to other people and how other people can also build upon our technologies to build other solutions. It’s really amazing to see all the different solutions that can be made, and we want to make sure that everything is open source downstream as well. Second of all, we took a look at how to prepare our code. Preparing our code is very important. It’s not as simple as just copying and pasting your code and just dumping it on the internet. We had to go through all of the ITU source code to make sure that we strip out anything that contained potentially sensitive information. We had to delete anything that had secrets in it, but also we had to make sure that what we’re presenting is readable by other people. A lot of times when you build internal code bases, it’s just technical jargon and things that only you in the company would know about. When you’re in the open source community, you need to make sure that everything you put out there is readable by anybody who’s joining, because they don’t have the context of your company. We had to look into that, how to simplify a lot of the text to make it very readable and accessible for all. Lastly, we had to prepare a repository. We had to create a repository in GitHub and also create ways to allow developers to access it, to view it, and make a very readable interface for all users. Of course, open sourcing technology is only half the battle. The next part of it is how to maintain that and how to build velocity over that. One of the most important aspects of open sourcing technology is, as I mentioned, a lot of people can look at it. When there’s a lot of people that can look at it, there are things that might make your software very dangerous as well. One of the aspects we had to take care of is ensuring that our code base was as secure as possible. We had to look at our supply chain and looking at all of the other open source dependencies we depended on to make sure that none of them were vulnerable to any sort of attacks, so that our software would also be secure as well. We also had to look at our code scanning as well. As developers are writing code, it is known that developers are human and we do make mistakes. When we make mistakes, that introduces vulnerabilities that bad actors can come in and take over and exploit our application. We had to look at ways on how to secure our open source software, how to make sure that there are no vulnerabilities in there that bad actors can use to exploit. After we’ve secured our code base, then we had to start looking at managing community contributions. This is going to be really important because if we want to draw more developers to help contribute to the ITU’s projects, we have to make sure that people know where to go. We were working together to devise ways of issues so that we can document what are the next feature requests, what are some issues with the software today that we would like developers to help contribute to. By allowing tags like good first issue, this allows brand new developers to take a look at the ITU’s projects and also see what are some of the ways they can contribute without having to go through the code base and learn that on their own. We provide a very curated way for new developers to come in to take a look at the ITU’s projects and also see where can they contribute very quickly and add value to the project. We also are working on building out a roadmap so that when users come to the ITU’s projects, they can see what is the vision of the ITU, what are the next steps for these technologies and where do we want to bring them. That allows developers to also have their own ideas of what can they contribute to the ITU’s projects as well. You’re very surprised at a lot of open source technologies today, how we had a set vision in the very beginning, we laid out our roadmap, but then our open source developers saw potential in how to apply these technologies in other aspects as well. They’re able to contribute and expand the software to do more than what we originally imagined. This is the dream that we’re building here at the ITU. We want to see how we can use these technologies today to accomplish the vision we have, but also to inspire the next generation of developers to see what they can use our technologies to solve other problems as well. Thank you very much for listening and I hope that this really inspires you on open source and to see how within the technology that we’re doing today, how we can empower that with open source technology and how we can propel that forward.

Gonzalo Suardiaz: Thank you so much, Joshua. I think we have a couple of minutes before we close up the session to allow some Q&A from the audience, so maybe we can get support from the facilitators if there are any questions. Or questions from any of the panelists to the other presenters. It seems that we were super clear, there are no questions. Before closing, I wrote down a few takeaways and notes as you guys were presenting. Just to close this session, things that I take with me at least is that AI is an enabler, definitely not a replacement for human decision maker. Thank you, Alexandra, for the quote, AI is not thinking, it’s calculating. I like that one. I also like what Archana mentioned about AI being a bridge and not a barrier. I also think that partnerships are essential. AI is very powerful, but multi-stakeholder collaboration is what really makes it meaningful. Open source is a great example of that. But we have the public and the private sector represented as well. And that collaboration is also quite important to achieve the goals of Action Line C2. We also saw how AI-driven planning can unlock financing by giving governments data-backed infrastructure investment plans. And I think that CPP is a really good use case of that. We also talked about the need for clean, trusted and transparent data as a foundation for everything we’re trying to build. People come first, then it’s processes and governance, and then it’s technology. But I think this was a very interesting session, so I would like to thank each and one of you, Alexandra, Sandor, Renata and Joshua. Thank you for your presentations today. And thank you very much to all of you in the audience and to everyone who followed online. It’s been a pleasure, and if you want to connect after the session, it will be a pleasure to have a chat about this topic. So thanks again, and we’ll be in touch. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you.