Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on AI regulation and governance, particularly exploring the global impact of the European Union’s AI Act. Panelists from various backgrounds discussed the potential for the EU AI Act to become a de facto global standard, with mixed opinions on its likelihood. Key challenges for global AI standardization were identified, including scoping issues, achieving consensus, and translating fundamental rights into technical standards.

The role of civil society in AI governance was emphasized, with participants highlighting the importance of monitoring governments, advocacy, and facilitating dialogue. The discussion also addressed the unique challenges faced by developing nations in leveraging AI while upholding human rights. These challenges include digital divides, lack of quality data, and capacity issues in both technological implementation and policy-making.

Panelists explored the differences between internet and AI standardization, noting that AI was not built on standards from the outset like the internet was. The potential for big tech companies to resist EU regulations was discussed, with the EU’s stance being that responsible AI development is non-negotiable for market access.

The discussion concluded by addressing concerns about AI’s broad impact across various fields, including healthcare and neurotechnology. Participants stressed the need for ongoing monitoring, impact assessments, and civil society engagement to ensure responsible AI development and use. Overall, the session highlighted the complex challenges in creating effective global AI governance while balancing innovation, regulation, and human rights considerations.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The potential global impact of the EU AI Act and whether it will become a de facto global standard

– Challenges for international standardization of AI, including scoping, finding experts, and achieving consensus

– The role of civil society in AI governance and enforcement

– AI development and regulation in the Global South, including capacity building needs

– Balancing innovation and regulation/control of AI technologies

Overall purpose:

The purpose of this discussion was to explore AI regulation and policymaking from a global perspective, gathering views from different stakeholders on key issues related to AI governance, standardization, and implementation.

Tone:

The overall tone was informative and collaborative. Panelists shared their expert perspectives in a constructive manner, while also encouraging audience participation through polls and questions. The tone remained consistent throughout, with speakers building on each other’s points and addressing audience questions thoughtfully.

Speakers

– Auke Pals: KPMG

– Lisa Vermeer: Ministry of Economic Affairs in Netherlands, implements European AI Act in Netherlands

– Ananda Gautam: Open Internet Nepal

– Juliana Sakai: Executive director of Transparency Brazil

Additional speakers:

– Wouter Cobus: With the platform Internet Standards

– Karen (no surname available): No specific role/title mentioned

AI Regulation and Governance: A Global Perspective

This discussion explored the complex landscape of AI regulation and governance from a global perspective, bringing together experts from various backgrounds to address key issues in AI policymaking, standardisation, and implementation. The session included interactive voting elements and was constrained by time limitations.

EU AI Act and Its Global Impact

A central focus of the discussion was the potential global impact of the European Union’s AI Act. Lisa Vermeer, from the Ministry of Economic Affairs in the Netherlands, presented arguments both for and against the Act becoming a de facto global standard for AI governance. While the Act’s comprehensive approach could influence AI development worldwide, Vermeer noted that it might not be suitable for direct replication in other regions due to differing regulatory contexts.

Ananda Gautam, representing civil society from Nepal, highlighted the Act’s potential influence through extraterritorial jurisdiction, particularly on developing nations. This perspective underscored the far-reaching implications of EU regulations beyond its borders.

Auke Pals, from KPMG, raised concerns about potential resistance from big tech companies in complying with EU AI Act requirements. This point introduced the complex dynamics between regulators and industry players in shaping the future of AI governance.

Challenges in Global AI Standardisation

The discussion revealed significant challenges in achieving global AI standardisation. Pals pointed out issues such as fragmentation and overlap between different standardisation bodies, as well as the difficulty in balancing regulation, standardisation, and innovation. The rapidly evolving nature of AI technology was identified as a major obstacle to effective standardisation. A suggestion was made to learn from internet standardization processes in developing AI standards.

Gautam brought attention to the lack of capacity in developing nations to implement or create AI standards, highlighting a crucial gap in global AI governance. This perspective emphasised the need for inclusive approaches that consider the diverse contexts and capabilities of different nations.

Role of Civil Society in AI Governance

The importance of civil society in AI governance emerged as a key theme, with strong consensus among speakers. Juliana Sakai, from Transparency Brazil, shared insights from the Brazilian experience, highlighting how existing legal frameworks can be leveraged to challenge AI implementations. She emphasized the role of civil society in:

1. Monitoring government use of AI systems

2. Advocating for transparency and accountability in AI implementation

3. Facilitating dialogue between stakeholders on AI governance

Gautam added the importance of capacity building and raising awareness about AI impacts, particularly in developing nations. This multifaceted role of civil society was seen as essential for ensuring responsible AI development and use globally.

AI Challenges and Opportunities for Developing Nations

The discussion highlighted both challenges and opportunities for developing nations in the context of AI. Gautam elaborated on issues such as the digital divide, language barriers, and lack of quality data and technological capacity, which could hinder AI adoption and development. However, he also emphasised the potential to leverage AI in addressing development challenges, particularly in education and healthcare sectors.

The need for frameworks to ensure AI upholds human rights globally was stressed, with particular emphasis on accommodating the needs of developing nations in global AI governance structures. This perspective underscored the importance of inclusive approaches to AI regulation and development.

AI in Military Contexts

A significant point raised during the Q&A session was the potential use of AI in military contexts. The discussion touched on concerns about Gaza being used as a testing ground for AI in warfare. This highlighted the critical need for ethical considerations and international regulations regarding the use of AI in military and security domains.

Ethical Considerations and Societal Impact

The discussion also touched on deeper ethical considerations and the broader societal impact of AI. Concerns were raised about AI’s potential to replicate and amplify human biases, particularly in sensitive areas like healthcare. This broadened the conversation beyond regulatory frameworks to include the ethical implications of AI’s increasing role in society.

Conclusion

The discussion provided valuable insights into the current state of AI governance globally, highlighting the complex interplay between regulation, innovation, and ethical considerations. While many questions remain open-ended, the session underscored the need for ongoing dialogue, collaborative approaches, and flexible governance frameworks. These frameworks must be able to adapt to the rapidly evolving AI landscape while addressing fundamental concerns about fairness, transparency, and human rights across diverse global contexts.

Auke Pals: are joining this session. My name is Auka, Auka Pauls. I work for KPMG. We’re here today in the AI regulation unveiled session. What we’re trying to do in this session is exploring AI regulation. And also, we’re trying to interact with you as much as possible in this session so we can gather also your views on AI regulation and policymaking worldwide. I’m here not alone. I’m here, next to me is Lisa, Lisa Vermeer. Welcome. Liliana is joining us online. Welcome as well. And Ananda is here, also next to me in the room. Welcome all. Can I give you the floor, Lisa, to introduce yourself?

Lisa Vermeer: Yes, thank you so much. My name is Lisa Vermeer. I work at the Ministry of Economic Affairs in Netherlands. And one of my main jobs is to implement European AI Act in Netherlands. I need to add that to my introduction.

Ananda Gautam: Hello, everyone. My name is Ananda Gautam. I’m from Nepal. I work with Open Internet Nepal. And I belong to civil society community. I work in capacity building of young people and making internet more transparent, inclusive, and sustainable.

Auke Pals: Thank you. Liliana, can I give you the floor as well?

Juliana Sakai: Yes, sure. Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. So thank you so much. I am Juliana Sakai. I’m the executive director of Open Internet. of Transparency Brazil, which is an independent NGO devoting to promote more transparency and accountability under the Brazilian government. And this is also includes the government’s use of AI. So it has been monitoring and working on how the Brazilian government is deploying development and using AI and producing recommendations on this field. And parallelly, also monitoring how the AI regulation is being discussed and the Congress, right?

Auke Pals: Thank you. Thank you very much. So this is our panel for today, but we’re here today in the interactive session. So I would encourage you all to join and join the discussion once we’re there. But that’s first, I would like you to participate in the vote. So you can scan the QR code or go to kpngvote.nl and log in with the code IGF2024. So as a starter, we’d like to introduce to you the global impact of European AI regulations. And for this, I would like to give the floor to Lisa.

Lisa Vermeer: Thank you so much. Well, this policy question, I would like to start first with doing the poll online and then we can see what gets out of it. So let’s see if it works. So the question is, do you believe that the EU AIX will become the defunct? So global standard for AI governments, is it’s always claimed as it’s one of the first comprehensive AI laws in the world. There are many other laws, but the question is, will it become the global standard? So what do you think, say yes or no, or do you have actually no idea what AI is about? It’s also possible. We do have six votes in already. Don’t be afraid to just choose something. Although you might have a nuanced opinion. We’re looking at the room. I guess most of them voted right now. So let’s go to the results. Interesting, so everyone knows what the AI is. That’s a good thing to know. It’s 55% yes and 44% no. Well, slight preference for yes or no. I’m really looking forward to hearing more about your perspectives on how this would work. So for this session, I would like to share my thoughts about why it can be yes and why it can be no, and what is, in my perspective, a challenge for all of us. So if you look at the European AI Act, it’s product safety. So the idea is that all AI systems that enter the market in the EU, in the whole European Union, they are, you can assume that they are safe because the AI gets all the requirements together for risky AI, several types of risky AI, and if the AI system is in one of these categories, it has to meet certain requirements before it can be sold or before it can be used in the EU by the private sector, by the public sector, by basically everyone. So that means that for lots of AI systems, there will be requirements that make it actually safer. And then safety, you can look at it for, it’s… This, maybe you can move it out, what?

Auke Pals: You have to hold it closer.

Lisa Vermeer: Okay, thanks for the, yeah, perfect. This is better for the, I think for the audience. Thanks. So the safety of all AI systems will be improved, and that means that there are requirements for secure AI, for healthy AI, and for fundamental rights abiding AI. So the risks that may come with AI on these areas will be tackled by all AI systems before they enter the market, at least that’s the premise of the law. So that means that these systems, when they are made by European companies, big companies all across the world, if they are made for the European markets, they will be safe enough and meeting all the requirements, which may have, and is presumed to have the impact that lots of companies will build one type of AI systems to sell everywhere. Because of the EU’s requirements, they will build a system, for example, for the health sector to use in a hospital, and then they will meet the requirements for the AI, excel it in Europe, but then also other areas of the world will benefit from the fact that this AI is meeting the requirements, also when it’s sold in, for example. and both the hospital in Nepal or any other area in the world. So for a whole range of topics that is going to be the case. And that makes me expect that there’s some kind of, you can say, yes, because it will set the standards and then it will be the standard for lots of AI across the world. But there’s a whole area of risky areas in the AIX where it may be a bit difficult to say whether in the future the requirements for the AI will really be adopted. For example, if you look at critical infrastructure or of biometrics AI, they will be regulated, but there is, it’s pretty, we can expect that some companies will build multiple products. So they will make the safest products for you, but then also build other products that do not meet the same, for example, data safety requirements or other requirements. And then they sell it in the rest of the world. You see that happening a lot. And yeah, so it depends on the incentive for the company, whether they are going to make one product for the whole world or just one that is super secure for the EU. That’s why the yes is maybe a bit limited in the end. So I also say there is very much a case for no as an answer, because the EU is a very specific area in the world in terms of regulation. There’s already a lot of regulation has been adopted for the digital economy and for personal data, for example, with the GDPR and also the data act. And there’s really a very dense regulatory field which may not, it’s very different than the regulatory ecosystem in other areas of the world. For example, big areas like India or maybe Brazil, like Guyana, it’s very different. The legal context basically where the law can be adopted. And that’s why the AI design may not be suitable for other areas of the world to replicate. And also the product is making product regulation is a very old way of regulating the markets. There’s lots of product regulation in the EU, but it may not be the approach in other areas of the world why it’s not that easy to replicate. And then another challenge that I wanted to share with you is that the AIX enforcement promises to be really challenging because the AIX is very broad and it sets rules for different areas, a whole range of areas, basically touching the whole, all industries and all public areas and how do you effectively enforce a law? How do you make sure that the regulators, not policy and lawmakers like myself, but the regulators that are going to oversight, to do the oversight of the law, really are able to work with it and make sure that people and companies and organizations abide by the law. So already in the EU, this is a major challenge and it’s something that I’m really working on a lot and like wrapping my head around. And I think that is also the case in lots of other areas and worldwide, it may be quite difficult to have a law like the AI Act in other areas because how do you enforce a law which is so broad and that creates uncertainty. So yeah, I think I leave it at that.

Auke Pals: Thank you very much, Lisa. So I hope at this point, the EU AI Act could steer us in the right direction and hopefully could be adapted once we learn how to make use of it. But that’s also part of the market, I guess, and also a part of the standardization bodies that are involved in making standards for AI, which is also the bridge to the next policy question. But this policy question is about the actions for international standardization bodies. Currently, there are loads of standardization bodies trying to get involved in the AI standardization. But we also see some challenges for those global standardization bodies. And now again, a question for you all, what are the biggest challenges? for global standardization of AI. So I would like to encourage you to vote again, and the answers will be on the screen. I’ll give you some time to grab your phone or log in at the space page. So scoping indeed, so what do we consider AI? Find experts, achieve consensus, compatibility. Translate fundamental rights to technical standards. Finding common ground. Different views on the existence of human beings. AI staying or just the next blockchain hype, also interesting. Capacity of experts, local contacts, trust. Tough question. Universal concept understanding that AI replicates traits of the minds and persons integrate ethical and human rights standard language models. So we’ll move on to the next one. So really interesting. challenges and I really think those are all true to be honest and we are indeed maybe in the early stage of AI and AI standardization so currently a lot of standardization bodies are active in the field of trying to come up with standards ethical guidelines technical standards however what we also see is that those standards are quite fragmented all different kind of standardization bodies are trying to deal with with AI in their own certain way and currently we indeed see maybe it’s a I don’t think it’s a hype so I don’t believe in being at the next blockchain hype so as one of the participants you just mentioned however what I do see is that there is quite some overlap between standardization bodies and initiatives and trying to make a standard according to their best practices and that also comes to the to the second point I was trying to make and that’s the sector specific complexity so what we what we what I do see in my work is that some standards are being created are quite generic and those might be applicable for all kinds of AI use cases however some sectors do really want to get a more steering on how to how to make use of those standards so for instance in healthcare does require way different standards than the mobility industry for autonomous cars or the defense industry does also require different standards and they might even, yeah, not publicly shared. My third point is that there are really cultural and regulatory diversities. So Lisa just mentioned the EU AIX, which is applicable in the EU and for EU inhabitants. And that’s according to the EU way of thinking. And while we create ethical standards or ethical guidelines in one of the standardization bodies, that might really differ where those guidelines are created, which can contribute to a good debate, which we might be able to have in the future on a global scale as well. My fourth point is how can we balance this? So balancing between regulation, standardization and innovation. So it was mentioned in a different session that I attended today is how can we make also a balance between the regulation side of AI initiatives and innovation. So a small startup is not the first one to be looking at as industry standard, for instance. They will just create, according to their best practices and their way of working, which my regulation could hinder those initiatives. startups in being innovative. And my last point is the dynamic technology landscape. What we did see in regulation is when the EU AI Act was being developed, generative AI was not that big in the beginning, but later on in the final stages of the negotiation, it became quite big and there was an urge and a need to regulate that. That’s the same with standardization, all the standardization takes a lot of time and is actually at the end created on the basis of what works the best. And with a sector that’s being really innovative and we’re trying to take all the newest technologies available, this might be a challenge for standardization on global scale. And with this, I would like to conclude my introduction remarks and would like to give the floor to Juliana.

Juliana Sakai: Hi everyone, thank you. So we have like right now the policy question three with the theme enhancing enforcement through civil society. And I would like you to answer in your opinion, what is the most significant role civil society can play in AI governance? Please share with us your thoughts. Login, share your opinion. So it’s coming right now. Monitor the government. Don’t think in problems, think in solutions. Capacity building. Advocacy. Vote for parties that have good plans. Voice concerns. As user of public services, it’s important to have a vote with consultants, democratic control, reserve the potential impact of AI system, defending and protecting values and public interest, facilitating dialogue, participating in standardization process, monitor the government. So we are back again. Thank you for sharing so much. Make the minority heard, yeah. So I would like to, as a member of civil society, talk a little bit about the context we are now under the regulation of AI coming. But I would like to share, I would like to split two different contexts. So one is the context in which specific AI regulations are currently being implemented. implemented, like the EU, for example, or being directly affected, not like the US, like Liza mentioned. So the producers, the tech companies that are selling, so to say, AI systems to the European Union will have to comply with the EU legislation. And the other context is where it’s like Brazil, for example. We don’t really sell products to the EU, not massively, technologically. And so let’s say the global majority that is not being affected directly, at least, by the legislation, but might have experienced an indirect influence. But let’s begin where AI regulations are currently being implemented. So as a new legislation, the civil society, watching a new legislation being implemented, the civil society has a huge role in shaping its enforcement. So since identify what are the problems, where implementation is not working and why, and advocate for institutions to take measures. But in order to do all these assessments, understand what is working and why it’s not working, and then, at the end, present these problems to society and to the institutions, we have to have real transparency. So one thing is being able to assess information both. from the government and the companies to understand what is working and what is not working. And so once we secure a less of transparency, then we can, at the end, really do like the report analysis and so on and all the digital consumer. And the second environment, not as like I mentioned, where we don’t have a specific AI framework to more like sell products to the EU. And I want to share like a little bit of Brazilian experience and civil society experience so far on AI governance without having a specific framework for this. So I think that the first thing we have to think about is really to understand what is the legal framework, the current existing legal framework that can actually protect rights in the context of AI use. And in Brazil, for example, we have consumer’s rights and the general data protection. And both of them have been used even to avoid the abuse of some, the use of some tools, especially the facial recognition systems. And civil society from this point, can present like complaints to Brazilian institutions, where, for example, the IDEC, which is the Institute for Consumer Protection in Brazil, has filed administrative. and judicial procedures against the use of this tooth in different scenarios. And for example, when the San Paolo’s subway started she using it for marketing and advertising purposes and collecting information on the reaction of people watching it. And also in the clothing stores where they were also recording and capturing information of through facial recognition systems. And in both case, we have an absolute no consent of the consumer. So under this situation, the Institute for Consumers Protections won the case both in judicial and also in administrative sphere. And so that the Metro and this clothing store stopped using. So I think this is more or less just what I wanted to try to start the conversations and make sure that even in the context where we do not have a specific in a specific AI framework, we still have a lot to work on the governance of this AI systems. And just to close it, we are currently actually discussing as I mentioned in the Congress or AI bill and the risk approach framework is also being discussed there. So this is also where at the end of the day, civil society is also fighting for protecting its right on a more specific way on the. the dangers of AI systems.

Auke Pals: Thank you very much for your great info. And yeah, we really see the importance of civil society being active in this. So it’s great that you and your organization is being part of that. And before we move on, I’d like to look at the chat as well. Okay, we’ll do that after the next speaker. And then I’ll share my screen again. And then I’m giving the floor to Ananda.

Ananda Gautam: Thank you so much for describing the role of civil society. I think Juliana has started doing that. So I’ll be discussing from the Global South perspective, maybe how we have been starting the discussion saying, will EU AI Act be a de facto regulation for AI? And I think it is the most comprehensive legislation that is existing today. And another kind of thing is it’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, which means that it can regulate AI products and services that are outside of EU as well. So in the context of developing nations and on the context of human rights, so the basic fundamental of AI system that we talk is about the quality of the data and the bias of the data. So looking from that perspective, there are two things that need to be considered. you did. One is social thing, another is technological thing. So the fundamental data, quality of data is what makes or what trains the algorithm of the AI. So in the developing nations, we strive to get the, there are many challenges, you know, we are talking about AI governance, but there still exists digital divide and we are also talking about AI divide now. So there are still, in global South, if we see there are still more than 2 billion people who don’t have access to internet itself. And then like the data standards, quality, the collection of data, I think that is very challenging. And without the standard data, it is very challenging to make the AI models. It might create bias or like it might not be as efficient as it was seemed to be. Another is technological that in the developing nations, they lack the capacity to actually either implement it or like build the models. Or like if we talk about the policy legislations, they also lack the capacity to build their own legislations. And after the EU, many countries are trying to get their legislations, but they don’t do it correctly because they don’t have that capacity. So how do we develop their capacity is one thing. And another is like, we are talking about how it can be leveraged in developing nations. It is if used correctly, maybe we can use it to close the digital divide. Maybe we can use it to empower the population that does not have as equal digital literacy as a person living in New York or like somewhere in the EU region. whether digital literacy is no more a problem, or access to Internet is no more a problem, or access to technology is not a problem. When we come to developing nations, there are many other access as well. There’s a language barrier. AI models cannot work in the native languages still. If we want to train them, we don’t have enough data, and if they are trained using the publicly available data, there are other consequences of copyright and other things. This makes the development of AI a bit complex. But if the developed nation help those countries to build the capacity, maybe this developing nation can leverage the power of AI to actually complement the issues that we have been facing. To complement giving the access to technologies, making systems more accessible in terms of language or any other barriers that we have, we might be able to even complement it in having medical facilities in the rural areas, or enhancing the education system by implementing the AI system in the education. We can create virtual teachers who can interact with them, or personalized tutor can be implemented. There are many cases where AI could be leveraged in developing nations, but we have to be very mindful that these considerations are made that it is a global debate. How do we make AI system more responsible? That should be both societal and then technological. If there are already biases in the society, AI algorithm will definitely be biased. Until and unless the bias in the society is eliminated, I think, because it is based on the data that is available in the society, it is the data that we have created. So we have to be very mindful what we feed the AI system, that is very important. And if we do that from a, because there is one thing in the AI ecosystem that developing nation didn’t have, like during the 2000 dotcom boom, developing nation couldn’t leverage the power of internet like the developed nation could do that we are telling today. But AI is in a very premature phase. And if we could accommodate the needs of those developing nations and then leverage the AI, I think we can make them way more prosperous in terms of economy, in terms of other social benefits. I would like to stop here.

Auke Pals: I think we have to go for a discussion and then like, yes, we have support here. Thank you. The question is, does the AI give possibilities of leveraging AI in developing nations while upholding human rights? No, not by itself. Yes. I don’t think so. Human rights is not global. enforceable yes as a guide to develop local regulatory frameworks possibly on the contrary yes global organizations I think are being developed influenced being inspirational only to European companies operating elsewhere I’m not by itself is anyone in the panel wants to reject on the they’re rotating right

Ananda Gautam: I think there is something about global east and America’s will commit so my response would be it is like AI act itself cannot be leveraged to upholding the human rights because it will be more focused on what can be done and what can’t be done because legislations are always focused on do’s and don’ts of something but if we have rather policies that will accommodate the development of AI or how other nations are like the extraterritorial juridiction might also be how developed nation can help the developing nations to actually leverage this can be one of the options another is to uphold a human rights there are various frameworks UNESCO has one and then OECD is working on their second iteration. So those kind of frameworks would be one of the fundamental practices that could help on ensuring the human rights, not in only developing context, but in the global context.

Lisa Vermeer: Thank you. Yeah, it’s those questions. That’s good. Yeah, we plan to have like breakout discussions, but given the fact that it’s already quarter to six, we have until six o’clock and we thought, let’s just do plenary, take questions from the floor and then also from the online participants. Maybe first the question that was asked in the chat. It was about Gaza being a test ground for using AI, which I think is very urgent and has been quite shocking. Thanks, Lisa, to see that. So I’m taking the question from the chat about Gaza being the testing ground for several sorts of AI. It’s rather difficult to answer this question because there is a lot of nuance about it. So let me first say that the AI Act in the EU is, of course, an initiative to try to make AI more responsible and to avoid AI systems globally that really pose lots of risks to, for example, safety and fundamental rights of people. But the AI Act is not touching all AI systems. So the context of it is that there’s also a discussion about, for example, AI in the military domain and also military domain and defence and national security is excluded from the AI Act. But that does not mean that there’s no ongoing discussion about these areas. Even rather more so, there has been a long discussion already, especially on the international level, for example, about responsible use of AI in the digital, in a military domain, also initiated by the Netherlands, it’s called a Re-AIM trajectory. And you also have a long Geneva, mainly Geneva-based conversation about lethal autonomous weapons. Of course, that means that DASA was still, there was still a lot of AI was used there. And it’s, I’m afraid, that’s my personal opinion, I’m afraid that AI will be used for very bad purposes. But the discussion about how to tackle this, how to disincentivize this, how to make this impossible is really on the table, very straightforward. It’s being discussed between stakeholders, between governments and in UN bodies. So it gives some hope that is on the table and that there may be change. But that’s what we are, that’s where we are now.

Auke Pals: Thank you, Lisa, for answering the question from the chat, which is also a really urgent topic indeed. I would also like to ask a question to the audience, because in the audience I do see some people involved also in internet standards. And my question to the audience is, what can we learn in the creation of standards for AI from the internet standardization process? Can I give someone the floor from the audience?

AUDIENCE: Right. Yeah, I can say something about it. My name is Wouter Cobus, I’m with the platform Internet Standards. In my perspective, there’s quite a difference. where the internet itself was built on standards. And I think the standards really formed the internet as we know it right now. Whereas AI, although not my expertise, seems more to me as a technology is out there. And now we’re trying to introduce standards to, well, limit or to control AI in that sense. But it’s not really founded on standards like the internet was. So there is something to learn, but I think there’s, that’s a difference between AI and internet standards in that sense.

Auke Pals: Thank you, Wouter, for sharing your thoughts. What my reflection on that is that indeed AI is not built on standards, but indeed is now being regulated while the threats have been identified or have been more upfront. So now we’re trying to re-engineer the wheel for creating usable standards in certain domains. Is there any other reflection from the audience? Yeah, let’s move to the next slide.

AUDIENCE: I have a question. Connecting to a balancing innovation and control. So I think it’s for you, Elke. Do you think that there is a risk that big tech says no to the EU? And if so, what can be changed to balance our vision in the EU and the vision of big tech?

Auke Pals: Let me think about that. There is indeed a risk that big tech says no to EU and I do think that in not only in AI, but in also other topics, the EU is being challenged by big tech. So your question is what change to balance our vision in the EU beginning at big tech?

Lisa Vermeer: To be honest, I don’t think I have a clear answer on that. Maybe some of my other colleagues do have that. You see this happening because especially I think Meta is at the moment really ramping up against the AI Act and its consequences. For example, the AI Act is regulating large language models or general purpose AI models which comprise large language models with the goal of practice and most large companies from the US have signed up with the AI pact, an initiative from the European Commission to collaborate with companies to become compliant with the AI Act, but we now see that especially Meta but also other companies are replying to this code of practice on GPA models which are the large language models and some are more constructive and others are really saying we don’t want this because this is going to make it very hard for us. So I get this question a lot, especially during the negotiations of the AI Act, basically all countries were asked like how do you see the AI Act as a barrier to innovation? The idea is that the AI Act is not a barrier to the right kind of innovation and because it’s a risk-oriented approach, it means that a lot of AI falls outside of the scope, but to be honest, a lot of AI also falls within the scope, but then the argument is that the EU deliberately choose to have a we want responsible AI to develop and to innovate and to grow and to scale in the EU. And if large companies, for example, from the US, but also from other areas in the world, they are not responsible enough, i.e. not meeting our EU criteria. It’s the kind of AI that we don’t want. So it is a balance. But if the big tech says no to the EU, then the EU says no to the big tech. And it really means, do you want to have access to our market or not? And I think, you see, the upcoming coming of years will be interesting to see how it goes, because we have a new European Commission in Brussels, and they have quite some enforcement power also for the Digital Services Act, which is a large law impacting large platforms. And with the AI Act in almost a year, how will they play their cards? We first had Commissioner Thierry Pouton, who was really individual and forceful towards, for example, Elon Musk. Now you see that the new commissioner has a more conciliatory tone towards the ex-owner. So it really depends on how this, the law is there, but it depends on how it’s going to work out and how forceful the EU is going to stand and develop the fines, etc. But it’s still, it remains to be seen. Thank you for your question.

Auke Pals: Thank you, Lisa, for also answering the question. I saw the hand raised from Karen online. Karen, are you there? I can unmute you.

Karen: Yeah, I’m sorry. I was writing on my concern on the chat. So I think that the difference, for example, with internet is that AI is not limited to give information or grant information. The information that it gives is biased already. Another concern is that it also replicates and improves human traits. It also interprets data, for example, when it’s used on medical devices or neurotechnological devices. It will read this information, it will evaluate it, and then it will interpret this data, and then it will give feedback to this neurotechnology as well. I’m talking about, for example, these electroencephalography devices that will read, then it will interpret, and then it will send signs again to this neurotechnology to either activate or suppress some activity on the brain. It is not regulated from the design, the development, or use. It is not regulated how it will be transnationally moved. I think we have a lot of concerns. It’s a broader concern because it affects many dimensions, many fields. I do think that society does not fully understand the profound impact of using and interacting with AI. Thank you.

Auke Pals: Thank you very much, Karen. Yeah, Juliana, do you want to reply on that?

Juliana Sakai: Yeah, sure. Thank you for your comments. I think that we have been always following what are the technological development and advancements, so to say, and I think this is really the place where civil society plays a big role, like trying to explain what is going on, putting more information available, and and make it, and when I say putting more information, is also like breaking what are these consequences that you just mentioned, right, Karen? So for each kind of use in each field, we have to have like civil society monitoring how the results are going on and how the implementation are going on, how the test of each system is working. And I think that this is something that has to be parallel developed, sometimes with the help of the government. It has to, when we’re talking about a impact assessment, it has to be prior to a launch of a tube, and when it’s launched, civil society may have the information and the data to collect and to analyze what kind of impact and algorithmic bias, for example, some tool is provoking and how it might impact badly on the inequality. So I think that this is pretty much the field that we’ll have to work on for at the end of the day, the civil society, the population, the consumers, the users as a whole have more info on how we should protect ourselves, right? And for this, also the organized civil society and academia and journalists are there to spread the information and support all the advocacy work. And this is really important because at the end of the day, the institutions are accountable once also if the civil society is demanding. So there is a flux. and a kind of civil society demand and the institutions answering to this. So we have to press and demand that the institution takes the action, the real measures to protect and to implement the regulations that are being proposed.

Auke Pals: Thank you very much for your response. I’m getting the sign already that the session is nearly to its end. I would like to give the opportunity for someone to reflect or make any last comment if there is none. I would like to thank my panelists, Lisa, Ananda, Juliana, for being part of the session. I do also really think that much discussion can go on on this topic, but not within the 60 minutes that we’ve received today. With this, I would really encourage you to stay in touch with us through LinkedIn, add us if you need us or want to start a new discussion. With this, I would like to close the session. Thank you very much. Thank you, Juliana and Manon. Thank you. Bye-bye. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Yeah. It’s over. yeah yeah

Agreement Points

Global impact of EU AI Act

Lisa Vermeer

Ananda Gautam

Auke Pals

EU AI Act could become de facto global standard for AI governance

EU AI Act’s extraterritorial jurisdiction could influence AI products/services outside EU

Big tech companies may resist complying with EU AI Act requirements

The speakers agree that the EU AI Act has potential for global impact, whether through becoming a de facto standard, influencing products/services outside the EU, or causing resistance from big tech companies.

Challenges in global AI standardization

Ananda Gautam

Auke Pals

Lack of capacity in developing nations to implement or create AI standards

Fragmentation and overlap between different standardization bodies

Rapidly evolving AI technology landscape makes standardization difficult

Both speakers highlight various challenges in creating and implementing global AI standards, including capacity issues in developing nations, fragmentation among standardization bodies, and the rapidly evolving nature of AI technology.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of responsible AI use and governance, particularly in addressing development challenges and ensuring proper government use of AI systems.

Ananda Gautam

Juliana Sakai

Potential to leverage AI to address development challenges

Monitoring government use of AI systems

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of civil society in AI governance

Ananda Gautam

Juliana Sakai

Need for frameworks to ensure AI upholds human rights globally

Advocating for transparency and accountability in AI implementation

Facilitating dialogue between stakeholders on AI governance

While not unexpected, there was a strong consensus on the crucial role of civil society in AI governance, spanning from developing nations’ perspective to more general global governance issues.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the global impact of the EU AI Act, challenges in global AI standardization, the potential of AI to address development challenges, and the importance of civil society in AI governance.

Consensus level

There is a moderate level of consensus among the speakers, particularly on the challenges and potential impacts of AI governance. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the complex issues surrounding AI regulation and standardization, which could facilitate more coordinated efforts in addressing these challenges globally.

Different Viewpoints

Global impact of EU AI Act

Lisa Vermeer

Ananda Gautam

EU AI Act could become de facto global standard for AI governance

EU AI Act may not be suitable for replication in other regions due to different regulatory contexts

EU AI Act’s extraterritorial jurisdiction could influence AI products/services outside EU

Lisa Vermeer presents both arguments for and against the EU AI Act becoming a global standard, while Ananda Gautam focuses more on its potential influence through extraterritorial jurisdiction, particularly on developing nations.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the global impact of the EU AI Act, the challenges in implementing global AI standards, and the role of developing nations in AI governance.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there are differing perspectives on certain issues, there is also a significant amount of agreement on the challenges and complexities of global AI governance. This level of disagreement is constructive for the topic at hand, as it highlights the multifaceted nature of AI regulation and the need for diverse perspectives in shaping global AI policies.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the challenges of implementing global AI standards, but they focus on different aspects: Lisa on regulatory contexts, Ananda on capacity issues in developing nations, and Auke on balancing regulation with innovation.

Lisa Vermeer

Ananda Gautam

Auke Pals

EU AI Act may not be suitable for replication in other regions due to different regulatory contexts

Lack of capacity in developing nations to implement or create AI standards

Balancing regulation, standardization and innovation

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of responsible AI use and governance, particularly in addressing development challenges and ensuring proper government use of AI systems.

Ananda Gautam

Juliana Sakai

Potential to leverage AI to address development challenges

Monitoring government use of AI systems

Key Takeaways

The EU AI Act could potentially become a de facto global standard for AI governance, but may not be suitable for direct replication in other regions

Global AI standardization faces challenges like fragmentation between bodies, balancing regulation and innovation, and rapidly evolving technology

Civil society plays important roles in AI governance including monitoring, advocacy, capacity building, and facilitating dialogue

Developing nations face challenges in AI adoption but also opportunities to leverage AI for development if their needs are accommodated in global governance frameworks

Resolutions and Action Items

None identified

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively enforce broad AI regulations like the EU AI Act

How to balance innovation and control in AI governance, especially with resistance from big tech companies

How to address the lack of quality data and technological capacity for AI in developing nations

How to ensure AI systems uphold human rights globally, especially in military/security domains

Suggested Compromises

Developing AI governance frameworks that can serve as guides for local regulatory frameworks rather than direct replication of EU AI Act

Balancing strict requirements for high-risk AI applications with more flexibility for low-risk innovations

Collaboration between developed and developing nations to build AI capacity while addressing local needs and contexts

The EU AIX enforcement promises to be really challenging because the AIX is very broad and it sets rules for different areas, a whole range of areas, basically touching the whole, all industries and all public areas and how do you effectively enforce a law?

speaker

Lisa Vermeer

reason

This comment highlights a critical challenge in implementing AI regulation on a broad scale, raising important questions about practical enforcement.

impact

It shifted the discussion from theoretical benefits of EU AI regulation to practical challenges of implementation and enforcement across diverse sectors.

What we did see in regulation is when the EU AI Act was being developed, generative AI was not that big in the beginning, but later on in the final stages of the negotiation, it became quite big and there was an urge and a need to regulate that.

speaker

Auke Pals

reason

This observation underscores the rapid pace of AI development and the challenge of creating regulations that can keep up with emerging technologies.

impact

It introduced the idea of the dynamic nature of AI technology and the need for flexible, adaptable regulation approaches.

In the context of developing nations and on the context of human rights, so the basic fundamental of AI system that we talk is about the quality of the data and the bias of the data.

speaker

Ananda Gautam

reason

This comment brings attention to the often overlooked challenges faced by developing nations in AI development and regulation, particularly regarding data quality and bias.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include global perspectives and highlighted the potential for AI to exacerbate existing inequalities.

AI is not limited to give information or grant information. The information that it gives is biased already. Another concern is that it also replicates and improves human traits. It also interprets data, for example, when it’s used on medical devices or neurotechnological devices.

speaker

Karen

reason

This comment raises complex ethical and practical concerns about AI’s ability to interpret and influence human behavior, particularly in sensitive areas like healthcare.

impact

It deepened the conversation by introducing more nuanced concerns about AI’s societal impact beyond just information provision, touching on issues of autonomy and medical ethics.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from initial focus on EU regulation to encompass global perspectives, practical implementation challenges, and deeper ethical considerations. They highlighted the complexity of AI governance, emphasizing the need for flexible, culturally sensitive approaches that can adapt to rapidly evolving technology while addressing fundamental issues of data quality, bias, and human rights.

How can we effectively enforce broad AI regulations like the EU AI Act?

speaker

Lisa Vermeer

explanation

This is a major challenge for regulators and policymakers, as the broad scope of the AI Act makes oversight and enforcement complex.

How can we balance AI regulation, standardization, and innovation, particularly for small startups?

speaker

Auke Pals

explanation

There’s a need to find ways to regulate AI without hindering innovation, especially for smaller companies with limited resources.

How can developing nations build capacity to implement or create their own AI regulations?

speaker

Ananda Gautam

explanation

Many developing countries lack the technical and policy expertise to effectively regulate AI, which could lead to implementation challenges or inadequate protections.

How can AI be leveraged in developing nations to address issues like digital divide, language barriers, and access to education and healthcare?

speaker

Ananda Gautam

explanation

There’s potential for AI to help solve development challenges, but this requires careful consideration of local contexts and needs.

How can we ensure AI systems are trained on unbiased, high-quality data, particularly in developing nations?

speaker

Ananda Gautam

explanation

The quality and representativeness of training data is crucial for creating fair and effective AI systems, but this is particularly challenging in contexts with limited data infrastructure.

How can the international community address the use of AI in military contexts, given that this is often excluded from civilian AI regulations?

speaker

Lisa Vermeer

explanation

The use of AI in military applications raises significant ethical and security concerns that aren’t addressed by regulations like the EU AI Act.

How will the relationship between big tech companies and EU regulators evolve with the implementation of the AI Act?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

There’s tension between tech companies’ desire for innovation and the EU’s regulatory approach, which could impact the development and deployment of AI technologies.

Summary

This workshop focused on the concept of a greener Internet and the roles of various stakeholders in promoting sustainability in digital infrastructure. The discussion began with an introduction to the energy costs associated with Internet usage and the need for more efficient practices. Participants from academia, industry, and civil society shared their perspectives on three main policy questions.

The first question addressed the duties of stakeholders in creating a greener Internet. Speakers emphasized the importance of collaboration, energy-efficient practices, government regulations, and user awareness. The second question explored how sustainability efforts affect access for new users. Participants noted both positive and negative impacts, highlighting the potential for lower operational costs but also the challenges of initial investments in sustainable technologies.

The third question focused on spreading awareness and adoption of green standards. Speakers suggested strategies such as education campaigns, incentive programs, community involvement, and partnerships between stakeholders. Throughout the discussion, common themes emerged, including the need for collaboration, the importance of balancing sustainability with affordability, and the role of government policies in driving change.

The workshop also touched on specific issues such as the challenges faced by underserved communities, the potential of IPv6 in reducing energy consumption, and the need for a holistic approach to sustainability in the digital ecosystem. Participants agreed that while progress towards a greener Internet presents challenges, it is essential for the long-term sustainability of digital infrastructure and addressing climate change.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The duties and roles of different stakeholders (ISPs, governments, academia, end users) in creating a greener internet

– Challenges in implementing sustainable internet infrastructure, especially in developing regions

– How sustainability efforts impact access for new users, including potential positive and negative effects

– Ways to spread awareness and adoption of green standards for internet infrastructure

The overall purpose of the discussion was to raise awareness about the need for more sustainable internet infrastructure and practices, gather perspectives from different stakeholders, and encourage collaboration to promote “greener” internet development.

The tone of the discussion was generally constructive and solution-oriented. Speakers approached the topic seriously but with optimism about potential for positive change. There was an emphasis on the need for collaboration between different stakeholders. The tone became slightly rushed towards the end as the moderator tried to fit in all the planned questions within the time constraints.

Speakers

– Lucas Jorge da Silva: Moderator

– Nathalia Sautchuk Patricio: PhD candidate and researcher, assistant at Karsua University of Applied Sciences in Germany

– Jeffrey Llanto: Pioneer in the Philippine IT industry, instrumental in the country’s first internet connection in 1994, co-founder of CVISnet

– Tiago Jun Nakamura: Project analyst at NIC.br, organizer

– Eunice Perez Coello: Technical collaborator and network administration at Coprel Telecom, specializing in high-performance network design with a master’s in applied computing

– Pedro Camara: ISP specialist

Additional speakers:

– Eduardo Barasal Morales: Coordinator of training at NIC.br, moderator

– Natalia de Souza Rufino: Member of the Youth Brazil Program, reporter

– Jimson Olufuye: Consultant on data center digitalization, from Africa City Alliance, Abuja, Nigeria

Expanded Summary: Workshop on Creating a Greener Internet

Introduction:

This workshop explored the concept of a greener Internet and the roles of various stakeholders in promoting sustainability in digital infrastructure. The discussion brought together experts from academia, industry, and civil society to address three main policy questions, sharing diverse perspectives on the challenges and opportunities in creating a more sustainable digital ecosystem.

Key Participants:

– Nathalia Sautchuk Patricio: PhD candidate and researcher in Internet Governance

– Eunice Perez Coello: Technical collaborator specializing in high-performance network design

– Jeffrey Llanto: Pioneer in the Philippine IT industry and advocate for community empowerment

– Pedro Camara: ISP specialist with expertise in network infrastructure

– Lucas Jorge da Silva: Speaker and organizer

Policy Questions Addressed:

1. What are the duties of different stakeholders in creating a greener Internet?

2. How do sustainability efforts impact access for new users?

3. How can we spread awareness and adoption of green standards in Internet infrastructure?

Key Discussion Points:

1. Duties of Stakeholders in Creating a Greener Internet:

Nathalia Sautchuk Patricio emphasized the importance of collaboration across sectors and highlighted the role of governments in creating policies and providing incentives for sustainable practices. Eunice Perez Coello stressed that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must adopt energy-efficient practices. Jeffrey Llanto underscored the need to understand real-world impacts on vulnerable communities, citing examples of climate change effects in the Philippines. Pedro Camara echoed the importance of coordinated efforts among stakeholders to reduce environmental impact.

2. Impact of Sustainability Efforts on Access for New Users:

Nathalia Sautchuk Patricio emphasized the need to balance sustainability with affordability. Jeffrey Llanto stressed the importance of empowering local communities, particularly in underserved areas, providing examples of how internet access has improved lives in remote Philippine villages. Pedro Camara noted that while initial costs may hinder access, there are long-term benefits to sustainable practices. He suggested that optimization and energy-efficient infrastructure could potentially lower operational costs for ISPs, making Internet access more affordable. Eunice Perez Coello pointed out the resource disparities in underserved areas, highlighting the challenges in implementing sustainable solutions in regions lacking basic infrastructure, particularly in Latin America.

3. Spreading Awareness and Adoption of Green Standards:

Eunice Perez Coello emphasized the importance of education and public campaigns. Nathalia Sautchuk Patricio suggested government incentives and certifications as potential drivers for adoption. Jeffrey Llanto highlighted the crucial role of community involvement and ownership in sustainable Internet projects. Pedro Camara advocated for collaboration between stakeholders to amplify efforts in promoting green standards. Lucas Jorge da Silva mentioned the Green Work Group within the IETF as an example of ongoing efforts to promote sustainability in internet infrastructure.

Challenges and Considerations:

Throughout the discussion, several challenges were identified in implementing sustainable Internet infrastructure:

1. Initial costs and affordability, particularly for smaller providers and underserved communities

2. Lack of global consensus on green Internet standards

3. Disparities between regions and communities in terms of resources and existing infrastructure

4. Balancing sustainability efforts with performance and expansion of Internet access, especially in developing regions

patri5. Implementing sustainable solutions in areas lacking basic infrastructure, as highlighted by Eunice Perez Coello’s comments on Latin America

Audience Engagement:

The workshop utilized a quiz platform to gather audience input on key questions, enhancing participant engagement. Time constraints limited the full exploration of audience comments, but some participants shared their perspectives on the challenges and opportunities in creating a greener Internet.

Key Takeaways and Future Directions:

1. Collaboration across different stakeholder groups is crucial for developing a greener Internet.

2. There is a need to balance sustainability efforts with ensuring affordable access, especially in developing regions.

3. Education, awareness campaigns, and incentives are important for promoting green practices.

4. Community involvement and empowerment are key, particularly for underserved areas.

5. Regulatory approaches and standards can help drive adoption of green practices.

Unresolved issues include overcoming the initial high costs of transitioning to greener technologies, especially for smaller providers and underserved communities, and achieving a global consensus on green Internet standards.

The workshop concluded with closing remarks by Thiago Jun Nakamura, who summarized the key points and emphasized the importance of continuing the discussion on creating a greener Internet.

In summary, the workshop provided a comprehensive exploration of the challenges and opportunities in creating a greener Internet, emphasizing the need for collaborative, nuanced approaches that consider the diverse needs of different communities and stakeholders.

Lucas Jorge da Silva: a technical collaborator and network administration at the Coprel Telecom, specializing in high-performance network design with a master’s in applied computing. And we have two representatives of civil society, Ms. Natalia Soutchouk-Patricio, a PhD candidate and researcher, assistant at Karsua, I think it’s pronounced that, University of Applied Sciences in Germany. Germany is difficult to spell. And we have Jeffrey Lento, a pioneer in the Philippine IT industry, instrumental in the country’s first internet connection in 1994, and co-founder of CVISnet. As we can see, we have brought together a specialist from various fields, ensuring diversity, and arranging the workshop with different perspectives. Secondly, I’d like to thank you, my boss, Eduardo Barraza Morales. He is one of the moderators, and he’s the coordinator of training at NIC.br. And one of our organizers, Thiago Jun Nakamura, project analyst at NIC.br, and my work colleague. And last but not least, our reporter, Natalia de Souza Rufino, member of the Youth Brazil Program. Okay, now I’d like to share some slides. Let me share my screen. Let’s see. Okay. Everyone can see the slides? All right. So here are the people who I was talking to. And for the beginning, I’d like to introduce our agenda. The first part will be a brief introduction to set the context for our topic. Then we’ll use a quiz platform to encourage activity participation from the audience. I’d like to thank all of you who are here with me on site. And we use the quiz, and you ask a question, and the people from here and online, you answer with only one word. And this word will guide the discussion and help us identify the most relevant points for the audience. After gathering this answer, our speakers will comment on the policy question. We have three policy questions, and based on their experience and opinion, they will talk about our workshop. We will hold three rounds of this discussion, and finally, we have an open mic session where the audience can ask questions or share comments about the workshop. Here we have the policy questions. The first one, what are the duties of the stakeholders for a greener Internet? Two, how does sustainability affect access for new users? And three, how can we spread our readiness in adoption of green standards? Well, I will do my introduction very quickly, and I’d like to begin with a question. How many aspects of your lives don’t involve the Internet? So we see the Internet has become an intricate part of our lives, but this comes with a significant energy cost to operate. And while the term cloud is often used like a magical word, we know that cloud means Internet, and Internet relies on massive data centres that consume a lot of energy, and sometimes using non-renewable sources for this. A significant part of the Internet, a part of humanity, still lacks the Internet access, and we see that in the open session that one-third of the humanity remains offline. So we need to expand that, and if today the Internet consumes a lot of energy, if we continue to expand the Internet, we will use more resources than we have. So, for this problem, there’s a concept of green networks that minimise the environmental impact of Internet infrastructure while optimising the resources, the use of these resources that we talk about. The goal is to do more with less, using fewer resources without the effective functionality of the Internet, so use less resources and still have the Internet, still have the performance of the Internet, like use the renewable energy in data centres, efficient manufacturing of network components, development of energy-efficient protocols, and the dynamic resource scale. One good initiative that we saw in the last weeks was the Green Work Group, the Gathering for Energy-Efficient Network. It’s a work group within the ITF, the Internet Engineering Task Force, and this group focuses on improving energy-efficient network technologies, creating frameworks, metrics, creating new protocols, or updating new protocols, old protocols, to optimise the energy used in networks. This last meeting of ITF happened last month in Dublin, Ireland, and the discussion was recorded, so you can access the link in the YouTube and watch the session. I think they have like two hours of length, but that is an important initiative from the ITF. So, what is the role of the stakeholders playing in this scenario? Collaboration, I think, is the word key for this, so we can address the critical issues, like what is the problem, and how we can solve this problem. So, it’s crucial that different stakeholders work together to drive this change. That is the main objective of today’s workshop, because we invited some different people to talk about this problem, and some results, or maybe solutions to this problem. So the stakeholders can take like adopted green practices, innovating protocols, and hardware, and balance the sustainability with the performance and expansion. Well, what is the goal of the workshop? While we understand that one hour is not enough to solve all this problem, we want to raise the awareness about this topic, which may be new to some people, and aim to encourage the collaboration, gather new options from different test sectors on the internet, and ultimately promote actions or create new initiatives from here in the IGF from React. So, for that, we like you online or on-site to share your ideas and solutions, and collaborate to build a green internet. So, this is a very quick introduction, and now we use a quiz platform to get some ideas, and after that, you pass the floor for our speakers. So, let me share the quiz platform. Okay. All right. So, I think that everyone can join the quiz. Please enter in your web browser, joinmyquiz.com, and put the pin, it’s 410266. And you have three questions, and we ask for you to respond, reply, with only one word, and we can make a beautiful word cloud. So, everyone on site and online can join the quiz. We have Eduardo Barraza-Morales, join the quiz. So, we have 15 participants. I don’t know how many we have on Zoom. So, I think it’s 15. The number. The camera. All right. So, I will start the quiz. Let’s start the first question. The audience will have one minute to answer, so think well. The first question, in one word, what do you consider essential for moving toward a greener Internet? We have a great collaboration, sustainability, agreement, money, money is important. Will is an important thing. Just one word. Power management is two words. Global warming, energy efficiency. Seven seconds. All right. Time’s up. We have a lot of great ideas, but remember, only one word. I see two words together. I see it’s centric, but all right. And now I like to start with the first policy question, and the speakers can use these words and this question as a base to the presentation. Let me share again the PDF. All right. Here is the first policy question, and I will start in the alphabetical order. So, I like to invite Eunice Perez to talk about this first policy question. What are the duties of stakeholders for a greener Internet?

Eunice Pérez Coello: Thank you. Hello, everyone. I would like to thank you for the invitation, the first time I participate in this great forum, and I’m excited to talk about this very important topic, making the Internet greener and more sustainable in my role as an academic. I think it’s an Internet collaborative ecosystem. Each stakeholder has a unique vehicle pool. Internet service providers and such companions need to adopt energy efficient practice. Governments must enforce eco-friendly regulations. Businesses are expected to align with sustainability standards and end users can reduce their digital burden. Academia connects these efforts that are leading in innovation and education. For example, in the University of the London, I’m doing research of the U.S. reserve installed on Raspberry Pi, where I analyze the energy consumption. Universities integrating sustainable into engineers’ curricula, equipment, future leaders with the skills to address environment challenge. Academia also facilitated the partnership, translating human age research into a collective solution. Together, I think these efforts ensure we progress forward toward a greener Internet.

Lucas Jorge da Silva: All right. Thank you, and it’s a great pleasure to be here with you and for accepting working in our workshop. So, I’d like to invite Mr. Jeffrey Lentol to talk about this first best question. What are the duties of stakeholders for a greener Internet?

Jeffrey Llanto: Good evening, everybody. And from us here in the Philippines right now, it’s really raining very hard, and I think it’s a fact of the global warming. So, anyway, what are the duties of stakeholders for a greener Internet? First, my role here is that I’m more on connecting the community. I have projects that I’ve submitted to NOCAS together with APNIC that I go directly to the communities and real-time scenario on what is happening at the grassroots level. So, we are talking about communities that doesn’t have Internet connection. It doesn’t even have electricity. Much worse, they don’t even have water. So, these are the areas we call them as the GIDA or GIDA, the Geographically Isolated and Disadvantaged Areas. And these areas are very vulnerable, especially during disaster and climate change. So, we’re talking about greener Internet. We need to go first, who are the people who are really affected by climate change. So, there is one area that we’re working with USAID that this school submerged. It’s part of another island in the Philippines. It submerged every high tide. So, we provided them with a satellite Internet. Then I noticed that during high tide, the sea level will go inside the classroom. So, it’s very funny because it’s elevated. The schools, the chairs are being elevated. So, the students are up to there. So, again, duties of stakeholders for me for a greener Internet is first, we need to look at real scenarios. What are happening? What is happening to the real world right now? So, as I mentioned today, that there’s a typhoon incoming to the Philippines. And it’s very unlikely. Just to give you an idea, we named typhoons by alphabets, letter A to letter Z for each year. We ran out of alphabet. That’s why we go back to letter A. So, it’s more than 24 typhoons that we encountered. So, again, greener Internet really needs to know more, especially, in my opinion, especially the forest degradation is very important. And it’s really affecting us here in the islands. So, for me, again, stakeholders, you must know. what is happening on the Al-Sinai. Thank you very much, Lucas.

Lucas Jorge da Silva: Thank you, Geoffrey. It’s important to remember the effect in the global warming and people who are directly affected because of that. Alright? So, I’d like to invite Miss Natalia Sauciuk. Hello, Natalia. Can you hear us? Yes. Hello. Thank you for participating in our workshop. And I’d like to ask you what are the duties of stakeholders for the greener Internet?

Nathalia Sautchuk Patricio: Okay. Thanks for the invitation to participate in this important workshop. Directly, greetings for KAUSHUA in Germany. I can let you know how to spell the name. I tried. I tried. No problem. No problem. This is very common. But anyways, in your quiz I put the wheel. The word wheel because I think everything starts with the wheel. The stakeholders need to have this common goal to go in the direction of a greener Internet. But there is, of course, every stakeholder has their own contributions to this. For example, when we think about network providers, we imagine that they need to implement this in the first way. Like to have really very practical stuff. It’s like to have hardware that is energy efficient and also try to change the way that they use energy like to more renewable energy and think about sustainable operations. This, of course, has some costs especially when you are thinking that nowadays we are not using most of the equipment that we have already in operation. Some of them are not energy efficient. So to move forward in this direction to be more efficient we have some costs. In this way, the duty for example for governments is to help in some way like creating policies in this matter. Like to help or provide some kind of motivation or incentives to move in this direction. The direction to use better solutions in terms of energy. So maybe governments will need to invest and help companies also to move in this direction because it’s not possible to imagine especially in some countries that we know like is the case of Brazil that has a lot of small network providers if they will not have sufficient budget to invest on that in this moment. Or like our friend told us about communities. Those communities also will need some help from governments and investments in this direction. They cannot afford this alone. And how as end users or consumers we can also think about our duty on that. It’s also like trying to manage our usage on internet because we know that when we use more things when it’s not necessary of course we are using resources and this is not about saying that people will not use internet anymore but maybe be a little bit more aware what is the impact of this use in the sustainability of the world as well as we imagine about water for example when we don’t waste water because we know that this is a resource that impacts our life and by the way although internet is not a resource as a water this impacts also in other kinds of resources like water or something like that. This is something that we have to increase the awareness in the users for that. This is some of the things that I would like to point out but there is much more that we could think about the duties of stakeholders in this matter.

Lucas Jorge da Silva: Thank you Natalia and it’s funny that you mentioned the ISPs Internet Service Providers because the next person the next speaker is Pedro Câmara and he is a ISP specialist so Pedro, as a professional in the ISP area what are the duties of the stakeholders for the greener internet?

Pedro Camara: The duties of stakeholders for greener internet involve coordination efforts to reduce environmental impact across the industry ISPs must prioritize energy efficient operations by data centers adopting greener hardware and implementing sustainable practices like equipment recycling and renewable energy adaptation. Governments and regulators play a key role by enacting policies that promote sustainability, providing incentives for using renewable energy and setting backmarks for energy efficiency. Equipment manufacturers need to design eco-friendly hardware with lower energy consumption longer lifespan and recyclable materials. Meanwhile, businesses and consumers should adopt sustainable usage habits so as to reduce unnecessary traffic and responsibly recycle devices. Collaboration across all these groups is essential to build a greener more sustainable internet.

Lucas Jorge da Silva: Thank you, Pedro. Let’s get the next question in our word cloud. Let me go out from the zoom and share the quiz. What is the quiz? Ah, here. Next question. Remember? One word. In your opinion, what is the biggest challenge for sustainable internet infrastructure? Thank you. Talking about the duties of stakeholder. Now, what is the biggest challenge to sustainable internet infrastructure? Once again, we have money, fuel, disparity, costs, infrastructure, disparity, costs, regulation, relevance. Oh, now it’s much better with only one word. 10 seconds. Three, two, one. We have a lot of interesting words. like policies, regulation, government, disparity, obsolescence is important, money, costs, food, power, energy, scale, standards, and relevance. So now I will do the inverted order, I will start with Pedro. So let’s get the next policy question, let me share. The next policy question is how do sustainability efforts affect access for new users? As Pedro is an ESP, so what do you want, what do you think about that? How does it affect the new users, like new users in your ESP, how does it affect it?

Pedro Camara: Okay, sustainability efforts can positively and negatively impact access for new users, depending on how they are implemented. On one hand, optimization, energy usage, and infrastructure can lower operation cost for ESPs, potentially reducing service costs and making internet access more affordable. Efforts to extend the lifecycle of devices through recycle can also create more affordable options for users in underserved areas. However, there can be challenges, such as initial cost of transition to greater technology, which might lead to higher prices or slower expansion into a new region. To ensure sustainability doesn’t hinder access, stakeholders must balance green initiativity with affordability, priority scalable solution, and promotion partnership that expands sustainable connectivity to under-connected areas.

Lucas Jorge da Silva: Thank you, Pedro. One important thing that I want to highlight is the use of IPv6, and IPv6 wasn’t designed to sustainability, but when we use IPv6 and reduce the use of CGNet, for example, in an internet service provider, the cost and consumption of energy is lower, so you are saving money and saving the use of energy. So the main idea of IPv6 is not to be a green protocol, but with the use, the consequence is less use of energy, and this is good for the environment. So now I’d like to ask Natalia, with your years of experience, what are your thoughts about how do sustainability efforts affect access for new users?

Nathalia Sautchuk Patricio: Okay, first of all, I would agree very much with what Pedro was telling about the positive and negative aspects, I think he put very well, that we have a kind of trade-off between sustainability and the affordability of the internet infrastructure, especially when we are talking about developing countries, such as in the South Global, like Brazil and Africa and other countries like that, because in the beginning, implementing those new devices with sustainable or energy-efficient devices would raise the costs, because we have to change whatever we are using now for these new devices, and this will cost money, for sure, and this will come from, needs to come from somewhere, yeah, and this is something that is a kind of a difficult trade-off, because we know that in the long term, these costs will be paid by having less consumption of energy, and also to affect less the world in general, but in the beginning, it’s very difficult, because we have to change this, and you know that this is something that a lot of companies, and especially the smallest ones will be very much impacted by that, because they don’t have so much money in hand to invest on that, or such as also communities that they are doing like their own networks for communities, and they don’t have this money so easily to do this, and nowadays, yet, these kind of devices are kind of not so much available everywhere, so we can see, for example, in Europe, they have scales of energy efficiency for various devices, and people try or tend to buy the ones more efficient, but until you change the whole ecosystem, this will take a very long time for that, so, but to summarize the influence, I think it’s that in the long term, it’s good for the whole society, because we need a more sustainable world, it’s like about surviving in this world, but the negative aspect is that maybe would increase the barriers to these new users, especially in low-income regions, so that’s my view about that.

Lucas Jorge da Silva: Thank you, Natalia, and I’d like to move on Jeffrey, and considering the project that you work, and you mentioned earlier, I believe you have some very fascinating opinions about the access for new users, so Jeffrey, how do sustainability efforts affect the access for these new users?

Jeffrey Llanto: Yes, Lucas, this is very appropriate right now, one word that I can answer on policy question number two, it’s empowerment. Empowerment is very important to the communities, first and foremost, nothing bad against the ISPs, they will never set up an infrastructure where there’s no return of investment, right, so we have some eight pilot areas right now working with the Philippine government and a group called Unconnected.org that provides a satellite connection to underserved areas, as I mentioned that even though there’s a project that we call as ILET, just like a small island, it’s the Internet for Sustainable Livelihood Education and Tourism, so it’s an empowerment of the communities that they will be able first to operate, sustain, and generate funds from the communities, so technology is given that there’s technology, and again, how do you sustain the Internet connection on the community level, so we’re talking about residents who really doesn’t have the smartphones, they don’t have the laptop, let me give you an example on an island with a population of about 1,200 people, it’s a small island, they don’t have water, they don’t have electricity, when we provided them with the first Internet connection, a broadband connection on their island, we never expected that the people were so happy, when there was already Internet connection, it pampers different opportunities, a month later, we noticed that there was already a coin-operated internet in which the residents will put coins for how many minutes of internet connection. So innovation, again, it developed into some kind of fruit bearing. Then all of a sudden, one of the communities and the house, he bought a smartphone, I mean a smart TV, then he operated a community-based movie theater, then they subscribed to Netflix. So those are the things that really need to be focused, especially for countries like the Philippines. The Philippines, if you take note, it is one of the most expensive internet connections around the world and also the slowest. It’s because there’s only two big telecommunications can run internet. And again, it’s very timely, as I mentioned to you, Lucas, because tomorrow the CNET already have a new bill to cut off this kind of monopoly or duopoly that we call it. So tomorrow there’s a CNET and we are also one of the strong promoter that this bill will be passed so that other players, just like Cbusiness Foundation that I started way back in 1994, we used to be an internet service provider. But when business comes in, it becomes like a, they call it a duopoly, only the giant telecoms are running it. I’m not saying it’s bad, but it never really trickles down to the community. For the past 30 years, from the start of the internet in the Philippines, I was there, I was teaching people how to use the internet. Until now, 30 years later, I’m still doing that and working to unconnected islands. So it’s really my passion. So again, going back to policy question, it’s really empowerment. You need to put the people in charge so that they can operate it by themselves. So thank you.

Lucas Jorge da Silva: Thank you very much, Jeffrey. And the last one, Eunice, what is your perspective to how the sustainability efforts affect access for new users?

Eunice Pérez Coello: I want to start to say I agree with my colleagues. Moving towards a sustainability, sustainable internet infrastructure is not without challenge. First, there’s the issues of resource disparities, particularly in regions like Latin America, where the rural and underserved communities struggle to access basic connectivity, let alone eco-friendly solutions. I think another is the lack of the global consensus of green internet standards. It could create fragmentation and delay in progress and limit knowledge and expertise in implementing sustainable technologies for complicating this effort. This challenge directly influences access. Sustainable infrastructure can be costly, potentially delaying the connection of new users and widening the digital divide. I think in the academy, we must step up and not just with innovative research, but also through direct engagement with affected communities by maybe conducting regional studies and involving local voices. We can ensure solutions and could be inclusive and effective. Moving is complex, talking about moving towards sustainability in Latin America. For the diverse geographic make, it’s hard to ensure eco-friendly connectivity everywhere. Academia can help, I think, by designing a cost-effective solution and involve communities in decision-making. Maybe I could say an example. A partnership between universities, observation, and rural cooperatives in Mexico has shown how academia can bring practical insights to underserved areas. I think one of the challenges is the cost, as my colleagues say.

Lucas Jorge da Silva: All right. Thank you for the insights. We have little time, so we have to rush a little bit. Now, we will do the last question to the audience. Let me share the quiz. Now, the last question. What do you believe is essential for promoting green practices in the internet infrastructure? Training, education, multi-stakeholderism, knowledge, money. Money always shows in the answers. Responsibility, partnership, studies, collaboration. Time is up, so these are our words. Now, I will pass for the next policy question. Because we have a tight time now, I would like to ask for our speakers to be very briefly, like one minute, to answer this question, if possible. How can we spread our readiness adoption of green standards? And I will… In energy monetary projects, what is the best way to spread our readiness and adoption of green standards? No? Yes.

Eunice Pérez Coello: I don’t hear. Lucas, is it for me to start? Yes, yes. Sorry. Okay. In one minute. Strategies, I think, is education, principally. Maybe course and public campaigns and another in collaborations. Okay, I say three. Education, collaboration, and incentives. And these three strategies must create these adaptations. And I think the road to green requires all of this. Academia can lead awareness campaigns and collaboration among the stakeholders is the key to the overcoming regional challenge. And we must also provide practical incentives, such as seeds for adopting sustainable practice and certifications, maybe for meeting a green benchmark.

Lucas Jorge da Silva: Okay, thank you. Now, let’s hear about this with Natalia as a research. How do you think we can give more spread for our awareness and adoption of this standard? One minute.

Nathalia Sautchuk Patricio: Wow. One minute. I think, wow, this is difficult. I think education campaign is one thing that is important, but also we have to make some kind of incentives program, especially by the government side to promote this among companies and also the community. And also standard certifications, this kind of stuff all can help to go in this direction. This is my one minute. Wow.

Lucas Jorge da Silva: Thank you. Now, Jeffrey, one minute. How can we spread awareness and adoption of green standards?

Jeffrey Llanto: Yeah, I think we can spread awareness by involving the communities, giving them ownership of what the adoption of green standards is. So first, it’s very important that this will really trickle down to the people who are affected by the green standards. And again, going back, green standards really address the future of especially climate change. So again, awareness and especially for the ownership of the community that they need to have it run and be able to sustain those kind of not only the technology, but also the real system, the infrastructure and how it is being brought to the community level. That’s it.

Lucas Jorge da Silva: Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Jeffrey. And finally, Pedro, how can we spread awareness and adoption of green standards very quickly? One minute. OK.

Pedro Camara: OK. Spreading awareness and adoption of green standards require collaboration, education and green initiatives. Stakeholders like ISPN, governments and organizations must lead by example, implementing green practices and sharing social stories to demonstrate their benefits. Public campaigns can highlight the importance of sustainable internet practices targeting both business and customers. Governments and industry bodies can establish certification and recognition programs for green compliance in current widespread adoption training programs for IT professionals can ensure that green standards are understood and applied in network design and operation. Lastly, fostering partnership between stakeholders such as ISPN and environment organizations can amplify outreach efforts and make green standards a shared priority across the industry.

Lucas Jorge da Silva: Thank you, Pedro. And I appreciate a lot of the speakers and the time passed fast, but it was a pleasure to be here, to share the table with all these professionals. I think that we can learn a lot about the infrastructure, the green standards. And I want to continue this conversation in an email or in another opportunity. And I’d like to invite Tiago to provide a very quick closing remarks. Thank you all. I apologize for the rush in the end and for any nervous. It was my first time and I’m very grateful to share the table with some special members of the community. Thank you.

Tiago Jun Nakamura Nakamura: Thank you, Lucas. As we come to the close of this workshop, I want to take a moment to express my heartfelt thanks to all of you, to our incredible speakers. Thank you for sharing your expertise. Your insights and your time, your contributions has sparked meaningful discussions and left us with valuable knowledge to carry forward. And to our audience, thank you for your participation. Your presence here today reflects a commitment to growth and learning. It’s what makes the events like this truly impactful. This workshop is a testament to what we can achieve when knowledge is shared and connections are made. Let’s take the ideas we’ve explored today and continue to collaborate and innovate together. It is clear that further stakeholder discussions are needed towards green networks and we hope that everyone here participates on this journey during development over the next years. Thank you all and we look forward to seeing you at the future workshops here.

Lucas Jorge da Silva: Thank you, Tiago. We have three times, three minutes, if anyone here in the audience can make a statement or a comment. What is your name and where are you from? Thank you very much.

Audience: My name is Jimson Olufuye from Africa City Alliance, Abuja, Nigeria. I work as a consultant going to data center digitalization. It’s a great workshop, excellent, but I just have one comment to make that could fast-track the process of using green. If you look at the example of how IPv6 has been adopted, maybe in France, they brought about smart regulation. So they required ISPs, new ISPs, to deploy, to use IPv6 by social superior. So in the same way, our regulators can easily fast-track the process. If it’s smart regulation, you need to have this green equipment and so on, give them a timeline. That will help you a lot. Thank you.

Lucas Jorge da Silva: Thank you. I like when people talk about IPv6, it’s always a pleasure. Anyone from the audience want to talk about where you’re from, what’s your name?

Audience: Thank you. My name is Mariana. I’m from Brazil. Actually, I had a question, or maybe some suggestion. I guess that sustainability is a theme in the concern of the decades, and the influence of the digital era on energy consumption needs to be considered. And when we are talking about the infrastructure of the internet, it’s interesting to consider that in a broad way. I mean, we are talking about the infrastructure of the internet to have all the data transported to the country for the other country, but we need a challenge. Okay, I have a problem with the audio, but it’s interesting to address our consumption to maintain, to treat, and to share all the data that we are using now with the AI models, or we have the powerful computational power, too. And what I want to know is when we are using here the greener internet, we are just talking about the infrastructure to the providers, or we are addressing all these many full ecosystems?

Lucas Jorge da Silva: Thank you. And I’d like to thank you all, the speakers, once again, the members here in the table, and the audience. And I have to close, because we don’t have much time. Thank you all, and we’ll see you at another opportunity in the future. Bye.

Agreement Points

Collaboration among stakeholders is crucial for a greener Internet

Nathalia Sautchuk Patricio

Pedro Camara

Eunice Perez Coello

Collaboration across sectors is key

Stakeholders must coordinate efforts to reduce environmental impact

ISPs must adopt energy efficient practices

The speakers agree that collaboration between different stakeholders, including ISPs, governments, and other sectors, is essential for achieving a greener Internet and implementing sustainable practices.

Education and awareness are important for promoting green standards

Eunice Perez Coello

Pedro Camara

Education and public campaigns are essential

Collaboration between stakeholders to amplify efforts

Both speakers emphasize the importance of education, public campaigns, and collaboration to spread awareness and promote the adoption of green standards in Internet infrastructure.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers recognize the challenges faced by communities in adopting sustainable Internet practices, particularly in terms of costs and access. They emphasize the importance of empowering local communities and considering long-term benefits despite initial challenges.

Jeffrey Llanto

Pedro Camara

Empowerment of local communities is crucial

Initial costs may hinder access but long-term benefits exist

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of considering real-world impacts on vulnerable communities

Jeffrey Llanto

Eunice Perez Coello

Need to understand real-world impacts on vulnerable communities

Lack of global consensus on standards

While coming from different perspectives, both speakers highlight the importance of considering real-world impacts and challenges faced by vulnerable communities in implementing green Internet standards. This unexpected consensus underscores the need for a more inclusive approach to sustainability efforts.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the importance of collaboration among stakeholders, the need for education and awareness campaigns, and the recognition of challenges faced by vulnerable communities in adopting sustainable Internet practices.

Consensus level

There is a moderate level of consensus among the speakers on the key issues. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the challenges and potential solutions for implementing greener Internet infrastructure. However, there are also nuanced differences in approaches and emphasis, particularly regarding the balance between sustainability efforts and ensuring access for new users. This level of consensus implies that there is a solid foundation for further discussions and collaborative efforts towards achieving a greener Internet, but also highlights the need for continued dialogue to address specific challenges and implementation strategies.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to implementing sustainable practices

Nathalia Sautchuk Patricio

Jeffrey Llanto

Collaboration across sectors is key

Empowerment of local communities is crucial

While Nathalia emphasizes cross-sector collaboration, Jeffrey focuses more on empowering local communities as the primary approach to implementing sustainable practices.

Unexpected Differences

Focus on vulnerable communities

Jeffrey Llanto

Other speakers

Need to understand real-world impacts on vulnerable communities

Disparities between regions and communities

Jeffrey’s strong emphasis on understanding and addressing the needs of vulnerable communities, particularly those without basic infrastructure, was not as prominently featured in other speakers’ arguments. This highlights an unexpected difference in prioritizing the most disadvantaged populations in the context of sustainable Internet practices.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the primary approach to implementing sustainable practices (collaboration vs. community empowerment), the specific roles of different stakeholders, and the degree of focus on vulnerable communities.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there are some differences in approach and emphasis, there is a general consensus on the importance of sustainable practices and the need for various stakeholders to be involved. These differences in perspective could actually be beneficial in developing a more comprehensive and nuanced approach to creating a greener Internet, as they highlight different aspects of the challenge that need to be addressed.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for ISPs to adopt sustainable practices, but Pedro emphasizes a broader coordination among all stakeholders, while Eunice focuses specifically on ISPs’ role.

Eunice Perez Coello

Pedro Camara

ISPs must adopt energy efficient practices

Stakeholders must coordinate efforts to reduce environmental impact

Both speakers acknowledge the challenge of initial costs in implementing sustainable practices, but Pedro more explicitly highlights the long-term benefits that could offset these costs.

Nathalia Sautchuk Patricio

Pedro Camara

Initial costs may hinder access but long-term benefits exist

Initial costs and affordability

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers recognize the challenges faced by communities in adopting sustainable Internet practices, particularly in terms of costs and access. They emphasize the importance of empowering local communities and considering long-term benefits despite initial challenges.

Jeffrey Llanto

Pedro Camara

Empowerment of local communities is crucial

Initial costs may hinder access but long-term benefits exist

Key Takeaways

Collaboration across different stakeholder groups is crucial for developing a greener Internet

There is a need to balance sustainability efforts with ensuring affordable access, especially in developing regions

Education, awareness campaigns, and incentives are important for promoting green practices

Community involvement and empowerment is key, particularly for underserved areas

Initial costs of transitioning to greener technologies pose challenges, but there are long-term benefits

Regulatory approaches and standards can help drive adoption of green practices

Resolutions and Action Items

Continue stakeholder discussions on green networks in future workshops and events

Explore partnerships between academia, industry, and communities to develop sustainable solutions

Consider regulatory approaches to incentivize adoption of green standards by ISPs

Unresolved Issues

How to overcome the initial high costs of transitioning to greener technologies, especially for smaller providers and underserved communities

Lack of global consensus on green Internet standards

How to effectively balance sustainability efforts with expanding Internet access in developing regions

Scope of ‘green Internet’ – whether it encompasses just infrastructure or the broader ecosystem including data centers and end-user practices

Suggested Compromises

Balancing green initiatives with affordability through government incentives and gradual implementation

Involving local communities in sustainable Internet projects to ensure solutions are practical and effective

Combining education efforts with practical incentives and certifications to promote adoption of green practices

We need to go first, who are the people who are really affected by climate change. So, there is one area that we’re working with USAID that this school submerged. It’s part of another island in the Philippines. It submerged every high tide.

speaker

Jeffrey Llanto

reason

This comment brought a concrete, real-world example of climate change impacts to the discussion, highlighting the urgency of the issue.

impact

It shifted the conversation from abstract concepts to tangible effects, emphasizing the immediate need for action and the human cost of inaction.

The duty for example for governments is to help in some way like creating policies in this matter. Like to help or provide some kind of motivation or incentives to move in this direction.

speaker

Nathalia Sautchuk Patricio

reason

This insight highlighted the crucial role of government policy in driving sustainable practices.

impact

It broadened the discussion from technical solutions to include policy and economic incentives as key factors in promoting green internet practices.

Sustainability efforts can positively and negatively impact access for new users, depending on how they are implemented. On one hand, optimization, energy usage, and infrastructure can lower operation cost for ESPs, potentially reducing service costs and making internet access more affordable.

speaker

Pedro Camara

reason

This comment introduced nuance to the discussion by pointing out both positive and negative potential impacts of sustainability efforts.

impact

It deepened the analysis by encouraging consideration of the complex trade-offs involved in implementing green practices.

Empowerment is very important to the communities, first and foremost, nothing bad against the ISPs, they will never set up an infrastructure where there’s no return of investment, right, so we have some eight pilot areas right now working with the Philippine government and a group called Unconnected.org that provides a satellite connection to underserved areas

speaker

Jeffrey Llanto

reason

This insight brought attention to the importance of community empowerment and alternative models for providing internet access.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards considering innovative, community-centered approaches to sustainable internet infrastructure.

Academia can help, I think, by designing a cost-effective solution and involve communities in decision-making. Maybe I could say an example. A partnership between universities, observation, and rural cooperatives in Mexico has shown how academia can bring practical insights to underserved areas.

speaker

Eunice Perez Coello

reason

This comment highlighted the potential role of academia in bridging the gap between research and practical implementation.

impact

It expanded the conversation to include the importance of collaboration between different sectors (academia, communities, cooperatives) in developing sustainable solutions.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by grounding it in real-world examples, highlighting the complexity of implementing green practices, emphasizing the importance of policy and economic incentives, and showcasing the potential for innovative, community-centered approaches. The conversation evolved from a general discussion about sustainability to a more nuanced exploration of the challenges and opportunities in different contexts, particularly in developing countries and underserved areas. The comments also broadened the scope of stakeholders considered, emphasizing the roles of governments, communities, academia, and industry in creating a more sustainable internet infrastructure.

How can we balance sustainability efforts with affordability and access for underserved communities?

speaker

Nathalia Sautchuk Patricio

explanation

This is important to ensure sustainability doesn’t widen the digital divide

What incentives or policies can governments implement to help ISPs and communities transition to more energy-efficient technologies?

speaker

Nathalia Sautchuk Patricio

explanation

This addresses the challenge of high initial costs for implementing sustainable infrastructure

How can community empowerment models be scaled to improve sustainable internet access in underserved areas?

speaker

Jeffrey Llanto

explanation

This approach could help overcome barriers to connectivity in remote or low-income regions

What role can academia play in developing cost-effective, sustainable connectivity solutions for diverse geographic regions?

speaker

Eunice Perez Coello

explanation

This could help address the challenge of implementing eco-friendly connectivity in varied landscapes

How can we create and implement global consensus on green internet standards?

speaker

Eunice Perez Coello

explanation

This is crucial to avoid fragmentation and ensure consistent progress in sustainable internet infrastructure

What are effective strategies for education and public awareness campaigns about sustainable internet practices?

speaker

Multiple speakers

explanation

This was identified as a key factor in promoting adoption of green standards

How can we develop and implement certification programs for green compliance in the internet industry?

speaker

Pedro Camara

explanation

This could incentivize and recognize adoption of sustainable practices

What is the energy impact of emerging technologies like AI and powerful computational models on internet infrastructure?

speaker

Audience member (Mariana)

explanation

This expands the scope of considering sustainability in internet infrastructure beyond just connectivity

Summary

This discussion focused on the complex relationship between big tech companies, digital platforms, and journalism in the modern media landscape. Participants explored various challenges and potential solutions regarding the sustainability of journalism in the digital era.

Key issues discussed included the shift of advertising revenue from traditional media to digital platforms, the impact of AI on content creation and distribution, and the need for fair compensation for journalistic content used by platforms. The speakers debated different regulatory approaches, such as Australia’s news bargaining code and proposals for public sector funds financed by digital platforms.

There was significant discussion about the difficulties in defining “media” and “journalism” in the current information ecosystem, which complicates regulatory efforts. The impact of AI on journalism was a major concern, with participants noting both threats to copyright and potential benefits for content creation.

The speakers disagreed on the role of government in regulating the relationship between tech companies and media. Some argued for stronger regulation to protect journalism, while others cautioned against government involvement, fearing potential threats to free speech.

The discussion also touched on the need for media companies to adapt their business models and build direct relationships with audiences. Participants emphasized the importance of maintaining journalistic ethics and quality in the face of technological disruption.

Overall, the conversation highlighted the complexity of balancing innovation, fair compensation, and the preservation of quality journalism in the digital age. The speakers agreed that ongoing global dialogue and collaboration are necessary to address these challenges effectively.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The impact of digital platforms on journalism revenue and business models

– Regulatory approaches to compensate news organizations for content used by platforms

– Challenges of defining journalism and who should benefit from compensation schemes

– The emerging threat of AI systems using journalistic content without compensation

– The need for media organizations to adapt and innovate their own business models

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore different perspectives on how to promote journalism sustainability in the digital era, examining regulatory models and alternatives for fair compensation from digital platforms.

The tone of the discussion was thoughtful and analytical, with participants offering nuanced views on complex issues. There was general agreement on the challenges facing journalism, but some disagreement on solutions, particularly around government involvement. The tone became more urgent when discussing AI, reflecting the rapidly evolving nature of that threat.

Speakers

– Bia Barbosa (Moderator)

– Journalist and member of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee

– Iva Nenadic

– Researcher at the European University Institute Center for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom

– Studies media pluralism in the context of content curation, ranking, and moderation policies of online platforms

– Juliana Harsianti

– Journalist and researcher from Indonesia

– Works on the influence of digital technology in developing countries

– Nikhil Pahwa

– Indian journalist, digital rights activist, and founder of Media Nama

– Key commentator on Indian digital media, censorship, and internet regulation

Additional speakers:

– Eva Nenatic (likely the same person as Iva Nenadic, with name misspelled in transcript)

– Researcher at European University Institute Center for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom

The Digital Media Landscape: Challenges and Opportunities for Journalism

This discussion, moderated by Bia Barbosa, a journalist and member of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, explored the complex relationship between big tech companies, digital platforms, and journalism in the modern media landscape. Participants from diverse backgrounds, including Iva Nenadic, Juliana Harsianti, and Nikhil Pahwa, examined various challenges and potential solutions regarding the sustainability of journalism in the digital era.

Impact of Digital Platforms on Journalism

The speakers unanimously agreed that digital platforms have significantly disrupted traditional media business models. Nikhil Pahwa, providing perspective from India, noted that platforms both benefit media by driving traffic and compete for advertising revenue. Juliana Harsianti pointed out that small media outlets can use platforms to reach audiences but face sustainability challenges, particularly in the Global South. Iva Nenadic emphasised the tremendous power platforms wield in shaping information systems with little accountability.

Regulatory Approaches and Compensation Models

The discussion revealed divergent views on regulatory approaches to platform-media relationships. Nikhil Pahwa criticised Australia’s news bargaining code, arguing it set a problematic precedent of paying for links. He cautioned against government involvement in media-platform relationships, citing risks to media independence. Instead, Pahwa advocated for regulation focusing on algorithmic accountability and transparency rather than mandating payments.

Iva Nenadic highlighted the Danish model of collective negotiation as a potential alternative. This approach involves media organizations collectively bargaining with platforms, potentially addressing the power imbalance between large tech companies and media outlets, especially smaller ones. Nenadic suggested that this model could be more effective than individual deals or government-mandated payments.

The speakers acknowledged the difficulty in defining “media” and “journalism” in the current information ecosystem, which complicates regulatory efforts.

Emerging Threats and Opportunities from AI

The impact of AI on journalism emerged as a major concern. Bia Barbosa raised copyright issues regarding AI systems using journalistic content to train models without compensation. Nikhil Pahwa warned about AI summaries potentially cannibalising traffic from news sites, disrupting traditional web traffic dynamics. However, he also noted the potential future use of synthetic data by AI models, which could reduce the need for journalistic content in training.

Juliana Harsianti highlighted the use of AI in content creation by journalists in Indonesia, raising ethical concerns about journalistic integrity and the future of the profession. The speakers agreed that AI’s rapid evolution presents both opportunities and threats to journalism, necessitating new regulatory frameworks and ethical guidelines.

Future of Journalism and Media Sustainability

Nikhil Pahwa argued that media organisations need to innovate and develop new business models rather than relying on subsidies or government intervention. He suggested that media companies should protect their rights through legal means when necessary.

Iva Nenadic stressed the importance of journalism demonstrating its value proposition to audiences, particularly in light of declining trust, especially among younger demographics. She emphasized the need for self-reflection within the journalism profession to address these issues and reconnect with younger audiences.

Juliana Harsianti highlighted the unique sustainability challenges faced by small and alternative media outlets in developing countries, where they often rely on donor funding. This underscored the need for diverse solutions that consider regional contexts and the specific needs of smaller media initiatives.

Unresolved Issues and Future Considerations

The discussion left several crucial issues unresolved, including:

1. Effectively regulating AI’s use of journalistic content without stifling innovation

2. Determining fair compensation models for platforms’ use of media content

3. Balancing the need for regulation with concerns about government involvement in media

4. Addressing declining trust in traditional journalism, especially among younger audiences

The speakers suggested potential areas for further exploration, such as:

1. Developing collective bargaining strategies for media coalitions

2. Creating public sector funds financed by digital platforms to support journalism

3. Establishing self-regulatory frameworks within the journalism industry to address ethical concerns around AI use

Conclusion

The discussion highlighted the complexity of balancing innovation, fair compensation, and the preservation of quality journalism in the digital age. While the speakers agreed on the challenges facing journalism, they offered diverse perspectives on potential solutions, particularly regarding government involvement and regulatory approaches.

Bia Barbosa’s closing remarks emphasized the need for balance between big companies, national media companies, and the public interest, suggesting a potential role for the state to play. The conversation underscored the need for ongoing global dialogue and collaboration to address these challenges effectively, considering regional differences and the diverse needs of media outlets of all sizes. As the digital landscape continues to evolve rapidly, ensuring a sustainable future for quality journalism remains a critical global challenge requiring innovative and flexible approaches.

Bia Barbosa: Okay, thank you. Is that okay? Perfect. Yeah. So, good afternoon, everyone who is here in Saudi Arabia. My name is Bia Barbosa. I’m a journalist and member of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. Actually, I’m going to moderate this workshop, and thank you for everyone for coming in the place of Rafael Evangelista, who was supposed to be here but had problems getting into the country because of visa issue, but thank you, everybody, for being here. Thank you for the people that are with us here in the room as well. So welcome to the Big Techs and Journalism Disputes and Regulatory Models Workshop. The idea of today is to have an open debate on what are the alternatives to promote journalism sustainability in the digital era, and what can we learn from regulatory endeavors on the remuneration of journalism by digital platforms across different countries. In a brief introduction, I would like to share with you that the demand for a fair remuneration from digital platforms in favor of journalists or news companies is not new. It’s a tension that has deepened since the prominence of large information platforms and the rise of communication mediated by social media. The exponential growth of digital platforms transformed the digital advertising ecosystem. Their business models based on data collection and analysis for the purpose of targeting advertising has profoundly impacted contemporary journalism, and the systematic shift of revenue from journalism to digital platforms reshaped the landscape of media consumption, production, and distribution. These transformations not only alter the circulation of journalistic content, but also exacerbate power imbalances, potentially widening the gap between those with access to quality, reliable, and diverse information, and those without. This is particularly evident in crises such as those surrounding public health and political electoral communications. At the core of these concerns lies the question of how journalism is compensated by digital platforms, igniting a wave of regulatory proposals across many nations and mobilizing multiple stakeholders. Australia, notably, passed a pioneering legislation addressing this issue. In Canada, the approval of the Online News Act prompted META to remove news from their platforms. This decree has been issued in Indonesia, while South Africa is currently conducting an inquiry on digital platforms markets. In Brazil, from where I come from, since 2021, two proposals have been at the forefront of the debate, the determination in law of the obligation of digital platforms to negotiate with journalism companies and the approval of a public sector fund financed by digital platforms. Although these proposals do not necessarily contradict each other, the idea of a fund is defended as an alternative to the direct bargaining model and not as its complement by many actors. At the international level, regulatory initiatives have been the subject of years of negotiations involving not only the executive and legislative branch, but also the judiciary. In addition to the state actors, a myriad of other actors are taking part in the debates, digital platforms, media companies, researchers, journalists, civil society organizations and international bodies. Last year, the Content and Cultural Goods Chamber of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee published a study entitled Remuneration of Journalism by Digital Platforms, in which we mapped out five controversies on the subject. The first one is who should benefit? In other words, what should be the scope of any legislation regarding remuneration of journalism by platforms? The trend in legislative proposals has been to create minimal criteria for designating potential beneficiaries, such as the number of employees or media turnover. However, these criteria have been criticized because they potentially exclude individuals or small businesses. For some, journalists themselves should be paid directly, and for others, this is unfeasible. The second controversy is who should pay? The journalism remuneration proposal The proposals we have mapped use a different terminology to define the actor responsible for this remuneration. Digital platforms in Australia, online content sharing services providers in the European Union, platforms and digital news intermediary companies like Canada. In Brazil, the bill on platforms regulation uses the terminology of social media providers, search engines, and instant message services. A third issue, pay for what? The understanding of what journalistic content is changed greatly. For example, in a report published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2021, it defines news as information or commentary on contemporary issues. Explicitly, excluding entertainment news. However, this is a narrow view that can be interpreted from some of the regulatory initiatives analyzed in our report. And in addition, an important part of content made available by media, in which generates high levels of engagement on social media platforms, refers to sports and entertainment. This controversy is also related to the content of voluntary agreements between platforms and journalism companies negotiated without the intermediation of a public authority. The guarantee of confidentiality of these commercial agreements prevents the evaluation of the criteria used to remunerate journalism and its impact. Therefore, there is concern that the use of quantitative criteria, such as the number of publications, will serve as an incentive to reduce the quality of the content produced. The fourth controversy highlighted is related to the demand for more transparency in the work of the platforms, whether in relation to digital advertising revenue or the algorithms used in the content recommendation systems for users. So, remuneration based on what data? And finally, what should the role of the state be? To what extent should the state interfere in relations between journalistic content producers and digital platforms? The Australian Code left a wide margin for these actors to negotiate on their own. However, there is no consensus on whether this is the best model, even considering some specific countries like Brazil, where free negotiation between the parties can result in an even greater concentration of resources and power in a small number of players. The idea of a public sector funded, financed by digital platforms and managed in a participatory way is based on a more proactive and broader vision of the whole of the state. And in this case, decisions about the beneficiaries of the initiative would be part of the construction of public policies to support journalists. So, much to discuss about our workshop session will be divided into three parts. The first will consist of speakers exposing your views and policy experience. The second, the idea is to have a short debate among different perspectives raised by you, by the speakers, and the last one will be devoted to Q&A. I would very much like to talk to our colleagues here in the room and in the online room as well. So, I think we could, I’m going to present to you, not all of you right now, but one at the time that you are going to speak. I think that we could start with Eva Nenatic. Eva studies media pluralism in the context of content curation, ranking, and moderation policies of online platforms, democratic implications such policies may have in related regulatory interventions. At the European University Institute Center for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom. She has been involved in designating and implementation of the Media Pluralism Monitor. So, Eva, thank you very much for being with us. And it would be great if you could present your thoughts on information pluralism online. Thank you very much. You have eight minutes.

Iva Nenadic: Thank you very much for having me. I will be. I will try to stick to eight minutes. I will also try to be maybe a bit briefer so that we have more time for exchange. And indeed, I kind of apologize in advance because my view may be a bit more Eurocentric because this is the main area that we focus on being a center, research center on media pluralism at the European University Institute and running the media pluralism monitor in all your member states and in candidate countries. So candidates for EU membership. But of course we do regularly exchange with our colleagues and our partners in South America, in Australia, in the US and all over the globe to understand basically the focus of our work is on the health of the information system. And the way we understand media pluralism as a concept is perhaps a little bit different than this concept is understood in the US or in Australia or in other parts of the world because when we speak about media pluralism, we don’t speak just about the competition in the market. So market dimension of this, but we are speaking about wider enabling environment for journalism and for media, which are enablers of freedom of expression somehow. So we are looking at fundamental rights protection such as access to information, freedom of expression, both in regulatory framework, but also in practice, the role of relevant authorities, status and safety of journalists, including digital safety is an important aspect of media pluralism as well as social inclusiveness or representativeness of different social groups, not only in media content, but also in management structures and not only of media, but increasingly also of digital companies or big tech, however, whichever terminology we want to use. And then there is this element of political independence or political power. And so our work very much revolves around the concept of power. So the way we approach, we understand media pluralism and the way we regulate somehow in Europe to protect the media pluralism. is to somehow curb or limit opinion centralization or concentration of opinion forming power. And this is how we’ve been doing this for the media world that we had in the past. Of course, we are still not there when it comes to platforms, but I think it’s quite obvious and probably not just from this conversation that the opinion forming power has increasingly shifted from the media. If it’s even still with the media to online platforms or digital platforms or digital intermediaries. So we live in an information environment in which digital platforms largely excluded. So big technology companies largely excluded from liability and accountability actually do have power over shaping our information systems and do have power over the distribution of media and journalistic content that does have. So media, unlike digital platforms do have liability over the content they produce and they place, they publish. So what we are seeing somehow is a profound paradigm shift where, as I said, technology companies are becoming or have become in many instances, especially for certain demographics, the key infrastructures where people actually engage with news and the information that can affect and shape their political opinion. And so they have tremendous power, but very little responsibility in respect to that. And so, but because the focus of our today conversation is on the economic side, somehow the economic implications, I will focus a little bit more on that or this relationship between big tech and journalism in economic terms. But I think it’s really important to emphasize somehow that also in the economic terms, this rise in centrality of platforms has led to disintegration of news production, which is very costly, especially if you think of. and investigative journalism and quality reporting in general from distribution, which is kind of cheap. It’s easy and is cheap nowadays to distribute the content and then benefit or monetize on that. And it’s also disintegrated from advertising because the platforms have positions really as intermediaries between the media or journalism and their audiences and also between the media and advertisers. And we know that traditionally the business model of media or the business model was developed as two-sided market. So providing news to audiences or even charging them through forms of subscription or paying for newspapers and similar and then selling the attention of audiences to advertisers. And now both sides of this market or of this, both sides have been disrupted or controlled somehow, are controlled by the digital platforms or big tech. And in the multi-sided market of big tech companies, the media are just one component of this value chain. So I think this is also something important to keep in mind. And I think we probably, you opened with a relatively strong focus on online platforms, digital platforms, but I think what’s also important to introduce into this conversation is also the role, increasingly relevant role of generative AI companies who are extensively using media content to train their models and to provide, to generate outputs, very often separating the content from the source. So diluting the visibility of media brands, which has an implications again for the economic sustainability of the media. And again, we, in that environment, we as well have negotiations or at least attempts of negotiations or establishing sort of level playing field, which is very difficult to establish, right? Because of tremendous imbalances in power between the tech side and the media. media side. But I think this dimension is also very, very relevant, very important to look at. And two last points I want to make. One is about thinking about the power of big tech in relation to media. So they decide whether they want to carry media content or journalism at all. And we’ve seen, especially with these attempts of regulation, for example, you mentioned the news bargaining code in Australia. You mentioned the initiatives in Brazil, in India, in South Africa, in Canada, in the U.S., especially in California, which is a very interesting case of trying to establish frameworks for negotiation or fair remuneration that should go from big tech to the media. And this is not easy because, again, there is tremendous imbalance in power. And what we’ve seen with the Australian example that is the most advanced one is that now there is a backsliding somehow, because now when there is recently Australia published a revision of the effectiveness somehow of this framework for negotiations that suggests that it’s not as strong enough to kind of ensure sustainability of this approach, because we’ve seen with the major platforms that they’re withdrawing. They don’t want to renegotiate new deals. They don’t want to expand on these deals to include more local media, for example. So it again suggests that the power is still with platforms. The power is still with big tech. And so very often as a response to regulatory intervention, what they do is they either threaten or they just ban news. What we’ve been seeing from them throughout the years is that they are segregating the news in specific tabs, for example, in specific areas on their services, on the services they provide, so that eventually they can just switch it off or shut it off. So the kind of conversation we have in Europe, and the one maybe important point to make is that unlike Australia, that when. with the competition law in Europe, we focused a little bit more on copyright as a basis, as a ground for negotiations between the platforms and the media for fair enumeration. And I think this is also interesting in the conversation, why the conversation around generative AI and how to play this problem or how to deal with this problem in that area. And we’ve seen a lot of issues with this, right? Because first of all, these negotiations, as you already emphasised, are somehow opaque, so we don’t really know what has been negotiated. Who negotiates? In some cases, in some countries, we have individual big publishers negotiating first or negotiating separately, which has implications for media pluralism, because what the big ones negotiate sets somehow the benchmark for the other ones, and then if the big ones are negotiating and excluding the smaller ones, this really can have tremendous consequences for media pluralism or information pluralism more broadly. The big markets, of course, are much better positioned, or big languages are much better positioned to negotiate with big tech than the smaller ones. And the same applies for this tension between the publishers or the media companies and journalists, because there are, as we’ve seen from many examples, they’re not always aligned and they’re not always at the same side, so who should benefit indeed is a big question. The way we understand media and journalism is in a very, we define it in a very broad sense, trying to take into account that there is a plurality of relevant voices, voices of reference in the contemporary information sphere that should be considered at the equal level somehow as journalists, but of course this complicates the situation even further. And I don’t know if I have any minutes left or should I? Yeah, I have. Okay, good. So, basically, the main point I was trying to make is that what we are seeing, what we’ve learned somehow from these initiatives, and mostly focusing on Australia and the copyright directive in Europe, because these two, I think, have the longest experience, even though I mean, they’ve been around for a couple of years, but we can reflect a little bit and look at the effectiveness of these initiatives. I think there are a lot of shortcomings somehow that are surfacing now, that do show that we do not have sufficient instruments to deal with this enormous and even growing power of big tech, that the negotiation power is still on the side of platforms. So, we haven’t really managed to put the media at the same level to be able to negotiate equally. The problems are also on the media side. So, as I said, this fragmentation between the media companies, between media and journalists, between the big and small ones, between big markets, smaller markets, big languages, smaller languages. We do have good examples here. For example, in Denmark, they decided to form a coalition and to negotiate collectively with big tech. And they are really persistent on this. So, and they’re very clear about their conditions and setting their benchmarks high. I think the problem, another problem that we should consider in this conversation is the lack of clear methodology of what’s the value, like what is the value and who should be calculating the value or what is fair remuneration in this context. We have several examples or several cases where this value is calculated in a different way. So, it’s not clear. And of course, it’s not clear from these deals, because these deals, as we said already, are not transparent. And so, what we are seeing increasingly in the policy framework is the shift from these bargaining or negotiation frameworks to something that is a bit more direct, regulatory or policy intervention in this area. So, speaking increasingly about the need, for example, to tackle the issue of the fact that platforms do have this power to decide whether they even want to carry media content or not. In Europe, for example, we have European Media Freedom Act that introduces a precedent somehow by putting forward this principle that media content is not just any other content to be found on the online platform. So they have to pay due regard to this content. And in case they want to moderate this content, they need to follow a special procedure. And I think this speaks a lot in this direction of policy conversations that are suggesting that if these platforms have indeed became key infrastructure for our relationship with news and with media and with informative content more broadly, then maybe we should consider them as public utility. And maybe there should be some must-carry rules in order to make sure that the media and journalism content remains there so that they don’t have power just to remove it. Or we should think of complete alternatives so to break down these dependencies. In terms of bargaining or negotiating frameworks for fair enumeration, there’s been a shift somehow or an intention to shift this conversation, looking at the failure of these negotiation frameworks somehow, or at least their shortcomings, to something that is more direct intervention in terms of digital text or digital levy. But then this opens a new area of questions about how do you then allocate and distribute this money, and especially taking into account that not all the states have all the necessary checks and balances to make sure that these kind of processes are not abused. So I think I said a lot, so I’ll just stop here and look forward to the exchange.

Bia Barbosa: Thank you. Thank you so much, Ivan. And we’re going to for sure have time for this exchange. And you mentioned the impact for small journalistic initiatives. And I think that is a good way to chain with Juliana Razzianti. I don’t know if I pronounced correctly your surname. Because I would like very much to ask you to present your views on the impact of digital platforms on community development and the importance of. of journalism for these communities. So to introduce you, Juliana is a journalist and researcher from Indonesia. She has worked mostly about the influence of digital technology in developing countries, contributing, for example, to global voices and international online media. And I’m sure that from her perspective, they’re much in common from our perspective in Brazil as well. So I give the floor to Juliana. Thank you very much for being with us. I don’t know what time is there in Indonesia, but thank you for being with us.

Juliana Harsianti: Yeah, thank you. Can you hear me? Because, yeah, I’m sorry I cannot turn on the video because this is better for the sound connection. Thank you for the Brazilian internet, the CGBR, to invite me as the speaker to this important issue. Good afternoon. Good afternoon for everyone who is attending in Riyadh. This is almost 9 PM here in Jakarta. But yeah, this is OK to have some discussion with colleagues about the impact of big tech in journalism. As mentioned earlier in opening remarks, Indonesia has in early this year, Indonesia has been published some presidential decree about the regulation for the big tech and digital platform to sharing the revenue with the publisher because the government thinks that the presence of the digital platform in Indonesia has been disruption for the business model, for the media mainstream Indonesia. And it is still on discussion between the tech company and the association journalism and the government in Indonesia whether this decree can be implemented shortly or there’s some modification or some adjustment in future. But this evening I will talk about how the small media mostly take advantage on the digital platform like social digital platform and social media to promote the freedom of press, to spread the information or more variety information in Indonesia. I can give two examples from Indonesia. Magdalene and Project Multatuli both are the online media platform based in Indonesia. Magdalene is more about who focus on gender issue. Meanwhile the Project Multatuli is more focused on the in-depth journalism and highlighted some issue has been avoided by the mainstream media in Indonesia. Why they choose to take advantage of the online platform and the digital social media? Because they think it could reach more audience, they could get more… engagement from the readers but not from the business side because they try to avoid to have some Google ads on their platform. They tried organically to establish their website on Google search engine to keep their site still number one in the search engine. But like Eva said, the small medium media company and our community media has more advantage not to have the big revenue as the big media company. So they can do more freely to promote freedom of expression and multilingual website and can discuss more freely about the issue that has been avoided by the mainstream media and how they get managed the business run. Yes, they have some business model to be running. Most of them get the money from the donor and then from the subscriber, not the new subscription but mostly for the donation for the individual who has been support their platform. and keep the readers who want to get the more quality journalism and then alternative media in Indonesia. I think this is enough for my side, and then back to you.

Bia Barbosa: Thank you very much, Juliana. And for sure that there are other challenges that we will be able to exchange regarding the sustainability of small media initiatives. I think that from the Global South perspective, we still have some other challenge than the Global North has regarding it, because at least from the South America and the Latin America perspective, we face the problem of the concentration of media. In a very few countries, we have a public media that can more or less guarantee some pluralism in the media landscape in general. So I think that there are other challenges that besides the developed countries already have regarding the sustainability of journalism and that we are still facing the last century challenges regarding media pluralism, and then we face the news one regarding all the stress that the new form of production and distribution of content brings to us. So thank you very much for sharing your experience here in Indonesia, and I think that we can move forward with Nikhil Pawar. I would love to hear Nikhil on your studies on the revenue demands from big tech companies and linking them to the legal cases against AI. I think that is the good connection of what Eva brought us at the beginning, relating how the AI systems are using journalist content to train the models and specifically the narrative AI systems, but not only. And so thank you very much for being here with us. I’m going to introduce you, and please feel free to complete any information. So Nikhil is an Indian journalist, digital rights activist, and founder of Media Nama, a mobile and digital news portal. He has been a key commentator on stories and debates around Indian digital media companies, censorship, and intimidation. internet and mobile regulation in India, and of course, studying this demand from big tech companies regarding the journalistic revenue so thank you very much for being with us. You have 10 minutes.

Nikhil Pahwa: Thank you and thank you for inviting me for this very important discussion. I’m a journalist and I’ve been a media entrepreneur from India for about 16 years now, and I’ve been a journalist for 18. I’ve also been blogging for about 21 years. I’m a part of a few key media related committees in India that look at the impact of regulations in media, including the Media Regulation Committee of the Editors Guild of India, and I come at this from an internet perspective having built my entire career on an online platform. We are a small media company, we have about 15 people working at a media organisation. But I also still do believe that journalism is not the exclusive privilege of traditional media or formal journalists. Even today news breaks on social media, and frankly, journalism I see as an act, and therefore people who publish verified content even on social media are also doing journalism. So we can’t really look at things purely from a mainstream media lens, and you know even today there are online news channels and online podcasts that run as media businesses, online media businesses, and they’re just an alternative to traditional media. The primary challenge that media companies and especially traditional media companies face is the shift of advertising revenue from traditional media organisations which had restricted distribution. to digital platforms where now they face infinite competition because everyone can report, everyone can create content. And you know, traditional and big tech companies like Google and Facebook have built business models that rely heavily on data collection and targeted advertising, which has meant that they are competing as aggregators with the media companies on their platforms. But also let us not forget that media companies also compete with all users on the same platforms. So the real challenge for media is of discovery. And you know, but we also have to realise that for media businesses, and I run one, the benefit that these platforms create is that they send us traffic as well. For most media publications, a majority of their traffic comes from search and social media, and they’re the primary source of traffic for many media, many news companies today, including us. What’s also happening, you know, just to cover the complete situation, is that we are facing a new threat with AI summaries. What Google does on its search, especially because unlike traditional search, which used to direct traffic to us, AI summaries potentially cannibalise traffic, they don’t send us traffic anymore. And so Google isn’t just now an aggregator of links, but it is also turning out to become an answers engine. And that is a term which is used also by perplexity, which performs the same function. and similar rag models for AI, basically take facts from news companies and compile them into fresh articles that serve a user’s need. So in fact, a future threat for us and that we will see play out in the next 2 to 3 years is that apps like perplexity which use our content, our use of facts that we report will start cannibalising our traffic. And all media monetises the traffic that they have and they rely on building a relationship with users so that they read them on a regular basis. But really it is important to remember that if we do not get traffic we will not be sustainable. And so while most of this conversation has been focused on getting paid for linking out, I think that is a battle that should not be fought because we actually benefit from search engines and from social media platforms linking out to us. And if it becomes, if you start forcing them to pay and they choose not to link out in order to, which is what Facebook did in Canada, it will actually cost news companies significant revenue because audiences will not discover them. Australia’s news bargaining code as well I feel has set the wrong precedent because we benefit from traffic from social media. Linking out should not be mandatorily paid, it breaks a fundamental foundational principle of the internet where the internet is an interconnection of links, people go from link to link to link and discover new content, new innovation, new things to read. And so I think we should be very careful about forcing platforms to link out because that is a mutually beneficial relationship. The advertising issue is frankly a function of the media not building a direct relationship with its audience, like we have built a direct relationship. relationships with our audience and therefore losing out on monetisation to big tech platforms. Let us not forget platforms like the Guardian chose to sign up with Facebook for its instant articles effectively while they thought they were benefiting for the traffic on Facebook, they were also giving up audience to Facebook. So I think we need to be careful and we need to build our own direct relationships. But I want to talk a lot more about AI because I think that is where it becomes problematic. The tricky thing with AI is that facts are not under copyright and media companies, news reporters like us essentially report facts and there is copyright in how we write things but not copyright in what we write about because facts cannot be exclusively with one news company because that is effectively the public good is in the distribution and easy availability of facts. So platforms like Perplexity actually take facts from us, piece it together into a news article, they take it from multiple news organisations and they rewrite our content in a manner to be honest which can be much more easy to read and they can also query the same news article on sites like Perplexity which means that a user gets all of their answers based on our reporting on other platforms. Now this is not copyright violation but it is plagiarism and unfortunately plagiarism is not illegal even though copyright violation is. Now most of the cases that are being run, some in the US, some in India, in the US brought out by the New York Times. in India by a news agency called ANI focus on the fact that our content is being used is being taken by AI and ingested by them to train their models and therefore the likelihood of them replicating our work is very high and that they have taken this content without a license. And I think this is an important one because there is not licensing, there is not compensation for using our work to train them and I am aware that many news organizations across the world have actually signed up with AI companies for revenue sharing arrangements. Now this is a very short term perspective and usually AI companies will do exactly what for example Google has done with its Google news initiative and its news showcase where they will tie up with big media companies and this will end up actually ensuring that smaller companies do not get any money. In case of AI that is also what is going to happen. I will give you a small example when we moved our website to a new server our website crashed because of the number of AI bots that were hitting our servers and they were taking our content because they because we moved to a new server they thought this is a new website and so this stealing of our work is I think something that we need to look at from legislation, from codes to address and there needs to be regulation around copyright and AI and the outcome of legal battles happening in the US with New York Times as well as India with ANI is going to set very important legal frameworks for regulators as well and no one wants to talk about copyright. wants to touch the copyright issue because there is a uneasy tension amongst countries that there is a geopolitical battle going on right now about who comes on top in the AI race and they realise that for large language models they need more and more written content and a large and written facts and a large repository of that lies with news organisations. So while today we are trying to fight battles related to linking out which I think is a battle that should not be fought because linking out like I said is a fundamental foundational principle of the internet. The battle that we need to fight and we need to fight it early is the battle to ensure that we get compensated for content being used by AI companies or they need to essentially remove our content from their databases. That is the battle that I see only in courts but not in case of legislators. And these legal frameworks are going to be very, very important to develop because we need to create incentives for reporters to report, for news organisations to publish because let us face the facts, what the content that AI companies generate is based on our work and so if we do not do more original work, if we do not get incentivised to create original work and media companies start dying effectively they will have nothing to build on top of. So I think this is the relationship in terms of revenue relationships that regulation needs to address and like I said multiple times I strongly feel that the idea of paying for links is flawed and what has happened in Canada and what has happened in Australia is the wrong approach. Media companies are companies. as well, they need to figure out mechanisms for monetization and they are moved from an environment of limited competition in traditional media to infinite competition in digital media. And they need to adapt to that change, not try and get pittance from big tech firms. They should be competing with big tech firms. Thank you.

Bia Barbosa: Thank you very much, Nahiri. And I think that you brought us a very challenged perspective regarding, because we didn’t manage so far to solve the challenge related to journalist content used by platforms, by the aggregators, by the news aggregators. And now you’re facing already the AI training systems using journalist content. I would like to take advantage to ask you something. Here in Brazil, there is a bill on artificial intelligence regulation that has just passed at the Senate. We still have the chamber of deputies to move forward and to have the approval of the bill, but it provides the copyright payment for journalist content, use it in trainings and in response for the AI system as well. Do you think that this could be even considering there is a copyright approach that it could be interesting for solving at least this kind of problem that you mentioned? I would like to hear from you a little bit since we are checking and all the perspectives that are on the table in different parts of the world to tackle this issue. No, I think that if it’s legislated, that there needs to be compensation for copyright, for usage of copyright content, that is the correct approach. It’s just that once you agree that there should be compensation, The question becomes who gets compensated and how much do they get compensated? And you know what is the frequency at which they get compensated? Do you for example get paid for an entire data dump being given or do you get compensated on the basis of how it is used? In this case how do you validate that your content is actually being used by AI? You know because even Europe is struggling with algorithmic accountability. And by the way on the linking out part I don’t think, well I have said that there shouldn’t be a revenue share mechanism there. I do believe that we need algorithmic accountability for both social media as well as search to ensure that you know there is no discrimination happening in terms of surfacing our content. And as a small media owner I don’t want someone else like them to benefit big media or traditional media at my expense. So the fairness principles also need to be taken into consideration in the same way that fairness needs to be taken into consideration in case of the law in Brazil. But the question you have to ask is who is media today? How do you identify that this organisation, that you are actually supporting journalism? Because like I said at the beginning journalism is not the exclusive privilege of just journalists today, right? I am a blogger who started a media company. So I understand that bloggers also make money from advertising and to that extent they don’t get compensated. So why should I be as a blogger different from a media company? I am also running my own venture, right? So we are seeing an increase. infinite ability for reporting today because anyone can report. And in that scenario, who gets compensated, who does not becomes even trickier. Who is, if you are scraping a media publication’s blog, I mean sorry a media publication, shouldn’t a blogger also get compensated if it is being scraped for AI is a question. Why or why not? So these are not easy answers. I do not even know if there are answers to some of these questions. But when you are looking at defining laws, you have to create that differentiation. You have to break it up into who benefits and who does not benefit from that regulation. If you look at most podcasters, they are doing opinion journalism in a sense. They are carrying opinions, they are conducting interviews. Would you treat them as journalists under this law as well? So their transcripts, if they are being aggregated by AI, should they be compensated for that as well? Where do you draw the line? And that is the problem with laws, you do not know, it is very tricky to draw the lines in these cases. Yeah, and besides the law, I think that where you, in countries where you do not have a democratic regulator to analyze how these kinds of laws are being implemented, it gives us an even more challenging way to deal with. I do not know if Eva or Juliana want to comment on that or any other aspect. Eva, I would like to ask you if you could comment as well, besides anything else that you wanted to bring us, to ask you to tell us a little bit about this coalition that you mentioned in Denmark, that the media established to negotiate, to collectively negotiate with the platforms, with digital platforms, because one of the issues that we had here in Brazil as well, in the platforms regulation bill, that would if it was approved, now it’s on the Chamber of Deputies, was to compensate, it was not based on copyright, but it was based on content use of journalist content, how to negotiate for this, how it would be possible for the small initiatives to do that. There is already some digital journalism association in Brazil that try to represent the most part of these small initiatives, but they don’t manage to represent all of them, and how this coalition is working on Denmark that you mentioned, I felt that would be interesting to go a little bit deeper, but if you want to dive on this AI topic as well, please feel free.

Iva Nenadic: Thank you. Yeah, I’ll start with the last point. I think Nihil said many super interesting and relevant things. I want to stay for a second with this last point of the complexity we have to define media and journalism today, and this is indeed one of the key obstacles of all the, not only regulatory attempts, but also soft policy measures that we want to implement in this area, because this is the, I mean, it’s the first step, it’s the foundation. Who do we consider as a journalist? Who should benefit from these frameworks and who shouldn’t? How far can we stretch this? We’ve been doing a lot of work within the EU, but also Council of Europe that covers much more countries in Europe, and the Council of Europe has put forward some recommendations on how to define media and journalism in this new information world or information sphere we live in. And it takes a very broad approach, right, because it’s the freedom of expression that is at stake, so it’s one of the key principles. somehow that we nurture in Europe, the fact that the profession should be open and inclusive. And so if this is the principle, how do we solve these practical obstacles? Because we do see a lot of paradoxes of the information systems nowadays, right? The more open the debate somehow is, the more demagoguery, the more misinformation we have. So we have, in a way, we have plurality of voices in the news and information ecosystem, but not all of these voices are actually benefiting our democratic needs, right? Because many of these voices are actually misleading or extremely biased or not professional, not respecting ethical and professional principles. And so also creating a lot of disorder in the information system that confuses people, distorts trust, and has a lot of negative implications for our democratic systems. I can give one example that I’m not saying is a good solution, but maybe is a good starting point to look at on how to solve this problem. And this is something that has been heavily discussed within the negotiations around European Media Freedom Act that does provide this special treatment to media service providers, including journalists, in content moderation by major online platforms. So very large online platforms. We define them as those that have more than 10% of EU population as regular users. So around 45 million of people are using them on a regular basis, monthly users. And so in listing the criteria on, first of all, the law provides a definition which is very broad about media service providers, but listing the criteria on who are the media or journalists that can or should benefit from this special treatment, there is, for the first time in EU law, we have a mention of self-regulation. And we have an explicit reference to the respect of professional standards. So the law, and now I don’t recall exactly the text, but it says that those media who comply to national laws and regulation, but also comply to widely recognized self-regulatory or core regulatory frameworks are entitled to benefit from this. And of course, this can also be misused abuse. You can form an association of journalists that promotes wrong standards and claim that this is widely acknowledged framework if, I don’t know, they have a certain number of media within their umbrella. But I think there is something in that. I think we need to find a way to revive somehow self-regulation, respect of professional standards and ethical principles for different voices in the information sphere. And we can start from traditional journalistic principles, but these, of course, they can also evolve for the new needs. And another thing I think that is useful for this kind of conversation from that example is the transparency of the media who benefit from this. So this was, we were battling heavily somehow to have this clause explicitly mentioned in the legal text. It’s the requirement that the media who benefit, who self-declare as media, are transparent that the list, this list is easily accessible for everyone to read, so to civil society and to academia to make sure that bad actors are not misusing or abusing this legal provision. So I think there is something to look into there. On generative AI, I think this is a very relevant conversation. And again, I would agree with Mikkel that this is a new battlefield somehow. We haven’t resolved the old one. We haven’t resolved the old risks to media pluralism. or the political influences and so on, and even safety issues to journalists. And we’ve moved to the area of digital platforms. So these two battles were fought in parallel. And now we have also generative AI that is profoundly disrupting the information sphere. And I think the biggest change that is happening with generative AI is that we are moving from fragmentation of the public sphere that we had with digital platforms to what we call an audience of one. So this is extreme personalization of interaction between an individual and the content that this individual is exposed to and is generated by these models, these statistical models and systems that we don’t really know how they operate because of course there is a lack of transparency, there is a lack of accountability. We are not really sure what kind of data are they trained. There are a lot of issues with the data that they’re trained off in terms of biases, lack of representativeness and so on. We are seeing, for example, cases such as the Iceland. So the Iceland as a state strategically decided that it’s important for them and for the AI future in which we are entering for the language and their culture to be represented. So they willingly gave all they have in the digital data world for free to open AI, just to be represented in those models because they saw this as a priority. And then on the other hand, unlike the New York Times case where the New York Times is suing OpenAI for the breach of copyright because they use their content without license or without agreement, what we’re seeing in Europe is that the publisher, especially the major ones, such as Le Monde, Axel Springer, El Pais in Spain and similar are making deals with these companies. Deals that are opaque, so we don’t know what these deals are, but for example, the CEO of Le Monde said that it’s a game changing deal for them as one publisher, one media company. But this is probably not the best way forward because it’s fragmenting and weakening the position of publishers and weakening even further position of smaller publishers and journalists and so on. So I think in this context, the Danish model is a very interesting one because they started from, I think it’s a trade union, but I would need to double check this, whether it’s a professional association or a trade union, but it was an existing organization of journalists in the country who decided that the best approach is to go for collective negotiations with Big Tech because this will make them stronger. And they also decided to use all the legal instruments and regulatory frameworks that are in place in Europe to make their position stronger, so to ally somehow with the political power in the country to back them in this fight against Big Tech giants. And we think, of course, this battle is ongoing, there are back and forth. So sometimes they manage to progress and then there is a backlash from Big Tech. So this is a very early stage, very fresh, but it’s, I think, very interesting and relevant case to observe, to see how things can or should be done. Because I do believe that one of the lessons learned from the existing negotiation frameworks was that this fragmentation doesn’t really serve journalists and media. So a collective approach is probably a better one, and we are seeing much more happening on that end. So, you know, news media organizations coming together and finally starting to understand that they are stronger if they do this together. Yeah. Yeah.

Bia Barbosa: Thank you, Eva. And just for the record, I would like to mention that we, as the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, we tried to invite Google and Meta representatives for this conversation here, but we didn’t manage to convince them to come, which usually happens in different occasions. So I see that Niki and Juliana have raised their hands. I’d just like to check if there’s anyone online asking any questions or not. So, Niki, do you mind if I give the floor to Juliana before?

Nikhil Pahwa: Of course. Please go ahead. I’ve said quite a bit of it.

Juliana Harsianti: Okay. I think our discussion has moved from the digital platform to AI, which has become the major our concern on the journalism in Indonesia. In Indonesia, the generative AI, especially large language model, not only threatened as the copyright, as the Nikhil mentioned and the information, but also threatened the work of journalism itself because the journalists start to generate the news by using the chat GPT, for example, or another large language model, and then they just do some edit for the news and then they publish it on their news sites. This is the problem, not the problem, this is the procedure, this is still on debate on the people who media company and association journalism, because they still think this is good or ethical to have generated the news or publish, or they can use the large language model generative AI to just find the news for the sourcing for the news, and then they have to writing by themselves, and then publish to the as the news article on the media. The problem with the regulation is, yes, I think we need the regulation by the state or the government, but the problem with regulation is still need time to discuss on to produce the regulation by the government. Meanwhile, the the technology is running fast. When the government has the published the regulation on generative AI, maybe we already has the chat GPT for the news, for the news area, which is the has ability more than chat GPT in we know for the moment. Well, what we think we should be done is the association which is not only in journalism, but also in creative media. So the journalist association and then creative people association has joined force to discuss which is that have, they will create the ground regulation, not to as the rule for how to do and how to not to be done by the generative AI for their work. I think this is more based more than ethical than the regulation. And for the moment, they think this is enough, but I think the we need to the more stronger regulation has the law enforcement to overcome the impact of generative AI in journalism and then creative work. So back to you.

Bia Barbosa: Thank you very much, Juliana. Nithya, please.

Nikhil Pahwa: Thanks, I’ll just respond to one thing that Juliana said. While we want strong regulation of AI, I think it’s going to be very difficult to get because geopolitically what’s happening. is that the EU is being looked at too strong a regulatory player and then countries are afraid that they will lose out on innovation and on the AI battle. So, at least in India from what I can see, there is a lot of pressure to not regulate AI. This is what the opposition in the Brazilian parliament as well. If you strong regulate, Absolutely. The other thing to look at is that instead of, just responding to Eva, I think one way of treating, ensuring that media owners get enough compensation is to not get compensation only for media owners. If anybody’s copyrighted content, whether it’s musicians or it’s authors or it’s media owners like us, if our work has been used for training models and we should get compensated. I had a conversation with a lawyer a few months ago who said that AI ingesting our content is like any person reading it because when they are giving an output, it’s not the exact same thing. It’s their understanding of our content. I would actually say that the power law applies over here. The ability of AI to ingest vast amount of our content from across the globe is far greater and so therefore there needs to be protection for creators and that creator could be of any kind, media, movies, books, anything. I would also say that there are other mechanisms where AI does need to be regulated like there has to be regulation for data protection. Eva mentioned bias and I think bias is the trickiest one to regulate because it’s about how one sees the world and perhaps there is plurality of AI systems that needs to be regulated. to come in, in order to ensure that representation is of different kinds, just like bias exists in society. On the New York Times case, I actually, I will be surprised if there is a verdict because we should not forget that New York Times filed a case against OpenAI after negotiations for compensation failed. And I would be surprised if OpenAI does not find a way of compensating New York Times and settling out of court because they would not want a verdict because their content has been ingested by OpenAI. There is one additional challenge that comes in, which is that this could be a systematic usage for research purposes. So AI is trying to position ingesting our content as a mechanism for research. And there can be exceptions in some countries to copyright for research purposes. So this is another challenge that I think that they are faced with. But a fourth thing that is emerging now, over a period of time that I am seeing and I talk to a lot of AI founders, is that the usage of synthetic data, which is data generated by AI itself, is also coming into the mix to the, wherein the future content may not be needed for large language models. Because they are already trained on existing content. In that case, if it is a compensation that we are paid for future uses as well, that may no longer exist. Because let us face it, these are language models. They are not necessarily fact models. Anyone who relies on AI for fact is probably going to get something or the other wrong and it is going to become problematic. So I still feel that media. does have an opportunity in its factual accuracy going into the future, where AI will always fail because its outputs are probabilistic in nature. I know I’m not answering many things because this is still uncharted territory, this is

Bia Barbosa: still evolving as we speak. But we need to take all of these factors into account. Thank you. Of course, and I think that there’s another topic that we didn’t mention today here is that I think that for the journalistic community, it’s interesting to have journalist content training somehow AI systems, otherwise the results of these AI systems are going to bring us are not at least our information that we cannot trust at the end. So it’s important to have journalist content, I think, that being used by AI systems, but I think that the way it’s going to be used in a fair way, in a compensated way, or dealing with copyright issues, but I think that for us, who support the integrity of information online, it’s important to have at least some journalist content being considered as the training of these systems. I see that Eva has raised her hand, we’re just approaching to the final of our session. I would like to ask you to, so I’m going to give you the floor once for each one of you and I just asking you to bring your final comments to this topic. Thank you again for being with us. So we can start with you, Eva, thank you.

Iva Nenadic: Thank you very much. I think it’s probably just the beginning of conversation, but it’s excellent to have this conversation at such a global scale and exchange because I think this is crucial to move us forward to do more of exchanges. like this. I just wanted to maybe, I won’t conclude on anything because it’s very difficult to give final remarks on any of this because it’s all open questions somehow, but I would like to put one more consideration forward. And that’s the fact that we haven’t really seen. So what we see from a lot of surveys is that the trust in journalism is declining. And for example, the latest Reuters news report is suggesting that people see journalists as drivers of polarization. So why is this the case has not been reflected enough within the profession itself. And of course there are multiple reasons for this. And there is also like very strong smear and negative campaigns by politicians against journalists who of course want to disregard or undermine the credibility of the profession because then it works better for them. But I think what we are not seeing sufficiently is this sort of self-reflection. So where have we failed as a profession, especially in this aspect of like reconnecting with youth, with young audiences, because clearly there is a gap there. So young people are departing from the media in traditional sense. They’re departing from journalism in traditional sense and journalists somehow are ignoring this fact. We don’t see enough self-reflection on that side. And then there is also this question of creating value for audiences. I don’t think that media and journalism in traditional sense is investing enough in this. So there is this obsession or a demand somehow that journalism and media should be treated as a public good. And I do strongly support this idea that media and journalism when professional, when ethical are definitely public good and should also be supported by public subsidies in a way that is transparent and fair and contributes media pluralism. But at the same time, there has to be a bit more self-reflection and incentives or initiatives coming from within the profession. And at the moment, what we’re seeing is a lot of complaints, like we are captured by platforms, we are being destroyed by platforms, we need help. But what is actually the value that journalism has to offer to the people has been pushed aside or forgotten a little bit. So I think this would probably be the best case for journalism to kind of revive or remind us of what this value actually is and how can they create value with these new tools and technologies that are on disposal to everyone, including to media and journalism. I think that would make a stronger case for why should people go back to journalism and media and support them more.

Juliana Harsianti: Thank you very much, Eva. Juliana, please, besides it gets 10 o’clock in Jakarta. Oh, yeah, thank you. I think I agree with what Eva said, we cannot make the conclusion for our discussion because this kind of discussion is still to be continued in the future. And then it needs to be a regular conversation, either in a developed country or a developing country in the Global South or Global North. Because it is important for journalists to create the new form in this digital platform, how to deal with the big tech, how to deal with the generative AI and how to create the, to keep the ethic within the journalist in the middle of the influence of digital platform. and the generative AI who has been challenging their work and then the business model of the media company. Yeah, the conversation will be, yeah, the conversation will be impacted to the policy, either to the nation state policy or to within the association, either association journalism and the media company in regional or the nation states. So it will be have the better environment for journalism who keep creating and then keep survive in this digital era.

Bia Barbosa: Thank you. Thank you very much, Juliana. Nikhil, please, your final remarks.

Nikhil Pahwa: Thank you and thank you for having me here. It’s been a great conversation. I’m both a journalist and an entrepreneur and I am a capitalist in how I work, but I do that ethically. I do feel that as media, we have to find our own business models rather than relying on subsidies and government support and anything from the government, to be honest, because anytime, and I feel this strongly, the government comes into a tripartite relationship with government, media and big tech, two things happen. Governments use the funds and it may be different in Europe, but in the global South, governments use funds as a mechanism of influencing the media. And secondly, if the media pushes for them to regulate big tech, then government creates regulations over big tech and uses that as a mechanism to regulate. free speech. So to be honest in this relationship I do not want the government in there because it has an impact on democracy, it has an impact on media freedom whether directly or indirectly whenever you have governments involved. I would rather that we figure out our own business models and if there has to be regulation it has to be applicable across society, not specific to the media, I do not feel we need special treatment and I do not feel that we should have special treatment, we have to adapt as times change, we have to adapt from when we move from traditional business models to online business models, from online to AI but at the same time if someone is stealing our content we need to go to court to protect our rights in a sense. So I strongly believe that I do not want government in the picture and we do not need protection, we need to fight our own battles and we need to innovate on our own. For far too long we have allowed all the innovation to centre around big techs when we have had the same opportunity to build audience relationships and I do not think this is, expecting regulation and laws and policies to support us is going to solve the problem for us. I know this is antithetical to what this conversation has been about but that is the way how I run my media business. Thank you.

Bia Barbosa: And of course one thing that is government and another thing is the state role that we brought at the beginning in our conversation, that is one of the controversies that we had mapped in this report that we published here by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. I totally agree with the risk that we have when governments regulate freedom of expression issues or regulate technology that is related to freedom of expression but I also agree that we have to search for some kind of balance between big companies and in countries like mine in Brazil where you have the big national companies, media national companies and the global big techs that the public gets in the middle, the citizens get in the middle and the state has a role to play as well to bring at least more balance to the conversation but of course it is not only governments that can bring this balance, we have the judiciary, we have independent regulatory bodies so there are other alternatives that I think that we have to put on the table to try to find some solutions that respect our specificities in each of the countries that we are discussing this kind of problem but also in a global perspective because we are dealing with global companies and maybe some achievements that we may had in some countries may help us to deal with that. in other realities in from the global South perspective, I think that we can learn a lot from other countries that are tackling this problem. So once again, thank you very much for your time, your insightful thoughts and, and for spending some time with us here at the IGF. To start this conversation, as you mentioned, is it’s only the beginning. And I, from the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee perspective, I would like to thank you very much, and to, to make us available for any kind of further exchange that we might have. And have you all who everybody’s listening or here and for those who are here with us. A good evening. Thank you very much. Bye. Transcribed by https://otter.ai Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Agreement Points

Digital platforms have disrupted traditional media business models

Bia Barbosa

Nikhil Pahwa

Iva Nenadic

Platforms have disrupted traditional media business models

Platforms benefit media by driving traffic, but also compete for advertising

Platforms have tremendous power over shaping information systems with little accountability

All speakers agree that digital platforms have significantly impacted traditional media business models, reshaping the landscape of media consumption, production, and distribution.

AI poses new challenges to journalism

Nikhil Pahwa

Juliana Harsianti

Iva Nenadic

AI summaries threaten to cannibalize traffic from news sites

Journalists using AI to generate content raises ethical issues

AI’s impact on journalism requires new regulatory frameworks

The speakers agree that AI technologies, including generative AI and AI-powered summaries, present new challenges to journalism, ranging from ethical concerns to potential traffic loss and the need for new regulatory approaches.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers suggest alternative approaches to regulating platform-media relationships, focusing on transparency and collective action rather than mandated payments.

Nikhil Pahwa

Iva Nenadic

Regulation should focus on algorithmic accountability and transparency, not mandating payments

Collective bargaining by media coalitions may be more effective than individual deals

Both speakers emphasize the need for journalism to adapt and demonstrate its value in the changing media landscape, particularly for smaller and alternative media outlets.

Juliana Harsianti

Iva Nenadic

Small and alternative media face unique sustainability challenges

Journalism must demonstrate its value proposition to audiences

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of maintaining journalistic ethics and quality

Bia Barbosa

Iva Nenadic

Juliana Harsianti

Maintaining journalistic ethics and quality is crucial amid technological disruption

Journalism must demonstrate its value proposition to audiences

Journalists using AI to generate content raises ethical issues

Despite differing views on regulation and business models, there was an unexpected consensus on the importance of maintaining journalistic ethics and quality in the face of technological disruptions. This agreement spans across different regional perspectives and approaches to media sustainability.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the disruptive impact of digital platforms on traditional media business models, the challenges posed by AI to journalism, and the importance of maintaining journalistic ethics and quality. There was also some consensus on the need for alternative approaches to regulating platform-media relationships and the importance of journalism demonstrating its value to audiences.

Consensus level

The level of consensus among the speakers was moderate. While there was agreement on the broad challenges facing journalism in the digital age, there were divergent views on specific regulatory approaches and the role of government in addressing these challenges. This implies that while there is a shared understanding of the problems, finding universally accepted solutions remains complex and context-dependent.

Different Viewpoints

Role of government regulation

Nikhil Pahwa

Iva Nenadic

Government involvement in media-platform relationships risks compromising media independence

Collective bargaining by media coalitions may be more effective than individual deals

Pahwa argues against government involvement in regulating media-platform relationships, citing risks to media independence. Nenadic, however, suggests that collective bargaining supported by regulatory frameworks could be beneficial.

Approach to platform remuneration

Nikhil Pahwa

Iva Nenadic

Australia’s news bargaining code set problematic precedent of paying for links

Collective bargaining by media coalitions may be more effective than individual deals

Pahwa criticizes Australia’s news bargaining code as setting a problematic precedent for paying for links, while Nenadic suggests collective bargaining as a potentially effective approach for fair remuneration.

Unexpected Differences

Sustainability strategies for media

Nikhil Pahwa

Juliana Harsianti

Media need to innovate and develop new business models rather than rely on subsidies

Small and alternative media face unique sustainability challenges

While both discuss media sustainability, Pahwa unexpectedly argues against relying on subsidies, emphasizing innovation, while Harsianti highlights the unique challenges faced by small media outlets in developing countries that often rely on donor funding.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the role of government regulation, approaches to platform remuneration, and strategies for media sustainability.

difference_level

The level of disagreement is moderate, with speakers generally acknowledging similar challenges but proposing different solutions. This reflects the complexity of balancing media independence, economic sustainability, and regulatory approaches in the rapidly evolving digital media landscape.

Partial Agreements

Both Pahwa and Nenadic agree on the need for regulation addressing algorithmic accountability and transparency. However, they differ in their approach, with Pahwa focusing on platforms and Nenadic emphasizing the need for new frameworks to address AI’s impact.

Nikhil Pahwa

Iva Nenadic

Regulation should focus on algorithmic accountability and transparency, not mandating payments

AI’s impact on journalism requires new regulatory frameworks

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers suggest alternative approaches to regulating platform-media relationships, focusing on transparency and collective action rather than mandated payments.

Nikhil Pahwa

Iva Nenadic

Regulation should focus on algorithmic accountability and transparency, not mandating payments

Collective bargaining by media coalitions may be more effective than individual deals

Both speakers emphasize the need for journalism to adapt and demonstrate its value in the changing media landscape, particularly for smaller and alternative media outlets.

Juliana Harsianti

Iva Nenadic

Small and alternative media face unique sustainability challenges

Journalism must demonstrate its value proposition to audiences

Key Takeaways

Digital platforms have significantly disrupted traditional media business models and journalism

There are differing views on regulatory approaches to platform-media relationships, with some favoring government intervention and others opposing it

AI systems pose new challenges for journalism, including copyright concerns and potential cannibalization of traffic

The future sustainability of journalism requires innovation in business models and demonstrating value to audiences

Small and alternative media face unique challenges in the digital landscape

Resolutions and Action Items

None identified

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively regulate AI’s use of journalistic content without stifling innovation

Determining fair compensation models for platforms’ use of media content

Balancing the need for regulation with concerns about government involvement in media

How to define ‘journalism’ and ‘media’ in the digital age for regulatory purposes

Addressing declining trust in traditional journalism, especially among younger audiences

Suggested Compromises

Collective bargaining by media coalitions with platforms instead of individual deals

Focusing regulation on algorithmic accountability and transparency rather than mandating payments

Creating public sector funds financed by digital platforms to support journalism, managed in a participatory way

Developing self-regulatory frameworks within the journalism industry to address ethical concerns around AI use

The tricky thing with AI is that facts are not under copyright and media companies, news reporters like us essentially report facts and there is copyright in how we write things but not copyright in what we write about because facts cannot be exclusively with one news company because that is effectively the public good is in the distribution and easy availability of facts.

speaker

Nikhil Pahwa

reason

This comment highlights a key challenge in regulating AI’s use of journalistic content – the distinction between copyrightable expression and non-copyrightable facts. It introduces complexity to the discussion of how to protect journalistic work in the age of AI.

impact

This led to further discussion about the legal and ethical implications of AI systems using journalistic content, and the challenges of regulating this use.

We are seeing, for example, cases such as the Iceland. So the Iceland as a state strategically decided that it’s important for them and for the AI future in which we are entering for the language and their culture to be represented. So they willingly gave all they have in the digital data world for free to open AI, just to be represented in those models because they saw this as a priority.

speaker

Iva Nenadic

reason

This example introduces a new perspective on the relationship between AI companies and content providers, showing how some entities might willingly provide content to ensure representation.

impact

This comment broadened the discussion beyond just compensation issues to include considerations of cultural representation and diversity in AI training data.

I strongly believe that I do not want government in the picture and we do not need special treatment, we have to adapt as times change, we have to adapt from when we move from traditional business models to online business models, from online to AI but at the same time if someone is stealing our content we need to go to court to protect our rights in a sense.

speaker

Nikhil Pahwa

reason

This comment challenges the prevailing narrative of seeking government intervention and regulation, instead advocating for media companies to adapt and innovate independently.

impact

This perspective shifted the conversation to consider the potential drawbacks of government involvement and the importance of media companies’ own adaptability and innovation.

What’s also happening, you know, just to cover the complete situation, is that we are facing a new threat with AI summaries. What Google does on its search, especially because unlike traditional search, which used to direct traffic to us, AI summaries potentially cannibalise traffic, they don’t send us traffic anymore.

speaker

Nikhil Pahwa

reason

This comment introduces a new dimension to the discussion by highlighting how AI summaries are changing the dynamics of web traffic and potentially threatening media companies’ business models.

impact

This led to further discussion about the evolving challenges faced by media companies in the digital age, beyond just content use and compensation issues.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by introducing nuanced perspectives on the challenges faced by media companies in the age of AI and digital platforms. They moved the conversation beyond simple issues of compensation to consider broader implications for copyright, cultural representation, business model adaptation, and the role of government regulation. The discussion evolved to encompass a more complex understanding of the interplay between journalism, technology, and regulation in the digital age.

How to define media and journalism in the current digital landscape?

speaker

Eva Nenadic

explanation

This is a foundational issue for developing regulatory frameworks and policies to support journalism in the digital age.

How to ensure fair compensation for content used to train AI models?

speaker

Nikhil Pahwa

explanation

This is crucial for protecting the rights and sustainability of content creators, including journalists, as AI systems increasingly use their work.

How to address the ethical implications of journalists using generative AI to produce news content?

speaker

Juliana Harsianti

explanation

This raises important questions about journalistic integrity and the future of the profession in the age of AI.

How to revive trust in journalism, especially among younger audiences?

speaker

Eva Nenadic

explanation

Addressing declining trust is crucial for the future relevance and sustainability of journalism.

How can media companies innovate and develop sustainable business models in the digital age?

speaker

Nikhil Pahwa

explanation

This is essential for ensuring the long-term viability of journalism without relying on government intervention or subsidies.

How to balance the need for regulation of big tech with protecting free speech and media independence?

speaker

Nikhil Pahwa and Bia Barbosa

explanation

This is a complex issue that requires careful consideration to protect both journalistic freedom and the public interest.

Summary

This discussion focused on assessing the achievements and future priorities of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) as it approaches its 20-year review. Participants highlighted significant progress in expanding internet connectivity, with users growing from 1 billion to 5.5 billion since 2005. The WSIS framework was praised for its adaptability and multi-stakeholder approach, which has helped address evolving digital challenges.

Key achievements included the creation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the WSIS Forum, which have facilitated global dialogue on digital issues. The alignment of WSIS action lines with the Sustainable Development Goals was also noted as an important development. However, speakers emphasized that significant challenges remain, including persistent digital divides, the need for meaningful connectivity, and emerging issues like AI governance and data protection.

Looking forward, priorities identified for the next phase of WSIS included bridging digital divides, promoting digital inclusion, addressing environmental sustainability in the tech sector, enhancing digital skills and capacity building, and developing ethical frameworks for emerging technologies. The importance of aligning the WSIS process with the recently adopted Global Digital Compact was stressed.

Participants agreed on the need to strengthen multi-stakeholder cooperation and ensure greater inclusion of voices from the Global South in shaping digital governance. The discussion concluded with a call for the WSIS framework to continue evolving to meet new challenges while building on its foundational principles of inclusivity and people-centered development.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Achievements and progress made since the original WSIS summit 20 years ago, including increased internet connectivity globally

– Remaining challenges and gaps, such as the digital divide, lack of meaningful connectivity for many, and new issues like AI governance

– The role of multi-stakeholder cooperation and the IGF in addressing digital governance challenges

– Priorities for the future, including environmental sustainability, digital inclusion, capacity building, and aligning WSIS with the Global Digital Compact

– The need to evolve governance frameworks to keep pace with rapid technological change

Overall purpose:

The purpose of this discussion was to reflect on the achievements and lessons learned from 20 years of the WSIS process, identify current challenges and priorities, and consider how to strengthen digital governance frameworks and multi-stakeholder cooperation for the future.

Tone:

The overall tone was constructive and forward-looking. Speakers acknowledged progress made while emphasizing the significant work still needed. There was a sense of urgency about addressing emerging challenges, but also optimism about the potential for continued cooperation. The tone remained consistent throughout, with participants building on each other’s points in a collaborative manner.

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider: Moderator

– Mohammed Saud Al-Tamimi: Governor of Communications, Space and Technology Commission of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

– Junhua Li: UN Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs

– Nthati Moorosi: Minister of Information, Communication, Science and Technology and Innovation of Lesotho

– Takuo Imagawa: Vice Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications from Japan

– Sally Wentworth: Chief Executive Officer of the Internet Society (ISOC)

– Sherzod Shermatov: Minister of the Development of Information, Technologies and Communications of Uzbekistan

– Stefan Schnorr: State Secretary at the Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport from Germany

– Jennifer Bachus: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy of the United States

– Torgeir Micaelsen: State Secretary of Digitalization and Public Governance of Norway

Additional speakers:

– Doreen Bogdan-Martin: Secretary-General of the International Telecommunications Union

– Tawfik Jelassi: Representative from UNESCO

– Gitanjali Sah: Representative from ITU

– Robert Opp: Representative from UNDP

– Mike Walton: Representative from UNHCR

– Angel González Sanz: Representative from UNCTAD

– Paul Gaskell: Deputy Director for Digital Trade, Internet Governance, and Digital Standards of the United Kingdom

Expanded Summary of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) 20-Year Review Discussion

Introduction

This discussion focused on assessing the achievements and future priorities of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) as it approaches its 20-year review. Participants reflected on the progress made since the original WSIS summit, identified current challenges, and considered how to strengthen digital governance frameworks and multi-stakeholder cooperation for the future.

Key Achievements of WSIS

Participants highlighted significant progress in expanding internet connectivity globally, with users growing from 1 billion to 5.5 billion since 2005, as noted by Gitanjali Sah from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The WSIS framework was praised for its adaptability and multi-stakeholder approach in addressing evolving digital challenges.

Stefan Schnorr, State Secretary at the Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport from Germany, emphasized the establishment of the multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance as a key achievement. Angel González Sanz from UNCTAD highlighted the mapping of WSIS action lines to the Sustainable Development Goals, which has helped align digital development efforts with broader global development objectives.

Persistent Challenges and Gaps

Despite progress, significant challenges remain. Doreen Bogdan-Martin, ITU Secretary-General, noted that one-third of the global population still lacks internet access. Angel González Sanz highlighted persistent digital divides based on gender, geography, and education.

Tawfik Jelassi from UNESCO raised concerns about limited multilingual and culturally diverse online content, emphasizing the need for more diverse and culturally relevant content online, particularly for indigenous communities.

Robert Opp from UNDP emphasized the environmental impacts of digital technologies, while Mike Walton from UNHCR highlighted ethical concerns around AI and emerging technologies.

Global Digital Compact and WSIS Alignment

Several speakers, including Stefan Schnorr, stressed the importance of aligning the WSIS process with the recently adopted Global Digital Compact (GDC). The GDC was seen as a crucial framework for addressing emerging digital challenges and reinforcing the principles of WSIS. Speakers discussed how to integrate the GDC’s objectives into the existing WSIS framework and action lines.

Priorities for the Future of WSIS

Looking forward, speakers identified several priorities:

1. Bridging remaining digital divides, especially in rural areas (Gitanjali Sah)

2. Promoting media and information literacy and combating misinformation (Tawfik Jelassi)

3. Developing digital skills and capacity building (Junhua Li, UN Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs)

4. Addressing environmental sustainability of digital technologies (Robert Opp)

5. Ensuring inclusive global governance of AI and data (Angel González Sanz)

6. Aligning WSIS with the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda (mentioned by several speakers)

Role of IGF and Multi-stakeholder Approach

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was a key point of discussion. Sally Wentworth, CEO of the Internet Society, emphasized the IGF’s role as a crucial platform for inclusive internet governance discussions. Jennifer Bachus from the US State Department stressed the need for meaningful participation from developing countries.

Takuo Imagawa, Vice Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications from Japan, noted the IGF’s ability to address emerging issues like AI governance. Discussions also touched on potentially extending the IGF’s mandate and ensuring sustainable funding for its operations.

Thomas Schneider mentioned the São Paulo guidelines for inclusive multi-stakeholder processes as a valuable framework for future cooperation.

WSIS+20 Review Process

Speakers discussed the ongoing preparations for the WSIS+20 review by various UN agencies. This process aims to evaluate the progress made since the original summit and set the agenda for the next phase of digital development.

Thought-Provoking Comments and Unresolved Issues

Nthati Moorosi, Minister of Information, Communication, Science and Technology and Innovation of Lesotho, provided a stark reminder of infrastructure disparities: “We still have students who have to sit under the tree to learn. So when we talk about connecting schools, for us, it’s quite a big, a long journey.”

Robert Opp’s comment broadened the discussion on environmental sustainability: “Environmental sustainability has to go into the next version of what we do. And it’s the two areas. It’s what digitalization can contribute to environmental sustainability, climate change, but it’s also the contribution to climate challenges or environmental challenges.”

Unresolved issues included:

1. Specific mechanisms for aligning the Global Digital Compact with the WSIS process

2. Effective strategies for addressing the environmental impacts of digital technologies

3. Ensuring meaningful participation from developing countries in AI and data governance discussions

4. Developing strategies for combating misinformation and promoting information integrity online

5. The potential permanence of the IGF mandate

Conclusion

The discussion concluded with a call for the WSIS framework to continue evolving while building on its foundational principles of inclusivity and people-centered development. Participants agreed on the need to strengthen multi-stakeholder cooperation and ensure greater inclusion of voices from the Global South in shaping digital governance.

As WSIS moves towards its 20-year review, it is clear that while significant progress has been made, substantial challenges remain. The future of WSIS will require balancing technological advancement with ethical considerations, environmental sustainability, and the imperative of leaving no one behind in the digital age.

Thomas Schneider : in Geneva in Tunis 20 years ago so I’m having the honor to to moderate this session, but of course this is not about me, but it’s about content and sharing some views. So this session, of course, is focusing on what is coming in the next few months until the end of next year with the 20-year review process of the World Summit on the Information Society and, of course, integrating in all of these reflections that will be made during the next months also newer elements and developments like the Global Digital Compact and how to implement this. So this session will focus on assessing progress and envisioning the future of digital governance and hopefully it will serve as a platform to reflect on past achievements, identify gaps and strategize the way forward for global digital cooperation. So I have a very distinguished number of speakers here that I would quickly like to present to you. So first, His Excellency Mr. Mohammed Saud Al-Tamimi, Governor of Communications, Space and Technology Commission of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, our very nice host, Mr. Li Junhua, UN Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs. Her Excellency Ms. Ntati Morosi, Minister of Information, Communication, Science and Technology and Innovation of Lesotho. His Excellency Mr. Takuo Imagawa, Vice Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications from Japan. Then Ms. Sally Wentworth, Chief Executive Officer of the Internet Society, also known as ISOC. And His Excellency Mr. Shermatov Sherzod, Minister of the Development of Information, Technologies and Communications of Uzbekistan. Then Mr. Stefan Schnorr, State Secretary at the Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport from Germany. Ms. Jennifer Bachus, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Cyberspace and digital policy of the United States. And last but not least, and looking forward to coming to your country next summer, His Excellency Mr. Torgeir Micaelsen, State Secretary of Digitalization and Public Governance of Norway. So looking forward to hearing from all of you and sharing some thoughts about WSIS plus 20 and how to get there and what to want from the process in the coming few minutes. Of course, let us start with some introductory remarks by Mr. Junhua Li from Undersecretary General from UNDESA. Thank you very much. The floor is yours.

Junhua Li: Well, thank you. Thank you very much, Thomas, or Ambassador for giving me the floor. It’s so amazing to have such a distinguished panelist to discuss the WSIS plus 20. But first of all, let me say just a few words. I would like to start by saying that on behalf of the United Nations and also that I guess on behalf of the whole panel to express our profound gratitude to the host country for this exceptional hospitality and excellent efforts in organizing this important event. As you said, Mr. Moderator, we are at a critical moment in global digital governance. The recent adoption of the Global Digital Compact in the United Nations and the upcoming WSIS plus 20 review next year present a very unique opportunity for the global community to shape our digital future in the coming decade. So UNDESA will serve as a secretariat supporting the President of the General Assembly to prepare the WSIS plus 20 process. We are fully committed to coordinating all the efforts with our stake partners. and across the sectors, particularly UN Group Data on the Information Society to be chaired by ITU and UNESCO. This collaboration brings together the key partners like, just now as I mentioned, ITU-UNESCO plus UNDP and UNCTAD for a unified approach. So we are working very closely to define the whole process and support the process. But let me say the IGF in this process plays a very crucial role in our forthcoming review. It can certainly help to amplify and synthesize contributions from the diverse stakeholders to inform and provide the guidance to the WSIS review and also the negotiation process in the final package. So in all, our commitment is here and it also will lead us for next year. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider : I need to talk into the mic, that helps normally. Thank you, dear Under-Secretary General. Now we have a few questions that I’d like to hear you reflect on and as we have quite a big panel which is followed by another panel and time is limited as we all know. The time limit for each intervention is not 30 minutes but 3 minutes. So I would like you to adhere or stick to the time because I’m sure we all have a lot to hear from all of you. So let me start with question 1, which is the question about the most significant achievements since the WSIS Summit 20 years ago and what lessons that can be learned when looking back almost 20 years? from your point of view. So what are the biggest achievements and lessons learned? Let me first turn to Her Excellency Ms. Ntati Morozi from Lesotho. Thank you.

Nthati Moorosi: Thank you very much, Programme Director. I am really honoured to be sharing a stage with these excellencies today. I want to start by acknowledging the work that IGF is doing as a platform that is rooted in the visionary principles of the World Summit. As a country located in Africa, I feel like we in Africa, we in Lesotho are at different stages of achievements since 20 years ago when the World Forum was held. We have some milestones that are recordable. The policy framework, we’ve done wonderful work on that. We have the laws that are applicable. However, we still have big gaps, especially on the cyber security legal framework. We find a lot of challenges, especially from the media fraternity. From time to time they feel like we are taking their freedom of expression away from them. However, we are happy to to report that we have created recently the sectoral cyber incident response team, which is an effort to step forward in enhancing our national cyber security resilience and ensuring a secure digital environment. So every time I, the whole time since yesterday, I’ve been listening to different speakers talking about leaving no one behind. I stand here today thinking about my own country, that Lesotho as a country, compared with other countries, it’s already left behind. The people who live in Lesotho, there are still such big digital gaps. Infrastructure-wise, we have been able to achieve close to 95 per cent plus, but somebody talked about the fact that infrastructure doesn’t mean that everyone is connected, because of the challenges that have been highlighted about infrastructure, about skills, about – in Lesotho, the biggest challenge is electricity. We don’t even have electricity to charge whatever smart devices that people have. We have connected only 2 per cent of the schools, because at the moment, where we are as a country, we are still struggling with getting students into classrooms. We still have students who share classrooms. One classroom will host more than three grades in one room. We still have students who have to sit under the tree to learn. So when we talk about connecting schools, for us, it’s quite a big, a long journey. However, we are not discouraged. We are working hard to ensure that we take those baby steps and we ensure that we get our people connected. So in terms of what has been achieved, we have achieved some, but we still have a long way to go. I’m weary about three minutes. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you very much, Minister. Next, Germany, State Secretary General. What have we achieved? What are the lessons that Germany has learned?

Stefan Schnorr: Thomas, thank you very much, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. Before I start, I want to thank the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for their hard work in organising this year’s IGF. We deeply appreciate their efforts in making these events possible in such important times. To come to your question, Thomas, the World Summit on the Internet, on the Information information society was, in my opinion, truly a milestone for the Internet governance, and not only for the Internet governance, but for the digital cooperation worldwide. And it laid the foundation for the first comprehensive global framework for digital cooperation. The summit is, in my opinion, still highly relevant, even if the wording of information society sounds a little bit outdated, and the acronym WSIS is not familiar to everyone. But as I mentioned, the summit is still important, and it remains a cornerstone in fostering an inclusive, human-centered, and digital transformation. For two decades now, the WSIS has provided essential guardrails for global digital cooperation. For example, the WSIS action lines continue to guide and inspire digital efforts worldwide. I think it’s a clear testament for its long-lasting impact. And very important, WSIS was also the groundbreaking, because it was the first time that non-governmental stakeholder, private sector, technical community, academia, and society worked side-by-side with the representatives of 175 nations to shape the future for the digital cooperation. And this collaboration gave birth to the multi-stakeholder approach, a concept that we, that Germany, has been proud to support since its inception. But perhaps, ladies and gentlemen, the most important and successful outcome of the WSIS is the internet governance, which has brought us all together here in Riyadh. What started as a forum to discuss only technical aspects of internet governance. has evolved into a platform for addressing all aspects of the digital world. Now we discuss, in the past we have discussed 5G, now we discussed artificial intelligence, so all the relevant topics in the digital world are discussed here at the IGF. And therefore, I think no other event succeeds like the IGF in bringing together such diverse voices from all stakeholder groups and fosters meaningful networks in the digital world. I think this is the right way to shape the future and the United Nations can be very proud to host such an influential platform for global digital cooperation. Thank you very much.

Thomas Schneider : Now let’s turn again to our Under-Secretary-General from UNDESA, Mr. Junhua Li, what are UNDESA’s lessons learned and how do you see the biggest achievements, or where?

Junhua Li: Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. I guess it is really challenging to reflect 20 years’ achievement within three minutes. But I would first reflect that the IGF itself is a crowning achievement for this WSIS process. IGF started with the mandate given by WSIS. This very unique, only a global premier forum brought all the multi-stakeholders to engage with each other on a number of issues. Just now, as the Secretary mentioned, the IGF started with a single event. Now we have multi-disciplined work tracks and also thousands of participants joined our discussion. So I think we have learned a lot from the IGF. I think we can learn here and benefit. It’s not only about the government, it’s also about private sectors. civil societies, technical communities, scientific academias, and also the vulnerable groups. But most importantly, we have increasing number of youth participants who helped us to define, to discuss the future of the digital process. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you very much. We have another question that, of course, after the achievements, we need to look at the challenges and regarding also the newest, the latest instruments. So my question number two is, what are the main challenges in implementing the Global Digital Compact? And what role does the multi-stakeholder approach or should the multi-stakeholder approach play in tackling them? Sally Wentworth from ISAB, please.

Sally Wentworth: Thank you, Ambassador, and I’d like to echo my colleagues in thanking the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting us this week. It’s a marvelous venue and a really nice environment for this kind of multi-stakeholder discussion. The Global Digital Compact aspires to achieve an inclusive, open, sustainable, fair, safe, and secure digital future for all. For many of us here, some of the WSIS veterans, so to speak, this is a familiar theme. This is a body of work that many of us have been engaged in over the last 20 years. And so there are some lessons learned, I think, from the last 20 years that can help us overcome some of the challenges in implementing that vision that’s set out in the Global Digital Compact. I draw on lessons related to connectivity. How is it that the world has… made such impressive progress, growing from one billion people connected in the original WSIS Summit, to 5.4 billion people connected today, and I think what is clear is that it took a tremendous amount of collaboration by all stakeholders to achieve that result. I’m mindful of the question that IT Secretary General Doreen Bogdan put to us this morning, which is, despite that progress, are we satisfied? And of course, the answer is no. We will not be satisfied until the remaining populations are part of this digital society that we’re building. To do that, and if we’re drawing lessons from the last 20 years, we must work together as stakeholders, and that has really been the hallmark of the WSIS, and that was actually the groundbreaking effort that took place during the WSIS Summit in 2003 and 2005, and I remember very well how hard we all worked from governments and civil society, private sector, the technical community, to figure out how we would work together to achieve these results. And so, as we look forward to how we implement the Global Digital Compact, and as we look towards the WSIS Plus 20, it is absolutely crucial that we remain committed to that model, that the model that brings the expertise from all parts of our society to the table and harnesses that is the model that is going to make us successful. It is the way we will move to connect the last 2.6 billion people and ensure that they come online to a world that is safe, secure, and protects them in the digital environment. So, for us at the Internet Society, It’s absolutely critical that the processes that we set up to review the WSIS 20 years later and to implement the Global Digital Compact really do remain firmly grounded in the multi-stakeholder model that has delivered us a tremendous amount of progress in the last 20 years, and has also given us a taste of what’s possible if we really lean into that.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you very much. Now let’s turn to His Excellency Mr. Mohamed Saad al-Tamimi. What are the main challenges in implementing the Global Digital Compact, and what role does the multi-stakeholder approach have in your view?

Mohammed Saud Al-Tamimi: Thank you, Thomas. First of all, I would like to thank our host, His Excellency Ahmed El-Swayyan, and his great team for putting everything for us to make sure that we are gathering here in a quality environment. Thank you. And let me convince that this is the first time I’ve been in a big panel like this, so I’m watching the time. I’m really glad to be a cambion with this great panelist. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, we are glad that we’re part of the consultation and preparation process for issuing the Global Digital Compact. And definitely there is challenges to implementing that one. And they echo what has been said before. Number one challenge is connecting the unconnected. Right now we have 2.6 billion human beings that are not connected. Right now, today, that’s almost 33% of the globe. 14% of those unconnected due to coverage. This is lack of network. The rest is due to affordability. So there is a huge challenge by facing us as a globe to connect the unconnected. There’s multiple way to solve it. Right now we are partnering with the ITU to find innovative and sustainable solution. the Internet, the Internet is the only way to connect the unconnected, to solve this problem. The most challenging things over the last 20 years, the cage of unconnected people falling dramatically over the past 20 years. Before, this gap of unconnected been decreasing significantly. Right now, over the last 20 years, we have a huge gap of unconnected people falling over the past 20 years. In the past, in the ITU, we have 2. 7 billion, today, at the end of 2024, we still have 2. 6, so over 24 months, we’re adding only 100 million. The second challenge, I think, it’s not about only connecting the unconnected. That connection should be sustainable. So, sustainability should be from the point of view of the ITU, the ITU should be sustainable. The third challenge, I think, is to make sure any solution offered to the table should be sustainable, and there should be fair and safe access to all of these solutions to connect the unconnected. Coming back, Thomas, to your last question, or last part of your question, which is about multilateral discussion. Definitely, there’s two key principle or guiding principle that we should have in the world to make sure that we have a global digital impact, and there are two key challenges of implementing global digital impact. The first one, I think, multiple of my colleagues mentioned it, which is collaboration. Definitely, collaboration between government, private sector, academia. Everyone should be involved, developed and developing country as well. The second one, which is accountability or inclusion. Everyone should be included in the solution, and everyone should be included in the solution. Everyone should be added to that And this means we don’t leave anyone behind. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you very much, His Excellency. Now let’s go to His Excellency Mr. Takuo Imagawa from Japan. Thank you, Thomas.

Takuo Imagawa: It’s my great honor to be here at the session. I’d like to express my sincere gratitude to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UN IGF Secretary and stakeholders for organizing this friendly meeting. Despite advancement in digital technologies, 2.6 billion people worldwide remain unconnected to the Internet, and many people are not fully benefiting from digital advancements. It is necessary to accelerate international cooperation in this digital field. Japan welcomes the GDC adopted at the UN Future Summit. I believe it is essential to follow up on this compact in an effective manner. I would like to emphasize two points, the importance of multistakeholder engagement and the utilization of existing forums. Firstly, it is difficult to realize the commitment of the GDC only through a top-down approach by the UN or its member states. Cooperation among multistakeholders, including industry, civil society, the tech community, academia, and international organizations is indispensable. The importance of multistakeholder engagement is clearly stated throughout the GDC, but the key is effective implementation. The GDC has agreed to establish new mechanisms, such as the AI scientific panel and the global dialogue. As discussions on the modalities progress, it is necessary to provide multistakeholders with transparent and ample opportunities for input, and to carefully consider those inputs. To make multistakeholder participation more effective, meaningful participation from developing as well as developed countries is necessary, including the efforts of capacity building. We need to advance our efforts by building on existing forums, including the forums outside the U.N. system, and expert efforts avoiding overlaps. The IGF in which we are participating is a forum where various stakeholders contributing digital development gather, and active discussions are currently taking place. We need to advance our efforts by building on existing forums, including the IGF in which we are participating is a forum where various stakeholders contributing digital development gather, and active discussions are currently taking place. The IGF symbolizes the importance of multistakeholder efforts, and is very effective for discussing the follow-up of the GDC. Regarding the follow-up of the GDC and its relationship with existing initiatives such as WSIS and IGF, I understand that specific discussions will take place in the near future. We will continue to work with the Japanese to develop the existing forums, and we will contribute to these discussions. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you very much. We have another question that I’m going to ask also to three panelists. The question is about how we can effectively address rapidly evolving technologies, knowing that our governance mechanisms take their time. His Excellency, Mr. Torgeir Micaelsen, from Norway.

Torgeir Micaelsen: Thank you, Thomas. I mean, in general, emerging technologies, the disruptive technologies, they should be discussed in an environment like this. In a multistakeholder approach. And I think that we need to have a multistakeholder approach, and we need to have a multistakeholder approach. We need to have a multistakeholder approach. We need to have a multistakeholder approach. As we need to see this from all sorts of angles before going home, collaborating, setting things into motions. So for instance, if we look at AI, it’s obvious that AI-based solutions, they can basically be something that we can save the world with. On the other hand, a lot of ethical and other topics that need to be considered. This is now addressed in the Global Digital Compact. WSIS has engaged in several important topics in that regard as well, with workshops, dialogues. I think this is the right way to move forward, also in the future, to discuss it. For me, and from the Norwegian point of view, the Scandinavian point of view, it’s extremely important that we maintain a human-centric focus in these very important international debates on AI. Emerging technologies, for instance, we have some nice feedback on how to test out technologies in a safe environment. We have these different examples from our sandboxes, where AI systems with high-risk potential can be tried out in a data-protected, data-privacy-safe environment with really nice results. We’d love to share that sometime. We think that we need to have experience with these sorts of times. And as I mentioned, use privacy in enhancing digital development must be stimulated. I think, as I started with… that we need to keep this AI-related topics into the multi-stakeholder dialogue. Lastly, I think we must renew our commitment to ethics and accountability, as called for under Objective 5 in the Global Digital Compact. As AI and other technologies reshape our societies, we must ensure that our multi-stakeholder collaboration upholds the highest ethical standards, safeguarding human rights, privacy and security. If we can manage all those things together, I think we could have a lasting future. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you very much. Let’s move to Ms. Jennifer Bachus from the United States. How do we cope with the speed of technology?

Jennifer Bachus: I will echo my colleagues here in thanking both the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as well as the MAG and others involved in putting together this really impressive conference. And I’ll also highlight, I have found the evolution of the questions to be great, because now we’re sort of looking to the future. And I think, I hope it’s not a surprise to everybody that the United States is very much committed to harnessing emerging technologies, including AI, for sustainable development, to help ensure all countries are able to access the benefits of technology and to use AI and other technologies to help address the world’s greatest challenges. We are committed to engaging in international AI conversations with a range of partners and across geographies to promote safe, secure and trustworthy AI. But to answer your question and to turn to GDC, it’s been a little over two months since we were in New York, and I was in New York with many of you for the GDC’s adoption. From the beginning, the United States supported the GDC’s adoption of AI. And we’ve been doing this for a long time. And we’ve been doing this for a long time. And we’ve been doing this for a long time. And we’ve been doing this for a long time. And we’ve been doing this for a long time. an inclusive and transparent process to develop an appropriately scoped and rights-respecting GDC to help outline a shared digital future for all, underlining, I think, what everyone here has been talking about today. Throughout this process, we were constructive and proactive. I hope there’s agreement on that. And we very much celebrate the GDC’s focus on multistakeholderism and an inclusive, rights-based and gender-responsive approach to digital issues at the United Nations. These core principles underpin our approach, regardless of the pace of technological evolution. We appreciate that the GDC strengthens the work of the United Nations on new issue areas like AI and data governance in an appropriate manner that is inclusive and transparent. We listened and will continue to listen to non-governmental stakeholders on their concerns that the consultation process did not meet the expectation of these stakeholders’ meaningful participation and their very strong eagerness to be part of the implementation. The United States really welcomes stakeholders to be actively involved in the GDC implementation process. Examples include discussions on the multidisciplinary, independent, international scientific panel on AI, which I will say is a very long title, Global Dialogue on AI Governance, the CSTD Data Governance Working Group, the Proposal for an Office. I could go on and on in the many initiatives. We’re looking ahead to the WSIS plus 20 overall review. And in that point, I’ll flag a couple of key points from the point of view of the United States. We support an inclusive, transparent, and as multistakeholder process as possible for the WSIS plus 20 overall review. We should ensure the WSIS plus 20 overall review focuses on a review of implementation over the last 20 years before we think about what’s next, much like you laid out the questions in this paper. And we should use the WSIS plus 20 overall review to integrate GDC implementation within the WSIS framework. And one last point, because I think I’m running out of my time, it’s important that any role for the U.N. system on evolving and emerging technologies complements existing work by outside entities in U.N. agencies. It does not and should not supersede them. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you very much. Now let’s turn to His Excellency Mr. Shermatov Sherzod with Pakistan. How can we cope with rapid technology with WSIS and GDC frameworks?

Sherzod Shermatov: Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to express my gratitude for all the organizers of this important forum. And this opens up perspectives for discussing important topics for the development of internet. And from that perspective, I would like to focus on the importance of discussing the human-centric, the people-centric approach. Because in the beginning of the opening ceremonies, there was an excellent presentation by His Excellency Minister Abdullah about the importance of increasing the digital divide between the global north and global south. And from that perspective, if you look into the other dynamics, like the demographics. So in the global north, most of the developed countries, they see the demographic challenges. There are not so many babies born. Whereas in the global south, you see the opposite. There are so many new babies born. So there are different approaches on the government. So governments, they need more jobs to be created. Whereas the internet can really help people to find the remote jobs. So from that perspective, in Uzbekistan, we tried to create. the very favorable conditions for IT companies to open up their delivery centers so that they can have their outsourcing hubs from Uzbekistan, and this will help for the companies in the developed countries to decrease their costs, as well as to create the remote jobs for the people of Uzbekistan, which is a kind of double-locked country. And this, from that perspective, this can open up the additional perspectives, opportunities for all the countries in the Global South, which can utilize this kind of potential of opening the new opportunities for additional sources of income, so that the people in the Global South, they are not looking towards moving physically as potential migrants to the Global West, rather than trying to enjoy living with their families in their own houses, and are able to find good opportunities for income. For that, we have to heavily invest in education, upskilling of the people. For the case of Uzbekistan, we are leading the world in terms of the number of people learning on the Coursera platform as a share of the total workforce, and we try to invest heavily on upskilling of our people in terms of the foreign languages, and in terms of the jobs which can be required in this global digital economy. And from the IGF perspective, I think for the future, we have to think about the ways of avoiding any potential artificial kind of limitations for any type of global work. Because we know that for physical movement of labor, there are limitations with visa, with anti-immigration policies, etc., but we should avoid any potential kind of limitations for the global work. So, all the remote work opportunities… should be available globally, because there should be no limit in terms of the Internet working. And we have to also promote the global cooperation, because the planet as a whole faces lots of challenges which we have identified in sustainable development goals, like even the global green policies are being implemented. So Internet itself is not just an enabler of the green agenda, now it’s becoming one of the biggest pollutants as well, because the global footprint of all the data centers is now more than the global footprint of the airplane industry. So we have to think about creating the green data centers. And from that perspective, I have to showcase a very important cooperation between Saudi Arabian companies, the Aqua Power Data World, which are creating the green energy resources in Uzbekistan, and creating the green data center, which can be utilized by the AI companies which are in very much need of having global computing power, which should be also based on the green energy. So only through opening up the artificial borders in the Internet, through massive education and promoting the global cooperation, we can work together for the benefit of all people living in our single planet. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you very much. Now we have a fourth question that I would like to hear you all on this question, given that we’re slightly running behind schedule, I dare to reduce your specific time of three minutes to two and a half each. Unfortunately, we don’t have a clock here that we see it. That was announced that there should be one, somehow it didn’t make it. So please try to… to be very concise, but thank you for your interesting point. So the question is the following. It’s about the mandate of the IGF, which will be renewed during the WSIS Plus 20 process. And the question is, what would be your vision for IGF beyond 2025, and how could the IGF contribute to the implementation of the GDC? So we start with His Excellency Mohammed Saud Al-Tamimi, thank you.

Mohammed Saud Al-Tamimi: So here in Saudi Arabia, we firmly believe that IGF should continue as principal platform for multi-stakeholder discussions, forming Internet policy. We see IGF as well as a platform to produce well-crafted policy that will help us as a globe to implement global digital compact. And with that, it will add more inclusivity, with more discussions with multiple stakeholders. And the second one, undermining the time, which is adding more innovation during this discussion. As His Excellency the Minister Abdullah Souha, the Minister of Telecommunication and IT in Saudi Arabia, mentioned this morning, there was multiple forms of digital divide and global divide and AI divide. So we need more discussions, more platforms like this one, to discuss AI ethics, data privacy, digital sovereignty, and so on, the kind of topics that need more discussion, more platforms. And more importantly, for us as a committed nation to deliver global digital compact, definitely we have to continue with the IGF, with WSIS as well, to make sure that we have enough platform for collaborations and innovation to deliver our commitment.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you very much.

Junhua Li: Thank you. Certainly, UN believes digital transformation is one of the strategic vehicles for almost all member states to catch up their national efforts in attending the 2030 Agenda, even beyond. So I guess over the past two decades, we have achieved enormously. The beauty of the IGF, certainly, we need to commit to, number one, inclusiveness, number two, openness, number three, neutrality. So all in all, as other panelists highlighted very much, we are committed to this multi-stakeholder approach. But beyond this review, what we would like to see is the IGF continues to serve as a premium forum, global forum, on the digital discussion with the participation of the all stakeholders, and we would like to see this IGF to serve as a premium tour to execute the global digital compact. Also, we would like to see that with a stronger mandate after this review, IGF can invest more efforts on the capacity building for those countries in vulnerable situations to help to bridge the gap between the north and south. I’ll stop here.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you very much. Next is Ms. Sally Wentworth.

Sally Wentworth: Thank you, Tomas. The Internet Society has been a long supporter of of the Internet Governance Forum since its earliest days. And part of the reason for that, again, as I said earlier, is our belief that we will be more effective at implementing the aspirations of the World Summit on the Information Society, the Sustainable Development Goals, the Global Digital Compact, if we are working together. And platforms like the IGF allow all stakeholders on an equal footing in an open and inclusive way to come together to tackle those challenges. What is impressive about the IGF as well is its ability to evolve over time, to meet the needs of the community. And we see that through the national and regional IGFs that have emerged around the world. And the Internet Society has supported many of them over the past years, where we take a global consensus, and the communities themselves start implementing that at the local level. So translating this model of multi-stakeholder internet governance from a global dialogue into local implementation, I think, is a really important feature of the IGF, and one that we would certainly want to see continued and strengthened, and perhaps even a vehicle for the kind of capacity building that the undersecretary spoke about. So we would strongly call for the IGF’s mandate to be renewed as part of the WSIS Plus 20. We would like to see stronger and more sustainable support for the IGF going forward, and ensuring that as it evolves, it retains those key characteristics of inclusion, stakeholders on an equal footing, and this ability to translate global issues into local action.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you very much, His Excellency Mr. Takou Imagawa.

Takuo Imagawa: Thank you, Thomas. Japan has been a strongly We are very proud to be a member of the IGF, and we are very supporting the multi-stakeholder approach in the Internet of Companies. Last year we hosted the IGF 2023 in Kyoto with more than 11,000 participants registered from 178 countries and regions, including more than 6,000 attending in person. This is a record number in IGF’s history and we are very honoured and also grateful for this community. We are also very proud to be a member of the OASIS Plus 20 community. This year we have a number of multi-stakeholders, active discussions are taking place, demonstrating strong support for multi-stakeholder Internet Governance and the IGF, which is functioning effectively. Based on this, we hope that discussions to sustain and promote IGF will take place in the OASIS Plus 20 review. The theme of this year, building our digital world, is the future of the digital world, and the future of the digital world should be considered, including the possibility of making it permanent in the future. Furthermore, the IGF itself needs to be constantly evolved to meet the demands of the times. Last year, Japan held a special session on AI at the IGF. This year, a wide range of digital issues, including AI, are being addressed. We are also working on the future of the digital world, and we hope that this will be achievable by establishing new tracks, such as the youth track, and we believe this journey will continue. The global dialogue needs to be inclusive for multi-stakeholders, including developing countries. In this sense, it is important to actively leverage existing forums, such as the IGF. Thank you. Also, to repeat, we believe that IGEF is very effective for discussing the follow-up of the TDC. Finally, the IGEF is led by the activities of the MAG. Among all, the leadership panel has greatly contributed to the IGEF, especially in terms of external advocacy and fundraising. Although the MAG and LP are not stipulated in the Tunis agenda, they play a significant role. And we believe that the mechanism leading the IGEF should be discussed in the WSIS Plus 20 review. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you, Her Excellency Ms. Nthati Moorosi.

Nthati Moorosi: Thank you very much. We believe that IGEF’s mandate is still pretty much relevant. However, beyond 2025, it can re-imagine itself having a role in becoming a more dynamic, innovation-oriented platform aligned with the objectives of the Global Digital Compact. Its vision could center around being a catalyst for inclusive, rights-based, and sustainable digital transformation. We want to believe that IGEF can play a role in accelerating the achievements of SDGs. The IGEF could position itself as a global convener for multi-stakeholder partnerships aimed at accelerating SDGs, focusing on digital inclusion initiatives. The GDC emphasizes the need to address connectivity gaps, promote universal, meaningful, and affordable internet access, and ensure that underserved and unserved communities, including marginalized groups, are not left behind. So we believe that IGEF could convene all stakeholders, bring these problems that we’ve been talking about since morning, and come up with solutions together. We talked about the need for cheaper devices, smart devices. IGEF could We believe that IGF has a role to play to bring solutions to the world. We believe that IGF has a role to play to convene the government, the private sector, the civil society, and sit around the table and come up with solutions for that. Solutions for data, price, all the solutions. We believe that IGF has a role to play to convene everyone to bring those solutions. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider : And with that, I’m going to turn it over to my colleague, Dr. Jennifer Bachus.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks. And I’m probably will reflect some of the answers you’ve already heard, and I apologize for that, but I think it’s because there’s significant agreement among those of us in this room. We, the United States, we support the IGF as the preeminent global venue for international engagement. We support the IGF as a platform to bring solutions to Internet public policy issues that are rights-respecting, innovative, and empowering. We recognize this is a really pivotal time for the IGF as it comes under the GDC’s, after the GDC’s adoption, and at the outset of the WSIS plus 20 review. While there’s always space for strengthening the IGF, the IGF has continued to be a model of the IGF. We support continued efforts to strengthen the IGF, including through increased participation by stakeholders from developing countries. On GDC implementation, we’ve been clear about the need to build on existing processes, including the IGF. We’ve seen over the years the IGF as a great venue for discussions on the latest topics and flexible enough to accommodate the evolution of key issues, as was already noted by some of the other panelists. As we move into the WSIS plus 20 review, we expect the IGF to play a key role in strengthening the IGF, and we expect strongly for the UN General Assembly to extend the mandate of the IGF before it expires in 2025. We have also heard a lot of discussion by stakeholders on to come up in the WSIS Plus 20 process. Ultimately, the United States is committing to ensuring the IGF has clear and stable funding. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider : His Excellency, Mr. Shermatov Sherzod.

Sherzod Shermatov: Thank you. And we hope that IGF would help us to bring more countries together, because a long time ago, we used to talk about the world becoming like a global village. But unfortunately, the latest event shows that the world is becoming more polarized, and the internet becoming a different kind of silos of different types of internet. And second thing, we used to talk about the importance of connectivity, since like 10% growth on high-speed connectivity will bring like 2% growth of GDP per capita, or it’s used for learning the new things, or increasing the productivity, et cetera. But if you look back to what it is used for, especially with the kids, unfortunately, not all the time internet is helping the kids, but sometimes it’s hurting them as well. So there are countries, even in developed world, who are kind of banning access to social media, banning access to some sort of content. So from that perspective, I would like to see that IGF would focus more on the benefits of internet for the whole human society, and especially for the young, growing kids, so that internet would become a very safe and promoting, developing area, not the area where parents would be kind of cautious about getting access to internet to their kids. So these are the areas I think we should focus more.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you, His Excellency, Mr. Torgeir Micaelsen.

Torgeir Micaelsen: Thank you. I will keep it brief. I see that. I think it’s important to make sure that the multistakeholder approach is strengthened after the process starts next year. There are some people anxious to wrap up, is that true? No, but I think it’s otherwise, my main point is I believe that we should make sure that the multistakeholder platform or the approach is strengthened after the process starting next year. I think it’s important to make sure that the multistakeholder approach is strengthened after the process starts next year. We have been doing this for almost 20 years. The IGF should continue to be the primary arena. That’s our position. Lastly, I think it’s okay to mention that we also need to be careful that we don’t create many new arenas when looking forward. We need to be careful that we don’t create many new arenas when looking forward. I think that’s a crucial piece of inclusion, which we will ultimately give us smaller influence, less influence, if we spread our wings on too many initiatives. We have to build on the strength, the initiatives, the bodies we already have. So, thank you.

Stefan Schnorr: I think that’s a key piece of inclusion. I think that’s a key piece of inclusion. I think that’s the first instrument to implement, to successfully implement the GDC, because the goal of the global digital impact is an inclusive, open, sustainable, fair, safe, and secure digital future for all. There are two key priorities to achieve this goal. Internet shutdowns and censorships. So this is central to the UN mandate and the GDC. We cannot compromise on fundamental rights that shape our digital future. And second, to achieve this goal, it is crucial that all stakeholders collaborate and work together. And in the digital domain, that means that stakeholder expertise is essential for reaching the objectives of the GDC. And the solution is very easy, because the solution is the Internet Governance Forum. It is in a very strong position to facilitate both of these priorities at the end. As we have discussed today, the IGF is one of the most inclusive, open, and transparent forums hosted by the United Nations and the Global Digital Compact that truly seeks to achieve its goals, must recognize the vital role of the IGF in this process. The IGF is not only a platform, it is a cornerstone for shaping our digital future. And I think the IGF mandate is well-suited to this task due to its broad scope. And the IGF has already proven its value, and now it’s time to realize its full potential. Also, the negotiations were challenging for the GDC. There was a broad agreement at the end among all UN members states on the point that we don’t want to have any overlaps. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. We need to build on what works, and this is the IGF. And therefore, as I mentioned, I think the IGF is the only instrument for the successful implementation of the GDC.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you very much. Now I would like to invite Mr. Paul Gaskell, Deputy Director for Digital Trade, Internet Governance, and Digital Standards of the United Kingdom. Paul.

Paul Gaskell: Thank you. which is effective and successful. Since 2005, we have seen how multi-stakeholder governance of the Internet, with roles for governments, the private sector, civil society and the technical community, has driven increased connectivity, fostered technological innovation, and supported a stable and resilient Internet. The ability of the Internet’s global infrastructure to withstand the COVID pandemic and help the world get through that global crisis is evidence of this success. We now face new challenges, however, driven by rapid technological change and a more complex digital landscape. Back in 2005, no one was thinking about AI, social media or the metaverse, and the WSIS Plus 20 Review needs to be ambitious and future-focused, taking full account of new and emerging technologies and addressing the challenges faced by developing countries in particular. As others have said, it’s also a reality, at a much more basic level, that one-third of the world’s population has no access to the Internet and there is still urgent work to do to connect the unconnected. So we must ensure that the WSIS Review fully contributes to the UN Sustainable Development Agenda, WSIS should have a real focus on how the potential of digital can contribute to all aspects of sustainable development. development. And finally, of course, the WSIS review should extend the mandate of the IGF and we think it should consider a permanent mandate as well. And just regarding the success of the IGF, a recent report by independent researchers in Oxford in the UK highlights the IGF success in becoming a global ecosystem for knowledge sharing, particularly for developing world partners. We believe we should build on that, that record of achievement, and strengthen the IGF for the future. The UK looks forward to actively participating in the WSIS review and working with global partners on these issues. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you very much, Paul. So we have a final round of wrap-ups. There has been some convergence of views, I think, so let’s try to focus on things that we maybe have not heard yet or what you think is particularly important. So I’ll ask each panelist to give a final message of maximum two minutes or less, says the script here. But we are not so bad in time, actually. To each of you, and now this time I start from the other end, so please, what are your key learnings, what are new things that you’ve heard in this round, or what has not been said that you would like to say?

Torgeir Micaelsen: I think there’s a lot of important stuff that has been said. I was just sitting here thinking back, I think it was like in 1994 or 1995, the first time I accessed the internet myself. My father had bought me an Amstrad 64, a modem with a cable, put it into the socket, and hearing that wonderful noise, it almost gets me like a nostalgia here, looking back that’s 30 years ago, I would like everyone to have that kind of feeling that I got in the 90s, everyone should get the feeling to be connected, to make new friends, to learn new stuff online in a safe and secure manner, at the same time respecting their rights to as human beings, so this is kind of the conversation that’s moving forward inside the IGF or at some point later this week, that would be highly appreciated, thank you.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you very much Jennifer Bachus.

Jennifer Bachus: I would conclude by saying what’s sort of already been said here repeatedly, which is that we will only be successful in the future technologies and the current technologies if all stakeholders are around the table, we can’t do it as governments alone, we need all the voices, we need the private sector, the academic community, the technical community, civil society, otherwise we’re going to miss something that’s incredibly important, so we will continue to be committed to these sorts of engagements and we look forward to Oslo in six months. Thanks to Norway for stepping up and we look forward to seeing you in not that many months ahead, so congrats and thanks.

Torgeir Micaelsen: She saved me, so I’m so sorry, you obviously, all of you, warmest welcome to Oslo in Norway next year for the IGF 2025.

Stefan Schnorr: That’s noted. Thank you very much, I think this panel has truly highlighted the value of the IGF and I’m looking forward not only for the IGF in 2025 in Norway but also for the IGFs in 2026, 2027 and so on, so let’s continue this successful story. I think what we can do is better and strengthen the inclusion of the Global South to make the IGF more visible. I think this is very important. But at the end, we have so many new challenges also in the future. And the best way to address these challenges and to find common solutions is to work together with all multi-stakeholders. Therefore, I’m looking forward for the future of the IGF.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you very much.

Sherzod Shermatov: As a wrap-up, I would like to thank all the organizers, and I think that this IGF was a very successful event. And I hope that this kind of meetings are very important to have a better idea about the future of Internet, about the future of cooperation among the countries, and improving the necessary areas in terms of the governance. And I’m just looking forward for having more productive and more successful such events, which will help us to cooperate, collaborate with each other, and for the benefit of humanity as a whole. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you very much. Sally Wentworth.

Sally Wentworth: At the Internet Society, our vision is that the Internet is for everyone. And we believe that we are all stakeholders in the future of the Internet. And that is really what a platform like the IGF represents. And as I said earlier, we look forward to many future IGFs and seeing the IGF continue to evolve to meet the challenges of the future. As we look to the WSIS plus 20, we are a stakeholder in that process. We are part of the Internet technical community. And we really hope that our voice, that the voice of the Internet technical community is included and welcomed in that process, both in the process to evaluate the WSIS and also to think about the future of the WSIS and in the implementation of the Global Digital Compact. Those of us in the internet technical community are working very hard to ensure that the internet continues to evolve in a way that is open and secure and puts people at the center and ensuring that the technology that we all depend upon for the exciting things and the emerging technologies that we’ve spoken about is available and is scalable and is meeting the needs of the future. So we look forward to engaging in that process. We hope that our voice is included and welcomed. And we are excited about the IGF in Oslo and in seeing how the modalities and the process for the WSIS Plus 20 emerges over the weeks and months ahead and contributing our voice to that. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider : Takuo Imagawa.

Takuo Imagawa: Thank you. My final comment is just adding one point. Within the limited time and the resources, we need to efficiently advance the WSIS Plus 20 review. We have reached an agreement on the GDC through difficult negotiations, and the agreed items in the GDC should not be reopened, but rather used as a basis for the WSIS Plus 20 review, I guess. For example, regarding the WSIS action lines, I believe we should have effective and efficient discussions by basing them on the existing 11 items. So we look forward to discussion to come, including the IGF 2025 in Norway. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you. Nthati Moorosi.

Nthati Moorosi: Thank you. I think my last words is just to thank the organizers, the government for hospitality, but also to challenge IGF to say that I I want to reiterate that it has to play in the space of SDGs, it’s about time we discuss difficult problems, come up with great solutions that can save little budgets that we have in the country, that can grow the economy. It’s about time we talk about even big problems such as voting online for national elections, like writing examinations online, things like that. We have to start talking about big problems and coming up with big solutions. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you. Junhua Li.

Junhua Li: Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. I would say that I will leave Riyadh with a strong conviction that the IGF’s or its potential needs to be further tapped with a stronger mandate, with a review, then we would equip this IGF platform to a new phase that would provide more recommendations, solutions to the member states, to the multi-stakeholders, that how AI or digital process would really benefit the whole humanities. So, I look forward to seeing everyone in Oslo for the next IGF.

Thomas Schneider : Mohammed Saud Al-Tamimi.

Mohammed Saud Al-Tamimi: Since I’m the last one, let me take the liberty to speak on behalf of this panel. As we are approaching the 20th anniversary of WSIS, we all agree that we have to have more WSIS coming, and more IGF, as my friend in Norway says that we will have 25, 26 and more to come, as a mandatory platform, collaboration and inclusive, to implement our commitment as a global digital compact. And I wish you a successful… And I think that’s what we are going to see in the coming days for this coming IGF Riyadh 2024.

Thomas Schneider : So thank you very much. We are approaching the end of the first part. Before I let you go, let me allow to try and add one or two things. I think there seems to be broad support that an inclusive, not just a multi-stakeholder approach, but an inclusive multi-stakeholder approach, but not just the big ones, but also to have a voice, a sitting at the table and have a voice at the table. Something that I would like to add to the discussion is that it is important that everybody is sitting at the table, but we should not forget that we may have the reference on the respective roles of the different stakeholders. It was hard fought, paragraph 35 or 36 or whatever it was in the agenda. We may have different roles, but anyone that is missing, there’s always room for discussion. So I think it’s important to, if we talk about multi-stakeholder, to bring everyone together, discuss our roles, agree on the roles and agree on solutions, hopefully, and also agree on making sure that all voices are heard, and in this respect, I would actually also like to refer to the São Paulo guidelines that have been adopted earlier this year, the guidelines that have been adopted earlier this year, which have indicators and tools and solutions to how to make sure that a multi-stakeholder process is actually real inclusive. It helps to also counter power imbalances, which exist not just among governments, but also, of course, among the other stakeholders. And I think everybody agrees on the relevance of the IGF, on the potential of the IGF, also, of course, if the more funding is available. And one of the reasons for the potential and the success of the IGF, it has been and I would like to conclude that this is the agility and the dynamic of the IGF, its ability to deal with emerging issues that pop up many times first in the IGF on the agenda and are then picked up by the ITU, by UNESCO, by OECD, by other institutions that rely on the IGF to identify emerging issues, which is also one of the functions according to paragraph 72, point G, whatever the exact thing is of the Tunis agenda. So we are not inventing these things. These things have been foreseen. The potential of the IGF has been foreseen in the WSIS documents in Geneva and in Tunis, and we are looking forward very much to us all together driving the IGF forward. And the IGF is not an end in itself. It’s a means, as we’ve heard, to achieve the SDGs, to make sure that all of us are able to benefit from digital technologies for the good and not for the bad. Thank you very much to all of you, and I’m looking forward to hearing you and seeing you again at the next occasion. Thank you very much. With this, we will move to the second part of the… I’m supposed to moderate also the second session, and I just need to switch the PDF. Thank you very much for this. Now we’ll move to the second session, which, if I see this correctly, is somewhat less multi-stakeholder in the sense… We are missing Tafik Yelassi from UNESCO. And Gregor Salis is connected online. Okay, let’s give him a chance to come in and use, in the meantime, he’s walking in, excellent. This is such a big venue that sometimes it takes time to get from A to B, but he’s coming. While he’s taking his seat, let me happily introduce to you Ms. Doreen Bogdan-Martin, Secretary-General of the International Telecommunications Union, to give some introductory remarks to all of us. Welcome, Doreen, thank you.

Doreen Bogdan-Martin: If the technicians could turn on the microphones. The light is here, so now we have the visuals, now we need the audio as well, in order to have a… Okay, that’s better. Now, we’re all there. Thank you so much, Ambassador Schneider, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon, good evening. It’s great to be here with all of you to share some thoughts as you kick off this session. I think, ladies and gentlemen, we are standing together today at the cusp of the next chapter of the inclusive digital future, and we’re doing so at a time when technology often feels like it’s always one step or more ahead of us. Two decades ago, the world convened to declare a common desire and a commitment to build a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. where everyone can create, access, utilize, and share information and knowledge. And while the WSIS framework has helped to make great strides towards this goal, I think now is the time that we have to pause, although I hate to say the word pause because we don’t want to stop, but it’s really the moment for us to reflect and take stock of our progress, to review the current state of the world and the technology around us, and to double down on our commitment towards an equitable and sustainable digital future. The WSIS has presented us with a powerful example of digital cooperation in action, withstanding the test of time by building adaptable, and Thomas, as you said when I was walking in, agile, if I can say that, adaptable, agile governance processes that can keep pace with the opportunities and the challenges of emerging technologies. We need to continue to build on this momentum. And today, we have the adoption of the Global Digital Compact, and that is an important milestone in the journey to next year’s WSIS Plus 20 review. And I want to leave you quickly with perhaps three thoughts as we drive forward our shared ambition. So the first is to think about connectivity in terms of universal, meaningful connectivity because how can we achieve the vision of WSIS if a third of humanity and countless others that we, third of humanity being unconnected and countless others that are under-connected as we see it, not part of today’s digital experience. Second, we have to invest in trust and security. The next phase of WSIS must play a critical role in ensuring that AI and other emerging technologies are developed responsibly and inclusively. At stake is a sustainable development agenda, our 17 SDGs, and our progress towards achieving those 17 goals. And third, last but not least, making building our multi-stakeholder digital future a top priority. We have to do that, ladies and gentlemen, with a shared commitment for a safe and inclusive and a sustainable digital ecosystem. Rest assured that you can count on the ITU to accompany you every way, every step of this process. I think it’s fair to say that we are in a race against time. The future of digital has not yet been written, but let’s remember who we are, where we came from, and what we can achieve when we work together. So let’s write that next chapter of our shared digital future together. With that, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for the opportunity. And Thomas, Ambassador, Chair, back to you. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you, Secretary General. So, yeah, over to the panel. I think we can actually use question one and question two, put them together so that I think that makes sense. And not surprisingly, the questions are not that different from what we’ve heard. Basically, the clients, your customers of the UN bodies speak. So it’s good to see how you see these things. So question one is also, what have been the achievements from your point of view of the WSIS process in the last 20 years? How has the WSIS impacted the work of the UN, of your institutions? And then you may also, I encourage you to also talk about looking forward. So, let me start with Tafiq Elassi, I would like to hear from you.

Tawfik Jelassi: Thank you very much, Thomas. Good afternoon to all of you. Let me share with you the perspective from UNESCO. 20 years ago, OASIS came up with a visionary framework to bridge the global digital divide, to increase accessibility to the Internet, and to harness the potential of information and communication technologies, obviously for socio-economic development. It did not foresee the rise of digital platforms, it did not foresee the rise of AI and generative AI, but again, we had a vision and we had a framework. This was approved at the Tunis edition of OASIS, building on the Geneva Summit that happened two years earlier, 2003, Tunis being in 2005, and obviously it set up a number of objectives and action lines to be implemented at both the national and the international levels. So, your question, what have we accomplished since then? I think OASIS 2005 created a momentum at a global stage. It was a call for collective action, and also it created a political will among participants, and again the participants were very much multi-stakeholder, to make the concept of an information society become a reality. So there were some key principles and guidance that came out of the Tunis summit, with this long-term goal, how can we all benefit from the digital age? Today we can say that some of these objectives were achieved, but many others were not, or not fully achieved. Is the information society today a reality worldwide? No. We see that one-third of the world’s population is still offline, not even connected to the internet. Today, this morning, we heard more about the rise of the knowledge-based society. Here we talk only, quote-unquote, about the information-based society. So the world around us has changed. The question is, have we changed? Have we changed enough in the face of these global changes? So I want to give maybe a balanced response to your question, Thomas. Major achievements were made, for sure, including through collective efforts. But again, I think as IETU Secretary General just mentioned, there is still a lot of work ahead of us, and there are new challenges that came to the fore, including when the information ecosystem moved to digital, good news, because it democratized access to information. But with that came mis-disinformation, hate speech, discrimination, racism, and a whole set of harmful online content. What are we doing, or what have we been doing to combat that? When we see that the rise of digital influencers, in addition to digital content creators, when we see some of these youngsters, called digital influencers, each having 50, 60, 100 million followers online, more than all the UN organizations’ followers combined. Are these professional journalists? They are not. Do they check the content before they post it online? They don’t. In 62% of cases, they don’t check the content before they post it online. So I think these are new challenges that we face. It’s a whole new world. And obviously, we don’t want the internet to become the online Wild West. We want some global governance of the internet. We want to ensure, as again, Doreen said, a safe, secure, open, accessible internet to all. Multilingualism online. We are here in Saudi Arabia. The Arab world represents almost half a billion people. How much content in Arabic is there online? 3%. 3% only. And there are so many communities, including indigenous communities, who have no content online whatsoever. So is that an information society? It cannot be an information society. So just to say that a lot has been achieved, and we are delighted, but again, this user-generated content and the explosion of that, diversity of cultural expressions online, digital influence. There are many other issues that we need to not only make note of, but we have to actively find solutions. We have to create open access… access to information we are respecting, human rights and the openness, accessibility and the multi-stakeholders.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you very much. As our Secretary-General mentioned in the opening speech, we have to create open access to information we are respecting, human rights and the multi-stakeholders. of stakeholders worldwide who really wanted to make a difference on the ground, bringing the benefits of digital to the people. It was about the people, about bringing the benefits of technology to the people on the ground. And to create a trusted, connected world, to look at the gender digital divide, to look at the intergenerational divide, the economic and social benefits that technology, information and communication technologies could bring to the ground at that time. So looking back, the three main achievements that stand out for us as ITU is first, we focused on people, not just the technology, ensuring that everyone everywhere gets the benefit of the digital progress. Second, we’ve made the framework extremely collaborative, inclusive, through our multi-stakeholder efforts. We’ve made sure that the private sector, civil society, technical community, the UN and of course governments reflect the digital world’s diversity and complexity at the same time. The third, we build this adaptable governance processes, you know, so that they can keep pace with the opportunities and challenges that keep emerging with the development of technologies. For instance, look at the WSIS action lines. They’ve given stakeholders a clear framework to tackle evolving digital challenges, from infrastructure to ethics to capacity building to cyber security, including to the really important things that UNESCO is looking at, for example, the indigenous languages, culture, media. It’s really a diverse range, a gamut of ICTs that the action lines cover. And they’ve been evolving with technology. They have a framework which adapts to the ever- changing technology and innovation. We also want to give a special recognition to So, I would like to turn to two very key outcomes of WSIS, and the two complementary processes, the Internet Governance Forum and the WSIS Forum, that have really given action and the grassroots digital development and movement that WSIS is all about. As for the impact of WSIS on UN’s work, it’s important to mention the role that digital now plays in advancing the Sustainable Development Goals, and in 2015, UNESCO, ITU, WHO, ILO, FAO, all UN agencies, UNDP, involved in the WSIS process, we mapped the WSIS action lines with the Sustainable Development Goals, clearly showing a rationale as to how the action lines can implement and can help accelerate the achievements of the Sustainable Development Goals. We also mapped the WSIS action lines with the Sustainable Development Goals, thereby showing clearly how technology can impact and have a very important impact on sustainable development. So, we’ve seen the world go from 1 billion Internet users in 2005 to 5.5 billion today, as Dr Jalasi mentioned, from dial-ups to 5G networks, from fragmented social networks, and then in 2015, a logo S Laurie today showing how S Laurie stood the test of time as a powerful framework for inclusive digital cooperation. Thank you.

Angel González Sanz: Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the introduction and the organizers for giving us the possibility to participate in this discussion. It’s going to be very difficult for me to highlight different achievements of the WSIS process from the ones that have already been identified by my distinguished predecessors in the WSIS process. Identified by my distinguished predecessors in this panel. As has been said, many of the aspirations of the WSIS 20 years ago have been not just fulfilled, but probably exceeded in expectations that the stakeholders had at the time. If one thinks, for example, in terms of the pervasive presence of information and communication technologies in everyday life for many, many billions of people around the planet, and how access to the Internet and access to different forms of ICTs have improved productivity in the economy, but also improved the access to public services, to education, to health, how during the crisis of the COVID pandemic, the Internet enabled some form of social activity to continue in many contexts. At the same time, it has to be said that many of the aspects of the vision of WSIS remain only partially fulfilled, or not fulfilled at all. For example… It has been raised, the question of the digital divide is not only a matter of having more and more people connected, it’s also a matter of giving these people meaningful connectivity. Connectivity that enables them to actually participate as full members of society and exercise the right to political participation, to access to reliable information, to engage meaningfully as citizens. There are divides that affect people along different lines, gender is an important one and we still have very serious gender digital divide, rural versus urban is another one and even educational levels translate into very different kinds of experiences when connecting to the internet. We also see many developments in the area of ICTs that are completely or were completely out of the radar at the time when WSIS was conceived. It would have been difficult for example to imagine 20 years ago that some of the biggest public sector investment would be in this area or that the private sector, the biggest multinational companies would be built around digital service provision, particularly around data. So in terms of how all these changes have affected our work I think it has already been said that the WSIS process has been fundamental in highlighting that there cannot be development without taking a very development oriented perspective into the world of internet connectivity and ICTs. The work that was done by the WSIS actors to map the SDGs to the different action lines I think was very important in that sense and I think it would be impossible for any of us UN agencies to really carry out our work today, our development work without keeping this intimate connection between digitalization and development present in all of our activities. The WSIS Placement Review in which we are now engaged as Secretariat of the CSTB in the moment. partnership with your colleagues from the ITU, from UNESCO, UNDP and others, highlights this intimate connection between development and the WSIS in discussion. It has already been mentioned the crucial role of multi-stakeholder participation in all these processes and I would like to again, like Gitanjali said, highlight the role of the IDF but also of the WSIS Forum in helping identify fundamental trends in technology and in development and in the interface between the two of them, which are essential for any successful development policy. I think I will stop here and I would again just want to close with a reminder of the importance of the WSIS Plus Central Review in the sense of identifying, through a multi-stakeholder approach, the strategic lines in which the WSIS Plus can advance in the convergence between development policy and ICT policy. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you very much. Robert Opp.

Robert Opp: Thanks very much. I don’t want to repeat what colleagues have said, so if it’s okay I’d like to make another observation and some of it might be a bit provocative, but if I reflect on where we’ve come in the last several years, now there’s 20 years since WSIS, but the last several years have seen an acceleration of digitalization, largely I would say as a result of the pandemic. And so there have been three big shifts from the development perspective at the country level that we’ve noticed. One is a shift from thinking of digital and ICTs as solutions and thinking of it more as ecosystems. So thinking really the interconnectedness, the interoperability across entire societies. Second big shift is going from a very fragmented state to a very much more holistic understanding of digital transformation. So it’s not digital transformation only in separate sectors or ministries, but rather a whole of society. And the third big shift is from what I would call techno-optimism to an understanding of the fundamental issues around rights and inclusiveness, that the technology brings risks with it. And now I’m speaking from the perspective of development practitioners, which when I say techno-optimist, because in fact when you look back at the WSIS and you look back at the vision and the fundamental principles that were established, they were actually very visionary in that sense. And the basic framework is still valid despite these kind of seismic shifts in digitalization and ICTs. And so I think the WSIS framework that includes IGF and so on gives us the platform to continue those discussions and has adapted accordingly. I think that what we’re starting to see in addition is a broader interest in these mechanisms because the space of digitalization, the topic of digitalization has become so much more prominent. And although, Gitanjali, I would agree that, you know, I know there was work that was done as part of the SDGs and Agenda 2030, the fact is that a lot of the issues that we’re discussing today were still absent in 2015. And it was almost as though it was a kind of a niche on the side, like, you know. But when it comes to the successor discussion around what’s going to come after the SDGs, the current Agenda 2030, I don’t think there’s any question that areas of digitalization will be at the center. So I think the world is shifting. I think that WSIS and IGF have also been accommodating that because the fundamental framework is solid and I think that we do need to look at the future at what is coming next and how do we continue to evolve and strengthen and broaden what we’ve established and what has been working for the last 20 years.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you very much Robert. Mike Walton.

Mike Walton: Thanks and I would agree with you Rob, it was visionary and I just look at the basis of what was in the original principles and I think now apply that to UNHCR’s digital strategy and a lot of it still rings true. So digital inclusion is primary for refugees and forcibly displaced and now this wouldn’t have happened 20 years ago but now it wouldn’t have happened 10 years ago. We can see that people are accessing information, life-saving information, information that helps them rebuild their lives. Ten years ago we didn’t have a help website for refugees, now 14 million refugees and forcibly displaced visit that every year and that just wouldn’t have been possible but it’s thanks to the work of pushing this agenda that we actually managed to get this inclusion happening. So just in terms of another opportunity, when I went to Kakuma there was a group of refugees that were coding Android apps for revising, learning for the local community. They were unable to do that, they had a small generator, they had coding, they had equipment and the impact of that was designed by the community and it worked for the community. That wouldn’t have happened 20 years ago, so thanks to all of this kind of pushing that’s just become a reality. A couple of unsung heroes that are in the original document… knowledge and digital preservation, which I know that UNESCO and others do a lot of work on, we have a huge amount of knowledge and stories and a fantastic archive team in UNHR that’s trying to digitally preserve those conversations that happen, the documents that exist, the strategies that are written, and that digitization of knowledge and sharing of knowledge is so critical to actually become useful in the future. So let’s really push forward with that. And with accessibility, we wouldn’t have had auto-captioning 20 years ago. Digital accessibility for those with disabilities has moved on, and people can access lots of assistive technologies and lots of different pieces. We’re not completely there yet, but it has come on leaps and bounds. So just to flag those two parts of the original WSIS principles that perhaps aren’t talked about enough. But I’ve made it sound really rosy, but there are still huge gaps. We’ve talked about that difference in gaps between people who have access and people who don’t. And yes, more refugees do have access, but we’re changing the landscape. The information landscape has changed. It’s far more risky. There’s far more ability for fraud, for risk of trafficking, for toxic narratives to exist online. How do we make sure? This is the next looking at the priorities question. How do we really make sure that we focus on those increased risks and we can tackle those risks going forward? In terms of the importance of multi-stakeholder approach, I’ll just give a couple of examples there. And this is why it’s so important to keep convening, is that we’ve had two examples with the Global Compact on Refugees, which have been invaluable to move forward multi-stakeholder agenda. One is on misinformation and information integrity, which is really about having trusted information out there that people can go to and they know what trusted content is. And we’ve had fantastic support. the Norwegians, the Swiss, the Google and Meta supporting this pledge, and so thanks to them for that multi-stakeholder approach. And on connectivity, the work that ITU have done has been fantastic in terms of pushing with us on that joint approach to connectivity. So without all of the joint working, without the dialogue happening, we wouldn’t have been able to achieve and to get where we are. But focus on these new things that have come since the initial principles.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you. So, looking forward, what are the most critical priorities? Very briefly, Tawfik.

Tawfik Jelassi: That’s a good question, Thomas. What are the most critical priorities for the next phase of WSIS? I think that today we are in this digital information ecosystem, and I think we should really maybe look more deeply into the supply and demand of information in that digital ecosystem. When I mentioned in my first intervention the exponential dissemination of harmful online content, that’s obviously from a supply perspective of information. We have, and I mentioned one initiative of UNESCO, the guidelines of UNESCO for the governance of digital platforms, which were published a year ago, and you are moving into the pilot implementation of that. But then we have to look also at the demand side of information, at the usage side of information. When our studies show that on average a youngster spends six hours a day connected to these digital platforms, more than doing homework or anything else, what information do they come across? Is that fact-checked information, or is that misleading and even harmful information? When we see, again, the usage side, what can we do about that? One initiative, again, by UNESCO is to make the users become media and information literate. And we have developed curricula, we have developed content on media and information literacy. As countries have taught foreign languages in the 60s and the 70s, the language of the youngsters today is digital. Have we prepared them to that? Have we developed a critical mindset among the users of these digital platforms so they can hopefully distinguish between the fact-checked information and the fake or deepfake information, but also at least to check the source of information before they like and share and become themselves amplifiers of misinformation? So I think that’s something that we need to tackle. This is a priority, as I see it. Another priority is inclusivity. And of course, inclusivity includes gender equality online. We know today that women are less connected and significantly less connected than men to the Internet. But also the presence of women in digital technologies, including AI. We know that they represent 10 to 15% of the workforce, depending on what discipline of digital we want to look at. A third priority is the environment. To what extent can WSIS contribute to tackling the issues of climate change and the environmental crisis? That’s, I think, something also very important nowadays. But also there is another priority, which is the next phase of WSIS, today that we have a global digital compact. WSIS was a UN event adopted by heads of state around the world, but so is the global digital compact. How can the two UN processes I think it’s very important that we work together, that we hopefully complement each other, or work in some symbiosis with each other, without duplication, without dilution of effort in this regard. And when we talk about AI also and other emerging technologies like generative AI, the issue of the global data governance, I think which we did not have maybe to the same extent, and with that, we should pay attention to the digital skills. We should pay attention to the digital skills divide. This morning we saw the Saudi minister showing us the huge number of digital jobs not fulfilled today, because we do lack digital skills and competencies for a number of these digital tasks and activities. So I think we should pay more attention to capacity building, capacity development in digital. And finally, let’s say if we look at the future of AI, I think we are in an era where we cannot just reform education, but to what extent generative AI is transforming education, transforming teaching, transforming learning, transforming assessing students’ skills and competencies, I think we are in an era where we cannot just reform education, or incrementally improve on it. Gen AI disruptive technology that is what 훨씬 quan a ashed for not only to people only to students but also we talk today back life-long learning, evide-2 professionals along their active career. So again, this is what I see as a first set of priorities to consider.

Gitanjali Sah: ** Thank you very much. ** We’ve accepted this first session as you mentioned. I’ll try to maybe bring in the collective efforts we’ve making for business plus 20 and where all stakeholders can contribute to the uplifting game for business with efficiency with sustainability. They live by theoral and prize-based So, of course, one of our main priorities, which, again, I’d like to highlight, is to bridge the digital divides. We can no longer accept that 38% of the population in Africa, only 38%, uses the Internet. That the gender disparities, at least in these developing countries, are expanding. The biases in AI, and the algorithm biases that are existing in AI, are also to be looked at. Now, the 1.8 billion of the 2.6 billion offline live in rural areas. So these are the divides we really need to focus on. And what we are doing as a collective, as a UN, as the UN for the WSIS plus 20, is that we’ve started our preparatory process, UNESCO, ITU, UNCTAD, through CSTD, UNDP. So we’ve been, and the regional commissions, we’ve been looking at how the regional WSIS plus 20 processes, and our main events, like the upcoming UNESCO conference in July, the IGF in June, the WSIS plus 20 high-level event in Geneva in July, 7th to 11th of July, the CSTD in April. How can these upcoming milestones play an important part in multi-stakeholder contributions towards the WSIS plus 20 review? So we have the GDC, which of course, again, was a milestone towards the WSIS plus 20 review. How can we make the upcoming events more impactful, contributing towards the WSIS plus 20 review? Now all of us are aware that two co-facilitators will be appointed for the WSIS plus 20 review, and we are hoping that this is done as soon as possible. so that the modalities resolutions could be worked on and that we could move on with the WSIS plus 20 review process and ensure that the vision of WSIS beyond 2025 is as strong and as multi-stakeholder as it was in 2000 even into a 2015 where we looked at the at the emerging trends and opportunities and challenges of each action lines as the UN as and as multi-stakeholders so of course the GDC has set an ambitious vision for us we must all get together and see how we can incorporate that milestone into the WSIS plus 20 review process and looking at the IGF how we could strengthen it we all support the IGF we love it a lot of concrete multi-stakeholder outcomes come out of it the Swiss chairs summary at the WSIS plus 20 forum high-level event this year in 2024 those of you who haven’t read it you must really go and read it because it has all these components in it the WSIS plus the important role that IGF and the WSIS forum plays of how we can align the WSIS and the GDC so there is already a lot of work going on around all of this and we should see how we can put all of it together now once the GDC was adopted also the UN has been in action we’ve developed an ONGIS action plan where we have mapped the WSIS action lines with the 2030 agenda and the GDC principles clearly highlighting the frameworks and the institutions and activities that exist to implement the GDC so this exists At the ITU, with the UN agencies in Geneva, we also have this Geneva UN digital kitchen where we are meeting quite often to come up with a Geneva action plan on what we could do together as the UN to contribute to the GDC process. And as the ITU, our member states have also asked us to come up with an ITU action plan to implement the GDC and present it to our next council working group on WSIS and SDGs. So there is a lot of work going on and there is good momentum. We should feed this all into the WSIS plus 20 review process to ensure that we have a bright vision and future for multi-stakeholderism and the WSIS process beyond 2025.

Thomas Schneider : Yes, thank you. Robert, please.

Robert Opp: All right. A lot has been said already. Taufik was super comprehensive. So let me just emphasize a couple that were mentioned and mention a couple that weren’t. Environmental sustainability has to go into the next version of what we do. And it’s the two areas. It’s what digitalization can contribute to environmental sustainability, climate change, but it’s also the contribution to climate challenges or environmental challenges. E-waste is a huge problem. Carbon emissions are a huge problem. And with the advent of AI and Gen-AI, that is actually going to get worse. I know that there is technology that is also becoming more efficient, but we have to be cognizant of the balance. I think it was a recent report from our colleagues at UNCTAD, actually, that one of the figures that stuck in my mind was that data centers a couple years ago were emitting the same carbon emissions as France. And that is going to grow. So we have to be, as a UN system, responsible. when we actually look at these issues and proliferate technology. I think capacity building, no question for us. We see that as probably the number one gap when we work at country level. Requests come to us for more capacity, more skills, stronger ecosystems, et cetera. Then I would mention digital public infrastructure is something that has emerged in the last several years. It is something that is now in the global digital compact. And I think that we need to consider what it looks like in the context of WSIS as well, because it is something that we think has a lot of promise for accelerating digital transformation at the country level. The last one I can’t remember, so I’ll stop there.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you very much. Thanks. Mike.

Mike Walton: Yeah, and another good segue from Rob there, talking about climate change, the impact. I mean, agree, digital inclusion, information integrity, I think we’re all agreed in terms of those priorities. We haven’t talked about ethics more broadly in the ethical use of technology, and actually do no harm in the products that we use and we produce is really important. We are about to work on a refugee gateway, which will be a one-stop access point for refugees. How do we make sure that we deliver that in an ethical way? How do other suppliers make sure that they’re creating technology solutions that take into account all of the different ethical principles that are there? So I would say, let’s really broaden it out. Climate change, absolutely. That has a huge impact on refugees when it’s combined with conflict situations. But what are the other ethical principles that we should focus on as part of our prioritization? And how could we build out a joint framework for how we agree on how that can be applied to new solutions?

Thomas Schneider : Thank you. Angel.

Angel González Sanz: Thank you. It’s very, very, very difficult to say anything different from what has already been said. I would just join my voice to those that mentioned the environment, and not just because we just published a report on. on this issue, but also because it’s really a big concern and it’s probably going to become an even bigger concern and we need to take action quickly on both the environmental burden of digital technologies but also on using better the potential of digital technologies to address environmental issues. The second point that perhaps I would like to emphasize that we need to work together to address the risks that digitalization can bring about in terms of increasing equality. Increasing equality among men and women, increasing equality within countries between different social groups, but also increasing equality across countries. And one particular problem or area of concern in that regard could be the intimately linked questions of data governance and artificial intelligence governance. We were just now finishing a survey of the major artificial intelligence governance initiatives that exist in the world, seven of them. And we found that there are 118 countries that are not involved in any of them, whereas only the G7 member countries are involved in all of them. The risk that the interest, the voice, the concerns of the developing countries will be completely ignored in these discussions is very serious and really we need to do much more effort in becoming inclusive in developing responses to the challenges created for artificial intelligence. The same can be said about data governance and data is after all the fuel on which artificial intelligence models are driven. So we need to also come up with much more inclusive ways to develop… principles for data governance. The CSTD is now tasked by the GDC to set up a multi-stakeholder working group on principles of data governance that should report to the UN at the end of 2026. And this is, in my opinion and Anto’s opinion, a major challenge that we need to address through, again, a deep multi-stakeholder engagement including, in particular, the voices from the Global South. Thank you very much.

Thomas Schneider : Thank you, Angel. And yeah, we have one minute left, so I would take that one minute from me trying to wrap up with what we’ve heard. I think, obviously, we all agree that a lot has been achieved, but there’s much more work to do. And time doesn’t stand still, so with every task that we’ve accomplished, we get two, three more tasks in the future, which is a challenge for all of us. And I think we will have ample time to discuss, and what Tafik already said, how to align, how to bring together the GDC and the WSIS process into one, based on the 20 years of work that has been done so far. And I’m looking very much forward to continuing the discussion in various combinations and in various sessions this week, but also in Geneva, in Paris, wherever this is going to be. Thank you very much, and enjoy the nice evening here. And this is the end of today, as far as I know, at least of this official part. So thank you very much, and see you tomorrow, I guess. Thank you very much. Thank you. I get the poles back in a quick second. Here we go!

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach

Stefan Schnorr

Sally Wentworth

Jennifer Bachus

Mohammed Saud Al-Tamimi

Established multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance

Multi-stakeholder model as crucial for implementing Global Digital Compact

IGF as key platform for inclusive internet governance discussions

Need for meaningful participation from developing countries

Importance of collaboration between governments, private sector, and civil society

Multiple speakers emphasized the critical role of the multi-stakeholder approach in internet governance and implementing the Global Digital Compact, highlighting the IGF as a key platform for inclusive discussions.

Persistent digital divides

Mohammed Saud Al-Tamimi

Angel González Sanz

Gitanjali Sah

One-third of global population still lacks internet access

Persistent digital divides based on gender, geography, and education

Bridging remaining digital divides, especially in rural areas

Several speakers highlighted the ongoing challenge of digital divides, emphasizing the need to connect the unconnected and address disparities based on various factors such as geography, gender, and education.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of addressing ethical concerns and promoting digital literacy in the face of emerging technologies and misinformation.

Tawfik Jelassi

Mike Walton

Promoting media/information literacy and combating misinformation

Ethical concerns around AI and emerging technologies

Both speakers highlighted the need to address the environmental impact of digital technologies and ensure inclusive governance of emerging technologies like AI.

Robert Opp

Angel González Sanz

Environmental impacts of digital technologies

Addressing environmental sustainability of digital technologies

Ensuring inclusive global governance of AI and data

Unexpected Consensus

Environmental sustainability in digital development

Robert Opp

Tawfik Jelassi

Environmental impacts of digital technologies

Addressing environmental sustainability of digital technologies

The focus on environmental sustainability in the context of digital development was an unexpected area of consensus, as it was not a primary focus of the original WSIS but has emerged as a critical issue.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the importance of the multi-stakeholder approach, the need to address persistent digital divides, the role of the IGF in internet governance, and emerging concerns about environmental sustainability and ethical use of digital technologies.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among speakers on the core principles of WSIS and the need for continued multi-stakeholder cooperation. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for future collaboration in addressing digital challenges and implementing the Global Digital Compact. However, there were also diverse perspectives on specific priorities and approaches, indicating the complexity of the issues at hand and the need for continued dialogue and negotiation.

Different Viewpoints

Prioritization of challenges

Tawfik Jelassi

Robert Opp

Angel González Sanz

Promoting media/information literacy and combating misinformation

Addressing environmental sustainability of digital technologies

Ensuring inclusive global governance of AI and data

While all speakers agreed on the need to address various challenges, they differed in their emphasis on which issues should be prioritized. Jelassi focused on media literacy and misinformation, Opp highlighted environmental sustainability, and González Sanz emphasized inclusive AI and data governance.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement were related to prioritization of challenges and specific focus areas within the broader agreement on multi-stakeholder approaches.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers was relatively low. Most speakers agreed on the fundamental principles and achievements of WSIS, as well as the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches. The differences were mainly in emphasis and prioritization of specific issues, rather than fundamental disagreements. This suggests a generally unified vision for the future of WSIS and internet governance, with variations in how to best address specific challenges.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agreed on the importance of the multi-stakeholder approach and the role of the IGF, but they had slightly different emphases. Schnorr focused on its importance for implementing the Global Digital Compact, Wentworth highlighted its role in inclusive discussions, and Bachus specifically emphasized the need for developing countries’ participation.

Stefan Schnorr

Sally Wentworth

Jennifer Bachus

Multi-stakeholder model as crucial for implementing Global Digital Compact

IGF as key platform for inclusive internet governance discussions

Need for meaningful participation from developing countries

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of addressing ethical concerns and promoting digital literacy in the face of emerging technologies and misinformation.

Tawfik Jelassi

Mike Walton

Promoting media/information literacy and combating misinformation

Ethical concerns around AI and emerging technologies

Both speakers highlighted the need to address the environmental impact of digital technologies and ensure inclusive governance of emerging technologies like AI.

Robert Opp

Angel González Sanz

Environmental impacts of digital technologies

Addressing environmental sustainability of digital technologies

Ensuring inclusive global governance of AI and data

Key Takeaways

The WSIS process has made significant achievements over the past 20 years, including increasing global internet connectivity and establishing a multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance.

Despite progress, major challenges remain, including persistent digital divides, environmental impacts of technology, and ethical concerns around AI and emerging technologies.

Key priorities for the future of WSIS include bridging remaining digital divides, promoting digital literacy, developing digital skills, addressing environmental sustainability, and ensuring inclusive global governance of AI and data.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) continues to play a crucial role as a platform for inclusive internet governance discussions and addressing emerging issues.

There is broad agreement on the need to align the Global Digital Compact (GDC) with the WSIS process going forward.

Resolutions and Action Items

UN agencies to develop action plans for implementing the Global Digital Compact

Prepare for the WSIS+20 review process, including regional consultations and key events in 2024

CSTD to set up a multi-stakeholder working group on principles of data governance, reporting to the UN by end of 2026

Strengthen the IGF’s mandate and ensure its continuation beyond 2025

Unresolved Issues

Specific mechanisms for aligning the Global Digital Compact with the WSIS process

How to effectively address the environmental impacts of digital technologies

Ways to ensure meaningful participation from developing countries in AI and data governance discussions

Strategies for combating misinformation and promoting information integrity online

Suggested Compromises

Leverage existing forums and processes like the IGF to implement the Global Digital Compact, rather than creating entirely new mechanisms

Balance the promotion of digital technologies with efforts to mitigate their environmental impacts

Develop a joint ethical framework for technology solutions that can be applied across different contexts and stakeholders

We still have students who have to sit under the tree to learn. So when we talk about connecting schools, for us, it’s quite a big, a long journey.

speaker

Nthati Moorosi

reason

This comment provides a stark reminder of the vast disparities in basic infrastructure and education between countries, highlighting the immense challenges in achieving digital inclusion.

impact

It shifted the discussion to focus more on the realities faced by developing countries and the need for addressing fundamental infrastructure issues alongside digital connectivity.

The Arab world represents almost half a billion people. How much content in Arabic is there online? 3%. 3% only. And there are so many communities, including indigenous communities, who have no content online whatsoever.

speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

reason

This comment highlights a critical aspect of the digital divide beyond just access – the lack of relevant, localized content for many language communities.

impact

It broadened the conversation about digital inclusion to encompass not just connectivity, but also the creation and availability of diverse, culturally relevant content online.

We need to work together to address the risks that digitalization can bring about in terms of increasing equality. Increasing equality among men and women, increasing equality within countries between different social groups, but also increasing equality across countries.

speaker

Angel González Sanz

reason

This comment draws attention to the potential negative impacts of digitalization on equality, challenging the often optimistic narrative around digital technologies.

impact

It prompted a more nuanced discussion about the complex effects of digitalization, encouraging participants to consider both positive and negative consequences across various dimensions of equality.

Environmental sustainability has to go into the next version of what we do. And it’s the two areas. It’s what digitalization can contribute to environmental sustainability, climate change, but it’s also the contribution to climate challenges or environmental challenges.

speaker

Robert Opp

reason

This comment introduces the critical link between digitalization and environmental sustainability, an aspect that had not been prominently discussed earlier.

impact

It expanded the scope of the discussion to include environmental considerations, prompting others to reflect on the dual role of digital technologies in both contributing to and potentially mitigating environmental challenges.

Overall Assessment

These key comments significantly broadened and deepened the discussion by introducing critical perspectives on the challenges and complexities of digital inclusion. They shifted the conversation from a focus on technological progress and connectivity to a more holistic consideration of socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental factors. This resulted in a more nuanced and comprehensive dialogue about the future of digital governance and the implementation of the WSIS goals, emphasizing the need for multifaceted approaches that address both opportunities and risks associated with digitalization.

How can we effectively address rapidly evolving technologies, knowing that our governance mechanisms take their time?

speaker

Thomas Schneider

explanation

This question addresses the challenge of keeping governance and policy frameworks up-to-date with fast-paced technological advancements.

How can we ensure that the WSIS Plus 20 review focuses on implementation over the last 20 years before considering what’s next?

speaker

Jennifer Bachus

explanation

This highlights the importance of thoroughly evaluating past progress before setting future goals.

How can we integrate GDC implementation within the WSIS framework?

speaker

Jennifer Bachus

explanation

This question addresses the need to align and combine two major UN digital initiatives.

How can we avoid potential artificial limitations for global digital work?

speaker

Sherzod Shermatov

explanation

This relates to ensuring open access to global digital job opportunities without unnecessary restrictions.

How can we address the increasing risks in the digital landscape, such as fraud, trafficking, and toxic narratives?

speaker

Mike Walton

explanation

This question highlights the need to tackle emerging threats in the evolving digital environment.

How can WSIS contribute to tackling climate change and environmental crises?

speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

explanation

This explores the potential role of digital technologies in addressing urgent global environmental challenges.

How can we develop a joint framework for ethical principles in technology solutions?

speaker

Mike Walton

explanation

This addresses the need for a common approach to ensure ethical development and use of technology.

How can we ensure more inclusive participation in AI governance initiatives, particularly from developing countries?

speaker

Angel González Sanz

explanation

This highlights the importance of involving diverse voices in shaping AI governance globally.

Summary

This session focused on tackling disinformation in electoral contexts, exploring the roles of various stakeholders and potential solutions. Participants discussed the challenges posed by disinformation during elections, emphasizing its threat to human rights and democracy. The European Union’s approach was highlighted, including the Code of Practice on Disinformation, which involves multiple stakeholders in a co-regulatory framework.

The importance of fact-checking, media literacy, and public awareness campaigns was stressed by several speakers. There was debate about the responsibility of digital platforms in moderating content, with some arguing for greater accountability and others cautioning against overregulation that could stifle free speech. The need for tailored approaches considering cultural contexts was emphasized, particularly for smaller countries.

Multi-stakeholder partnerships and collaborations were seen as crucial in combating disinformation. Speakers highlighted the role of traditional and social media in spreading information during elections, and the need for empowering citizens to identify misinformation. The discussion touched on the challenges of regulating content without infringing on freedom of expression, with some advocating for a focus on systemic risks rather than specific content.

Participants also debated the effectiveness of algorithmic content moderation and the importance of transparency in platform policies. The session concluded with calls for greater collaboration, awareness-building, and a focus on information integrity, while recognizing the regional and national specificities of disinformation challenges.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The role of regulations, platforms, and multi-stakeholder partnerships in combating election disinformation

– Balancing efforts to counter disinformation with protecting freedom of expression

– The importance of fact-checking, media literacy, and public awareness campaigns

– Regional and cultural differences in how disinformation manifests and should be addressed

– Debate over platform accountability and content moderation vs. user empowerment

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore strategies for tackling disinformation in electoral contexts, with a focus on the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders including tech platforms, governments, civil society, and citizens.

The tone of the discussion was largely collaborative and solution-oriented, with panelists sharing insights from different regional perspectives. However, there were moments of debate and disagreement, particularly around issues of platform regulation and accountability. The tone became more urgent towards the end as some participants expressed frustration with the lack of concrete progress on these issues.

Speakers

– Peace Oliver Amuge: Moderator

– Giovanni Zagni: Expert on EU regulations and disinformation

– Poncelet Ileleji: Expert on sub-Saharan Africa and community radio

– Aiesha Adnan: Representative from Women Tech Maldives

– Juliano Cappi: Representative from CGI (Brazilian Internet Steering Committee)

– Nazar Nicholas Kirama: Expert from Tanzania

Additional speakers:

– Tim: Audience member

– Kosi: Student from Benin

– Nana: Audience member with experience in elections and disinformation

– Peterking Quaye: Representative from Liberia IGF

Expanded Summary of Discussion on Tackling Disinformation in Electoral Contexts

Introduction:

This session focused on addressing the critical issue of disinformation during elections, exploring the roles of various stakeholders and potential solutions. The discussion brought together experts from different regions and backgrounds to examine the challenges posed by disinformation and its threat to human rights and democracy.

Key Themes and Discussion Points:

1. Regulatory Approaches and Frameworks:

The discussion highlighted various approaches to regulating disinformation, with a particular focus on the European Union’s strategy. Giovanni Zagni introduced the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation as a voluntary co-regulatory instrument, emphasising the “European way” of bringing all relevant stakeholders together. He noted that the Code has 34 signatories, including major tech platforms, fact-checking organizations, and civil society groups. This approach contrasts with more stringent regulatory measures, sparking debate about the appropriate level of government involvement.

Juliano Cappi shared insights from Brazil, mentioning the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee’s guidelines and the Internet and Democracy Working Group’s publications on combating disinformation. He also introduced the concepts of “systemic risk” and “duty of care” in platform regulation, emphasizing the need for digital public infrastructure and digital sovereignty.

2. Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Partnerships:

A recurring theme throughout the discussion was the crucial role of multi-stakeholder partnerships in combating disinformation. Speakers agreed that collaboration between fact-checkers, platforms, civil society organisations, and government bodies is essential for developing effective strategies. Juliano Cappi emphasised the need for improved processes to better integrate work from different forums addressing disinformation, suggesting that current efforts may not be sufficiently effective.

3. Role of Tech Platforms and Content Moderation:

The responsibility of digital platforms in moderating content emerged as a contentious issue. Nazar Nicholas Kirama advocated for proactive content moderation and transparency in algorithmic policies by tech platforms. He suggested implementing advanced algorithms for flagging misleading information and collaborating with fact-checkers. Kirama provocatively framed tech platforms as de facto electoral commissions, highlighting the need for accountability.

Juliano Cappi raised concerns about potential bias in platform business models and the advancement of certain political views. He also suggested a “Follow the money” approach to investigate the financing of disinformation campaigns.

An audience member cautioned against over-regulation that could stifle innovation, highlighting the tension between combating false information and protecting free speech. Another participant warned about the potential misuse of regulation by governments to suppress social media, citing examples from African countries.

4. Fact-checking and Media Literacy:

The importance of fact-checking and media literacy was stressed by several speakers. Poncelet Ileleji called for fact-checking websites supported by organisations like UNESCO, while Aiesha Adnan emphasised the need for civic education and information literacy programmes. These initiatives were seen as crucial tools for empowering citizens to identify misinformation and disinformation.

Poncelet Ileleji highlighted the shift in information dissemination and consumption patterns, noting that young people, political parties, and lobbyists increasingly use social media platforms like Twitter, TikTok, and X to spread information, rather than traditional mainstream media. He also stressed the importance of empowering people at the grassroots level, particularly through community radios, to combat disinformation.

5. Cultural Context and Localised Approaches:

Speakers emphasised the need for tailored programmes that fit cultural norms and consider the specific needs of smaller countries and populations. Aiesha Adnan, drawing from her experience with the recent presidential election in the Maldives, stressed the importance of designing tools and interventions that account for the unique challenges faced by smaller nations, as their needs may be overlooked in global approaches.

An audience member raised concerns about the cultural context in algorithmic content moderation, highlighting that algorithms may misinterpret content due to cultural differences. This point emphasised the need for explainable AI in content moderation and the importance of considering diverse cultural perspectives in developing anti-disinformation strategies.

6. Empowering Communities and Grassroots Initiatives:

Poncelet Ileleji stressed the importance of empowering people at the grassroots level, particularly through community radios, to combat disinformation. This approach aligns with Aiesha Adnan’s call for promoting “information integrity” across society, shifting the focus from just regulating media to empowering citizens.

7. Balancing Regulation and Free Speech:

A significant point of debate was the tension between regulating disinformation and protecting freedom of expression. Giovanni Zagni highlighted this challenge, while Nazar Nicholas Kirama suggested the need for “facilitative regulations” that balance platform accountability with the protection of free speech. The discussion revealed the complexity of addressing disinformation without infringing on fundamental rights.

An audience member raised concerns about the potential misuse of conspiracy theory labels, referencing experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. This highlighted the need for careful consideration when categorizing and addressing potentially misleading information.

Conclusion:

The session concluded with calls for greater collaboration, awareness-building, and a focus on information integrity. Participants recognised the regional and national specificities of disinformation challenges, emphasising the need for both localised and global approaches. Giovanni Zagni particularly stressed the importance of considering regional and national contexts when addressing disinformation problems.

Unresolved issues and areas for further exploration include:

1. Effectively regulating tech platforms without stifling innovation or free speech

2. Addressing political biases and power dynamics in the spread of disinformation

3. Creating global standards while respecting regional and national differences

4. Determining the extent of platform accountability for user-generated content

5. Developing sustainable national civic education programs

6. Implementing transparent and culturally sensitive algorithmic policies

The discussion provided valuable insights into the multifaceted nature of election-related disinformation and underscored the need for continued dialogue, research, and collaborative efforts to safeguard democratic processes in the digital age. Participants emphasized the importance of more listening and discussion at the global level to find common ground on addressing disinformation while respecting diverse perspectives and stakeholder interests.

Peace Oliver Amuge: briefly introduce the session to you and so this session is a NRA collaborative session. It’s on tackling disinformation in election electoral contexts. Channel 4, 4 please. We are on channel 4. Is everyone there? Channel 4, yes. Channel 4, if you have just gotten in, please get yourself the gadgets. And so yes, I just say that this session is tackling disinformation in the electoral context and as you are all aware that this year has been called the year of elections. We’ve had several countries going through elections and we know that during elections human rights is at stake and we’ve had growing issues of disinformation during elections and these are issues that put human rights at stake, democracy at stake, so this is a very important and crucial discussions to have and so we are very happy to have you join here. We have distinguished panelists that you’re seeing here. We should have one panelist joining online and so this session will discuss a couple of issues. We’ll discuss the role of different stakeholders, the role of social media, we will discuss the norms, the principles, the frameworks, standards, you know, some of the ways that we can take to counter disinformation and we will be sharing different contexts when it comes to disinformation and I see the room is quite diverse so I expect that we will have a wealth of discussions and I want to just mention that we have an online moderator who is here in the room, we have rapporteurs who will be supporting us, we have Michelle from Zambia, we have Umut who will also support us with rapporteuring and also big thanks to the organizers who are in the room and some might not be here, who are the Asia Pacific Youth IGF, the Bangladesh, the Benin IGF, the Caribbean IGF, the Colombia, Eurodig, Gambia, you know, and several others, South Sudan. So, I will not mention them all because we lost a little bit of time at the beginning and I will come already to say that the panelists who are here, one who might join, we have Aisha who will introduce herself later very well, we have Juliano, you’re most welcome, we have Nazar who is here and Ponce de Tuma I just mentioned that will join and Giovanni. Thank you very much for making time and so I think that we will already start our conversation. I am keeping fingers crossed that we don’t have any technical glitches and please just give me a note if you can’t hear me or you are having trouble and if anyone walks in and sits near you, let them know we are on channel 4 under tech, please let people know that we are on channel 4. So, since Poncelet is not on yet, I will come to you Giovanni and to open our discussions and the question to you is how have existing regulations addressed this information during elections? What are the practices, you know, that balances combating false information with protecting free freedom of expression?

Giovani Zagni: Now it’s on, now it works. Okay, thank you for this question, good afternoon and I will answer by making reference to what I know more which is the European Union case which is peculiar in many ways. First of all, the European Union is not the place where the majority of very large online platforms are based, which is clearly the US, but the EU has at the same time always taken a very proactive approach when it comes to regulation. Common say in this area is that the US innovates while the EU regulates. Secondly, 2024 was the year when about a dozen European states went to the polls for a variety of national elections, from Spain to Finland and from Greece to France, but also when a European-wide common election, so to say, took place for renewing the European Parliament, the only elective body of the European Union, only directly elected body of the European Union. Thirdly, in 2024 new important EU regulations like the Digital Services Act, DSA, and Digital Markets Act, DMA, were not yet fully enforced because even if they have been approved by the relevant institutions, the process of implementing them is still ongoing, so they were not able to impact the electoral processes that took place this year. So how did the EU address the issue of disinformation in the crucial electoral year 2024? The main tool was the strengthened Code of Practice on disinformation, which was promoted by the European Union. The Code was presented in June 2022 and it is a voluntary and co-regulatory instrument developed and signed by 34 signatories at the time of the adoption. Who are the signatories? Players from the advertising ecosystem, advertisers, app tech companies, fact checkers, many but not all very large online platforms, civil society, and third party organizations. A few names, Meta, Microsoft, Adobe, Avast, the European Fact Checking Standards Network, the European Association of Communication Agency, Reporters Without Borders, World Federation of Advertisers, TikTok, Twitch, and Vimeo. So all these signatories agreed to establish a permanent task force with the idea of ensuring that the Code adapts and evolves in view of technological, legislative, societal, and market developments. The task force is a rare place where representatives from the different stakeholders have a place to exchange information, require specific action, and discuss the best way ahead. The Code therefore is the key instrument of the European Union’s policy against disinformation and its two key characteristics are to be a voluntary and co-regulatory instrument. So coming back to your question, the second half of it is how do you balance that with protecting freedom of information? And the European way, so to say, is to have all the relevant stakeholders around the same table and do not to impose any kind of kind of direct intervention from the authorities on the specific content, but more to have a forum where, I don’t know, like potentially damaging cases or potential threats or things that need to be looked after are discussed and then the platforms decide to take action or not. I’ll give you a very practical example to conclude. The recent elections in Romania that took place a few days ago made the headlines in Europe and beyond because under the strong suspicion of foreign interference they were annulled by the Romanian Constitutional Court and the first round of the elections has to be redone. So during this process basically all the stakeholders that were involved in the code decided to set up a rapid response system. What that meant was that there was a mechanism through which all the, I don’t know, like fact checker or a civil society organization could say look in our day-to-day work we noticed that this particular suspicion activities happened in this particular social network platform. So now it’s up to you my dear social network platform to check if that this particular phenomenon violates the terms of use. So as you can see there is no direct intervention or no kind of, I don’t know, regulation or law by which you have to do something yet, but there is this co-regulatory and collective effort to work together as stakeholders involved. Thank you.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you very much for those very informative regulations that you mentioned and the collective actions that we are taking, I think it’s very key to have these frameworks in place when we talk about this information. We will park it there. I’ve been told that we have a pamphlet in the room and I would like us to hear from pamphlet. As we all know, sometimes tech can be difficult, so it would be nice to hear from pamphlet. But also I wonder why we don’t have pamphlet on the screen, if you could let us have pamphlet. And pamphlet, if you can hear us, would you please just say something? Pamphlet, are you able to hear us? No. Okay. I think our online moderator is trying to sort out that. And then I will come to you, Aisha. We’ve had Giovanni pamphlet. Can you just open your mic and say something?

Poncelet Ileleji: Yes, thank you very much. Peace, I’m here, sorry. I was waiting to be granted access. Can you hear me?

Peace Oliver Amuge: Yes, we can hear you. And would you, are you able to speak? We’d either hear from you or listen to Aisha.

Poncelet Ileleji: Yes, yes, you can definitely hear from me. And thank you all.

Peace Oliver Amuge: And one of the most… Pamphlet, so this is the question that I would like you to take, share with us what the role that traditional media plays and social media in election, you know, during elections and how this is effective and how regulations have been used to address these issues of disinformation.

Poncelet Ileleji: I think speaking from a sub-Saharan point of view, you will notice that the role of social media in terms of disinformation and even misinformation is very important. We have to observe, we have to also know that why has this become very important? Most young people, most political parties, most lobbyists, what they use all over the world today to disseminate information has been through social media. Whether it’s Twitter, whether it’s TikTok, whether it’s X, they have used all this to disseminate information. And most people don’t naturally use mainstream media. They use social media as a way in which they get information. And one way, in a good example, we can use to combat this is making sure that within countries, we have what we have, we have what are called fact-checking websites, like what we did in the Gambia. Coming into our last presidential elections, we worked with the Gambian Press Union to set up what we call a fact-checking website that was supported by UNESCO. So UNESCO has always been a good agency in supporting a number of countries to setting up fact-checking websites. And it’s important that you have to have a bottom-top approach in training journalists at grassroots level, especially journalists working at community level using community radio and how they can work with various fact-checking websites to be able to do this. Unfortunately, I don’t know why my camera is not coming on. It’s showing here, but this is the little intervention I’ll make for now and I’ll take any other question. Thank you.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you. Thank you very much, Consulate, for your intervention and sharing like Giovanni also talked about the fact-checking how that is important amid election times and when the widespread disinformation. And also you mentioned how social media is an important tool that people use to access information and also it’s the same tool that is used to spread disinformation. I will still park that, we will park at that and I would like to hear. Yes, we can now see you in the room, Consulate. So Aisha, I will come to you. How can tailored programs, initiatives and overall good values help people identify misinformation, engage diverse communities and ensure there is electoral integrity?

Aiesha Adnan: Yes. Hello, everyone. Great to be here and coming from very far from the Maldives. And this is an interesting topic because I come from an organization called Women Tech Maldives where we initially started to support women and girls. And then we realized we need to talk about safety. And when you talk about safety, you have to talk about everyone. That is where actually our work began on this space, disinformation. Then we had the opportunity to actually communicate with a lot of organizations. And one of the area we work is on identifying disinformation and doing media analysis. Okay, coming to the election. One of the interesting thing that highlighted was the last presidential election in the Maldives. Traditionally, it has been, we had several election observers group. There was nothing like disinformation in most of the reports, but this time it was quite a bit different because we saw that major percentage of the disinformation came from the online media and then very few were from the traditional media. So we know that this shift is happening. In few years time, we don’t see much in the traditional media. It goes through the social media. Okay, then you mentioned about what are the initiatives. So when you talk about the initiatives, I know that there are a lot of tools available. And can it really fit all the countries? No, it has to be designed in a way that it fits the cultural norms.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Are we having a cut in the?

Aiesha Adnan: Okay, sorry about that. I hope you’ve heard some of my words, okay? All right, so when we talk about misinformation and what comes to my mind is like, what are the ways that we can really tackle it? So right now, we are coming up with a lot of tools actually to debunk this information and everything that you see. But I would like to see a place where that we actually build a culture where we promote information integrity across everyone. And when we especially talk about election, then everyone says, it’s the media. It’s the media spreading the information. But yes, of course, some part is the media, but it is the citizen who believe in it. If they are not equipped in ways with knowledge and tools on how they can really identify them, and then that means that’s where we fail. Because it’s not only the election, it’s everywhere. Then information integrity is an important factor to consider. And we as an organization, we have conducted several sessions with the political parties as well and with the parliamentarians as well. How can they actually support these kind of processes within the communities? Because in Maldives, we have remote islands as well. Then the councillors and the parliamentarians, they do really travel across. And then that’s the way that we can actually connect with the communities and run more programs. But in light of this, I also want to highlight there are two interesting guides from NDI. NDI has a very interesting guide to promote information integrity. And this guide has a lot of tools, like the tools they have supported to develop fact-checking and other frameworks as well. Another one I would also like to highlight is UNDP Strategic Guidance Information Integrity Framework. They have one as well. And when we go back and talk about these kind of initiatives that both UNDP and NDI have supported, I would like to highlight one of the initiatives that NDI took. One is in Georgia. They partnered with local organization to address the spread of misinformation during elections. And the impact, the effort empowered citizens to make informed decisions and reduced the effectiveness of misinformation aimed at influencing public opinion and what behavior. So we know that these kind of interventions actually help. So, one is definitely going for fact-checking tools and empowering citizens to make the right choices, and also involving the media and the political parties itself. And on another note, I would also like to highlight that in Maldives we are currently working with the community to develop a fact-checking system, so that hopefully this will be a way that smaller countries like us, where we have very few population and we speak one language, so most of the time what happens is, when this kind of information is posted online in our native language, you know the algorithms cannot pick it up, so that is challenging for us. I hope that all these platforms, they do consider us, because we also need to exist, and we need that support from everyone. And at the national level, we are doing our work, but it is labor-intensive, so that support is required. Thank you.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you very much, Aisha, for pointing out those gaps and the need for capacity-building, and also empowering, you know, the citizen when we talk about issues of countering disinformation. And we are in a multi-stakeholder space, and I think it would be nice to talk about that a little bit. I would come to you, Giuliano, and my question to you is that, how can multi-stakeholder partnerships and public-private collaborations improve efforts to combat election disinformation and expand media literacy programs to reach all parts of the society?

Juliano Cappi: Thank you so much. Well, I decided to bring a reflection here based on fiction. In Aurel’s novel, 1984, he states, who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. Well, Aurel builds a dystopian reality where a state institution, the records department, releases every single piece of stored information and rewrites it, if necessary, to conform to the party’s vision. He reminds us of the sets of institutions, disciplines, and propositions built throughout human history to organize discourse. More importantly, he sheds light on the social disputes to control and impose discourse as a strategy for maintaining or gaining power. Well, at this point, we must recognize that the internet has brought the challenge of organizing speech to an entirely new level. This is a challenge for society as a whole. In this sense, I understand that most stakeholder spaces are especially important to foster social arrangements capable of dismantling a highly developed industry, the disinformation industry. At CGI, we have been working on the production of principles and guidelines to combat disinformation. I guess what happened in 2018 in England was like a trigger to promote debate at international level on disinformation. Despite that, in 2017, the United Nations signs a declaration on freedom of expression, fake news and disinformation. In the same year, European Union sponsored a first major study on disinformation, information disorder, towards an interdisciplinary framework to research and policymaking. One year after that, in 2018, the European Union creates the High-Level Group on Fake News and Disinformation online to produce one important first report called A Multidimensional Approach to Disinformation. This is kind of important. I ask you please to go to the next slide because it is in 2018 that the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee creates the Internet and Democracy Working Group, which produced a first publication, the Fake News and Elections Guidebook for Internet Users. The guide outlined the general problem and present concepts, discuss risks and offer guidelines to prevent the distribution of disinformation. In 2018, we have the election of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. The working group carries on working on the challenges imposed by disinformation and produces the report on disinformation and democracy, discussing international initiatives to combat disinformation in the industry and proposing 15 directives to address the phenomenon while promoting what we now call information integrity. In 2021, the working group presented another work, which is the contributions to combating disinformation on the Internet during electoral periods, looking specifically to electoral periods. Additionally, CJWR participates in the Electoral Supreme Court Task Force to Combat Disinformation. All this work that you can see here at the presentation is available on the Internet. It is in Portuguese. We nowadays can easily translate a PDF for any language through Internet applications. And also, if any country or working group is interested, we could translate this work. But we should consider that they try to address a specific reality, which is what happens in Brazil. Well, still, my feeling is that we can do more. We should ask ourselves about the impact of the work carried out in most stakeholder spaces, this includes obviously IGF, to combat disinformation. I believe we may find opportunities to improve processes and foster intersectional collaboration to better integrate this different forum. We carry out every year a lot of work. Lots of people go to the IGF, and then this is time for us to recognize that we have to think of how to organize this for us, considering that in some measure we fail as a society to combat disinformation. Thank you.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you very much, Julio, for that, and I think you share the need for research. Harmonizing strategies and efforts, and embracing collaborations. We are about to open up to hear from you, but let’s just hear from Nazar. And Nazar, we would just like to hear from you what should digital platforms and tech companies, what role should they play in reducing disinformation during elections, and how can regulations ensure that they are held accountable?

Nazar Nicholas Kirama: Thank you for posing this question. Can you hear me? Okay, thank you so much for organizing this, and my name is Dr. Nazar Nicholas Kirama from Tanzania, and before I answer that question, I would like to take us to a little background in terms of why is it we are discussing about misinformation in the electoral context. It is because the elections have an enormous power either to put people in power or to disempower candidates. It is a very fertile ground where the misinformation, disinformation, fake news is attracted. It is like a sort of space where a lot of activities happens in a very short period of time during the campaign. If you look, for example, the elections that we had in the United States this year, there was a lot of information, misinformation, disinformation, fake news. And I wouldn’t want to comment much on that, but I think this led to one of the candidates being sort of, you know, the campaign was sunk because of misinformation. If I were to look at what the tech companies and platforms need to actually do to mitigate the situation, to ensure that the electoral processes, you know, are free of all these bugs in terms of disinformation and misinformation, fake news, there are several areas that the platforms and the tech companies need to either invest or do more. Number one is actually being proactive in terms of content moderation. They need to implement advanced algorithms that will actually flag and detect flagging and any misleading information so that people who are going to elect a candidate can understand that this information is the right kind of information from the campaign or from which is being put out there. And before I proceed, I would like to say that the tech companies and platforms have sort of, in terms of the electoral processes, they’ve become sort of electoral commissions without regulation and without anybody to sort of answer to. Because they are out there, the campaigns or the countries that are being affected have actually little or nothing to be able to make the platforms and the tech companies be answerable for the content that are being posted by either the proxies of the campaigns or the bad actors for a certain campaign. So I think the regulation in terms of what they do is very important. Number two is transparency in algorithm policies. These tech companies and platforms, they need to be transparent in the algorithm that they use so that information is clear and out there and make sure that the sort of misinformation and other content is put away for the candidates, for example. Number three is collaboration with fact-checkers. They need to collaborate with fact-checkers. The platform should collaborate with independent fact-checking organizations to verify accuracy of content and label or demote false information. This partnership ensures objectivity and credibility. So these tech platforms, because they have the ability to make things go viral, they have the ability to reach thousands and millions of people around the world and within the country, it is important through this transparency with the partnership for collaboration with the fact-checkers, we’ll be able to undo all these defects and fake news and disinformation and make sure that the right kind of information for a candidate is being put out there. So that is very critical. Number four is about having public awareness campaigns that are within the platform themselves, within the country and the actors, the politicians, the regular consumer on the tech and media platforms. Awareness is very key. And the ordinary citizens need to know when should I believe this information is true about a certain candidate, for example. So that is very important. There has to be some kind of real-time safeguards during the electoral periods. For the tech platforms, they have to collaborate even with the electoral commissions to ensure that these kind of safeguards are out there and they are put up and make sure the information that is there is key. Regulatory measures to ensure accountability. The platforms and tech companies have got to be accountable also for the content that is posted on their platforms online. This is because sometimes the tech companies and platforms tend to hide behind the veil of freedom of expression and all this that. But now the freedom of expression does not exclude them from the accountability. They have to be accountable in some ways for the content that is posted and which is false. So I think that is very key in terms of making sure defects and misinformation, disinformation is rooted out of electoral processes and in the end the citizens enjoy the right of electing the right kind of candidates, not because of the misinformation or the information from the bad actors against the candidate, but because of the actual policies that that candidate put out there for the common or ordinary citizens to be able to consume. Because this misinformation, disinformation, fake news and defects have the ability to actually disenfranchise citizens of a particular country. Because now the tech platforms, if they are not accountable for the content, that means they can be able to elect a president of a country, a member of parliament of a certain country, a judge for example. In the US, I know judges in the United States of America, they get voted for in the office. So that’s why I said at the beginning that these tech platforms, tech companies and media platforms, electoral commissions without regulation, without guardrails for them to be able to ensure that the content that is delivered on their platforms resonates with what is actually happening on the ground. With that, I thank you for this.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you very much, Nazar, for your input and highlighting some of the issues that are happening and also steps that need to be taken by platform owners and also other stakeholders. For instance, valuing and focusing on accountability, transparency, fact-checking, awareness creation. I must say that as someone that works in the African region, I followed elections that were happening across Africa. We had over 18 countries going through elections and disinformation was such a big threat to human rights and we had undermining of freedom of expression, civic engagement, having people decide, like Nazar just mentioned, people decide on rumours, fake news. So I think that’s a very important thing and also access to information. We use digital platform a lot to access information and these were things that are very much undermined during elections. So we will open up a bit. Do we have anyone online? If you have a question here, you can raise your hand. One, two, three. But let’s just check if anybody is online. Is there anyone? Okay. So you go first.

Audience: Thank you so much. I have a question for Giovanni. You spoke about the platform, an inclusive platform that is more or less saying if the misinformation, disinformation impacted the result of election, are their conclusions binding for the decision-makers? Because decision-makers may be interested by the election. They may be. candidate, the government, the sitting government may be also candidate for the new term. So is this platform, the conclusion of this platform binding for the decision makers?

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you. Let’s take the three questions and then the fourth one here. OK.

Audience: Thank you. My name is Nana. So I listened, and there’s a lot of conversation around the right candidate. And that sounds like bias towards a particular set of values, because I have observed elections for at least the past 15 years. And I’ve also worked on disinformation and misinformation for a long time. And the fact remains that in every election, all parties contribute to misinformation. Our personal biases might tend to show us more from one side. I say our personal biases because even online, the cliques, the people we follow helps tell our algorithms what to bring to our feed. So I’m wondering if we’re looking at it objectively. Then secondly, around platform accountability, I agree with you. Platforms should be held accountable. But I’m concerned for what? We have to be very clear what we are asking platforms to be held accountable for. If we decide to start holding platforms accountable for all forms of fake news posted on the platform, it’s a roundabout way to stifle free speech. I say this because a platform might have the ability to pull down news that has been verified by fact checkers as fake news. But if there’s no means of verifying it, it won’t, because of my opinion, pull it down. You see my point? Recently, ex-formerly Twitter introduced community notes. And anyone who has community note access will know that people even misuse it. And this is supposed to be the court of public opinion. We have to be very careful. I say this because, as a Nigerian, different African governments have found ways of trying to regulate and hyperregulate social media. When we open a door, we have to be very direct to where that door is pointed to, so that we don’t open a Pandora’s box, and it will be very difficult to shut it down. And I agree with you around advanced algorithm to detect and flag any misinformation. But it’s also very, very important that, for all algorithms, there is explainability. Because of cultural context, there are words that, when I say it, it means something else than when maybe someone who’s sitting in Italy says it. I can tell someone, oh, you’re so silly, you’re so foolish. And it’s banter, like we call it. But those words form abuse and insult in a different language. So algorithms, while advanced, may not be the best people, or the best tools, rather, not people, to flag misinformation. I do 100% agree with working and collaborating with fact checkers, because it’s very important that we have the human and the persons who work on this issue. So yeah, this is my contribution, just saying we should be a little bit more circumspect in some of the things that we’re proposing. Thank you very much.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you. There was another hand last, and then we come to you.

Peterking Quaye: Yeah, OK. So thank you so much. My name is Peter King for the Records from Liberia IGF. And two interventions I would like to push across. Just what the other colleague just said, platform regulation. I can attest to that. Platform length in META, I work with them on something similar to that, based on election content that is more of misinformation or disinformation. So in terms of electoral content, they are doing something in terms of regulating content that, when reported, that has not been fact checked, they pull it down based on the fact that, yes, this is someone locally that is flagging this particular content that is not of truth. And then the other issue is, in terms of electoral context with respect to misinformation, I think there is a need for consistent and sustainable national civic education. Because basically, you tell your local story better than anybody. And in constantly in a sustainable education nationally, we have to shift misinformation or disinformation into electoral context. These are my two interventions, please.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you. So there is a hand behind. Since the mic is close by, let him take it there, and then you have it last. Thank you for understanding. Thank you for this. Can I move? Can I go on? Yes, please. Yes.

Audience: OK. I’m Kosi. I’m a student from Benin. From my understanding, it’s not normal to say platform will be responsible for my information I put online. If I put something online, it’s supposed to be a response on that. It’s supposed to respond on that. Platform can, any time, if government requests information, platform can share my name and the information I share on each platform. It’s very important for everybody to know that, because information is freedom. I know information I’m sharing is to do something. It’s for information. My issue is for destruction. It’s supposed to respond on it also. That is very important to do. But all the platforms we have now are doing their own regulation process. We let them do it better. Thank you. Hello, I’m Tim. Thank you for giving me the possibility to talk. You know, I’ll tell you my favorite joke. What’s the difference between conspiracy theory and truth? Six months, remember COVID times, how much we have heard about COVID-19 and how much of that revealed to be not factually correct or even incorrect. And turned out something what we called conspiracy theories and before turned out to be truth. And here, I want to highlight the fact that we should be especially very precise on what we mark disinformation or misinformation or even fakes, especially when we are talking about elections. Because as it was mentioned before very correctly, elections are not about fact checking. They’re about a political battle and political bias where all the parties, directly or indirectly, basically fueling the misinformation narratives in the media landscape just to win. And sometimes they are supported by like an establishment and authorities in power because they just want to sit this chair another four years. It’s obvious. So I think we should be very precise here. And what to tell you more about this, say we have established it like a fact-checking association here in Russia, not here, there in Russia, with the intent to share all the possible experience we have for fighting fakes and disinformation and moreover to share our tools and platform, absolutely free and absolutely open basis. There is even a tool to detect deepfakes. So basically upload a video and it highlights a special, say it runs up a special scene in this video saying that this possibility of this, like some face of being deepfaked is like 70% or 80% or 97%, whatever. So I advise everybody to be especially precise of what we label fake or not. Understanding that political fakes and electoral fakes are most of time is a battle of trying to somebody get some more power, not to get to some truth point. And remember lessons of COVID-19 where lots of conspiracy theorists and even like lines for which people were persecuted and sometimes fined or even jailed turned out to be absolute truth. Thank you.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you. So let’s give the panel this time and Giovanni will come to you first.

Giovani Zagni: Thank you. So I’ll answer first of all to the question from the gentleman in the second row. So talking again about the, how the thing was framed in Europe, have to be very clear that the occasion when a candidate said something that is false is not something that was addressed by the, that is addressed by the task force. Absolutely not. The kind of, so neither the task force nor the code of practice on this information, nor the. European Digital Media Observatory, of which I’m a member, none of these entities and in no way the general way in which the thing is framed in Europe, they have any interest in framing the political debate or in labeling political expression in any sense. So all the candidates in Europe can say basically whatever they want and there will not be any intervention, direct intervention that is established by this framework. The things that the Code and all the other stakeholders are involved in are things like transparency in funding for political advertising, for example, or flagging cases of possible inauthentic coordinated behavior. So for example, a civil society organization or a fact-checking organization can bring to the table something that they’ve noticed as, I don’t know, a bot campaign. They think it’s a bot campaign or they think there is a specific account that is particularly reactive in spreading demonstrably false news. And then there is no coercive way to oblige the platforms to do anything, but it’s up to the platforms to decide if that specific campaign, that specific instance, that specific behavior violates their terms of use. So this is how things currently stand at the European level. Second thing that I wanted to mention is a thought about how countries should be regulating social media. My personal opinion, and probably is not that of all the members of the panel or all the people in the room, is that countries should stay as far away as possible from directly regulating through law. Anything similar to spreading false content on the internet, per se, because in any way saying something that is false is punishable by law, with some exceptions like libel or slander, whatever. But generally speaking, freedom of expression has to be the most important value that is. At the same time, though, I wanted to point out that basically no human platform or way of communication is completely unfiltered, or if they are, doesn’t turn very soon into something that nobody wants to be, nobody, I mean sane of mind, want to be in. Of course, currently, in all the countries that I know of, with strong regulations in some parts of, so unabated free speech doesn’t exist. So in terms of what we should do when it comes to disinformation, my personal idea is that something like labeling is probably the best thing to do. So, fact-checking, in my opinion, is not, thank you, you’re very kind, helping me out with this, fact-checking, in my opinion, is not kind of telling, giving out like cards, like who’s saying the truth and who’s saying what’s false, but is more like providing contextual information to the user and like saying, okay, this is what’s out there. You can say that we never went to the moon, that’s fine, but keep in mind that according to all this list of reputable sources, this is actually, doesn’t appear to be what really happened. Then it’s up to you to make up your mind, to evaluate if those sources are fine. Okay, but still, I think that providing more information is always better than providing no information. So this is, but this is just my personal opinion. And with that, I shut up.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you very much, Giovanni. Giuliano, you want to take some questions?

Juliano Cappi: Yes, thank you. Well, I was trying to make a point on what are we dealing with here, and what our colleague has has said is, has everything to do with that. We have a huge dispute of power. This information has everything to do with power, who have power, wants to maintain power, and those who want to gain power. Then I would like to address a few points that were mentioned here, and in the panel. First is, I couldn’t say that there is no bias in platform models, business models, considering who has been, in the last 10 years, gaining power around the world. So in Brazil, in Europe, in the United States, and in many other countries in the world, we can see in many other countries in the world, we can see the extreme right groups gaining power in Congress and media. I mean, it’s not just political power, it’s communication power. Then I guess that we have a relation between the kind of business model that are established in digital platforms, and the advancement of some political views. There is bias, it’s biased, and we cannot and cannot just imagine that there is no bias. This is important because we can try to address or try to investigate where this money that finances the industry of disinformation is coming from, and this is very important. Follow the money is one other thing that we have to do. We cannot shut blind eye on who is financing disinformation. Second point is, I wouldn’t concern with the excess of regulation at this time, because any regulation is so difficult to get. I mean, despite that Europe has done a great job on the MA and DSA recently, even in European countries, the challenge to produce any regulation is still great. And in Brazil, we have no regulation, no platform regulation at all. And this is a fight that we are trying to face, and it’s very hard. Of course, we should consider that regulation for the digital era should be based on principles. And I would like to bring another principle. I like very much the idea of trusted flaggers that my colleague here has brought, but there is a principle which lies behind the European regulation, which is systemic risk. This is very, very powerful, because it is difficult to establish specific kinds of content, to believe that we can, through algorithms, find what is wrong and what is right, or what is true, and what is conspiracy theory. We will not do this, but we can hold companies accountable for the systemic risks they are putting in place in society. This is, I believe that we can find a fair equilibrium to regulate content moderation through this principle of systemic risks. And there is a name for this in Portuguese. I’m trying to remind what’s the name, that this principle has been used in some regulation, but I forgot now. But it’s something like duty of care or something like this. And this is quite important, I would say. And finally, to finish, I would like to promote this consultation that we have done in Brazil. And it’s a consultation on digital platform regulation. And we established three pillars for regulated digital platforms. The first is disputability as a concept of economic theory. We cannot sort out these information problems while we still have impact from companies who concentrate so much market share in society, like Instagram and WhatsApp. And we have to face the challenge of building disputability. The second one is digital sovereignty. We have to look to infrastructure. There is a concept of digital public infrastructure which is gaining hype right now. But it’s important to understand if infrastructures, despite they are private or public, serve the public interests or business interests, in terms that some infrastructure are serving business interests over public interests, then we should regulate this infrastructure, despite they are private. And to finish, we have to regulate content moderation. And I guess this idea of systemic risk is a good idea for we start discussing what kind of regulation we wanted in different countries. Thank you.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you. Let me just check if Poncelet wants to interview. Is Poncelet still online? Poncelet, if you can hear me, do you have any comments or to the questions?

Poncelet Ileleji: Yes, thank you very much. I think, overall, we have to realize that any disinformation in any electoral context impacts the common man, those at grassroot level. So whether it’s platforms, whether we use fact-checking sites, the most important thing is advocacy for communities to know how misinformation can affect and disinformation can affect their lives. And the only way to do it is empowering people, especially those who communities relate with at their grassroot level. And those people usually have community radios. So the power of community radios is still very important. People will always listen to what they hear from their own community. And we have to be able to have avenues to empower those people and get all stakeholders involved. Social media has been a game changer. So I remember way back in 2006 when they said Time Magazine voted Person of the Year as you. You look at it today, it’s very relevant. Person of the Year is still you because the amount of information online and disinformation has really contributed to a lot of very unfortunate things in the world, especially in electoral processes. So let us see how we’ll do. I don’t have any one cup fits all. But within our own context, I know the main focus should be addressing people at the grassroot level. Let there be no default. Thank you.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you, Fonz. Yes, you can go on.

Audience: Thank you so much. And I wanted to respond a little bit about the right kind of candidate. She was talking about the right kind of candidate. I was contributing that from the perspective of the eco level of information, for example, about the candidate. It’s not the right candidate, the right, right candidate that is ideal for that post. I meant that when one candidate, for example, is there is a miss or disinformation against another candidate, the chances are that the two candidates, one of them will be disenfranchised in terms of the information, the right kind of information as of that time. So I didn’t mean that having the right candidate, the ideal candidate for that post. I wanted to clarify that. And one of the things that we have to look at is that regulations have been there since the world came into the being. And I cannot imagine a space where there’s no regulation at all. There has to be some form of regulation. What we should be against is that having overregulation in terms of whatever that we are doing. For example, if you do overregulation in terms of people becoming innovative or, you know, certain innovations, that means you will stifle competition and to second, you will stifle, you know, growth of that particular space. So I think regulation, transparency, having people being accountable, it will make the space a level playing field where everybody can be able to interact and have the right, for example, to have your content, you know, read and also have the right for not anybody to stumble on your feet, on your toes. I think that is what we are looking at. We’re not looking at, you know, making sure that, you know, for example, all these tech companies or platforms, they are banned because of the content that is posted by the end users. So I think there has to be some kind of regulation because just imagine if I walk into this room naked, yeah, there’s no regulation that has been written on the door that you can’t walk here naked. But if I walk here naked, people will go like, you know. So I think we have to have some form of regulation. And these regulations have got to be facilitative regulations. They have to facilitate the tech companies as well as the platforms, do their stuff, people read the stuff. But now when they cross the line, the red line of allowing their platform to be used, especially for disinformation, because the disinformation is intentional, unlike, for example, the misinformation. Disinformation is intentional.

Aiesha Adnan: I create a content and disseminate it for me to disparage, for example, your personality. If you are a candidate, I say, this guy is a rapist, for example, but the guy is not a rapist. If that content, you know, continue to be on the platform, the impact on the end users will decimate that particular candidate. So I think there has to be, in my opinion, as a speaker, I think there has to be some kind of regulation accountability and collaboration is very key, you know, engaging the fact checkers to ensure that, you know, the information that is being put out there by maybe third parties is the correct kind of information about a particular candidate. So I think the awareness, collaboration, it’s very key in terms of where we are going in the future. That would be my 50 cents contribution. This has become a very, very interesting discussion now. Yeah, for me, I don’t really believe that we should actually try and make the platforms accountable on the content actually uploaded by someone else. When we talk about regulation, we might be saying that this might be a simple thing, but we know that how humans and a lot of people with power, they try to influence. So that’s the reason I don’t believe that we should try and force maybe the platforms to remove content. And because all these platforms you see, it’s run by community guidelines. It’s available and it’s visible for everyone. And I believe with that, it is more towards society’s role in debunking, helping debunk this information through these kind of awareness campaigns that we are talking about, because we cannot let just the platforms decide whether this is true or not, especially when they don’t have enough information. So that is my take on that. And another point is we have talked a lot about the regulation. and then maybe holding the platforms accountable. But we have a bigger, bigger work to do. That is, as some of the members from audience mentioned about the civic education, especially on information integrity through information literacy programs. Because this doesn’t only impact the elections. It’s a general thing that we need to identify, like what is misinformation and disinformation and how do you really understand the deep fakes and all. So that is what I believe that we should be focusing on and less influence on the platforms, yeah. Thank you.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Very much. I think we’ve had a very good conversation. Aisha is starting something, but we can’t start opening it up. I should say that she does not believe that there should be, we should emphasize on content moderation because why should they moderate something they didn’t put there? I don’t know what you think. We have only 10 minutes. We can’t go into this conversation. Yes, it’s a debate for another day, but otherwise I think I have had fun moderating this session. And just to, before I kind of sum up some of the things that have come up, I want to just give you just one minute each if you want to just say your parting shots. You can start from Aisha and just take it. Very quickly, thank you.

Aiesha Adnan: Thank you. This is an interesting discussion and like coming from a very small population and then being able to be here and talk about some of the challenges that we have. I hope that some of you here do consider us when you design some of your tools and other interventions.

Nazar Nicholas Kirama: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My parting shot would be that to directing more efforts in terms of collaborations, ensuring that everybody out there, you need to kind of date or the ordinary citizen, become impacted by this information, whether we deploy a facilitative regulation or you think the date in terms of dialogue with the platforms and take companies on how they can root out the scourge of this information. I think that is important for all of us. I think awareness, making sure we mitigate from the end user perspective is very key as we move forward and I wish you luck in terms of where you are going. I hope you embrace awareness and fact-checking, platform accountability and facilitative regulation. Thank you.

Juliano Cappi: Thank you. Information integrity and disinformation is at the base of the issues that we have to sort out. And become like, it’s not only sustainability and dogma in question, just to finish, but what we see is a kind of cynical agreement over general values like privacy and freedom of expression that prevent us to debate the problems some actors are causing to society. So we have to stop this because I’ve been in IGF for another 10 years and I can’t stand it. Oh, let’s advance to attack privacy. And this has become, seriously, my friends, this has become sort of ridiculous. So start to face the problems and tell each other what we have to sort out on. Seriously, I don’t know if we can give up of society. And I would like to invite the Brazilian international community has a boot camp here and we have some of this, the hard copies of the work that we have done on consultation of digital platform regulation. We have a kind of a scene in Brazil, I’m giving to you if you’re interested, a scenario in Brazil of the main disputes. This is what we need to do to bring up what are the disputes are in place and try to sort out those problems. I’m sorry for this final speech, but I’m really concerned, thank you.

Giovani Zagni: So my final thought is that I do think that there is a strong regional and national specificity to these problems. I mean, the issue of this information is absolutely not the same also inside Europe. The problems that I can observe in my country as an Italian are probably completely different from what a Norwegian see, well, they’re outside European Union, but let’s say Scandinavian country or from Eastern Europe. What happens in each of these regions is very specific and I’m not even thinking about what’s happening in the Maldives or in Tanzania or in Brazil. So one thing that I take away from this session is how the issue of this information can become kind of an academic and very theoretical stuff from some perspectives and one of the most pressing and urgent issues from another perspective in another area of the world. So there have been cases in the past few years when this information has had such a concrete impact as to harm people and to be really a problem for the whole of society. And I do think that one of the most difficult things is to agree on some common ground at the global level. It will probably, I’m sorry about that, but it will probably need much more listening, much more discussing. And I think it’s great that a forum such as the IGF exists or have this kind of discussions.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you. And we’ll go right over to your points. Are you, yes. Committee, would you like to give us your parting shot in just one minute? Okay. We’ll get back to you. And usually I think I’m not going to be on time, so I’ll see you all in just a little bit. Yes, I appreciate all that. And thank you very much to the panelists and also to you for your time and your attention. Also to me for your comments and input to this discussion. Thank you both. I think some of what we will talk about is different from public awareness. I think we need collaboration, but collaboration synergies and using reports. I’m so happy that in a different context that we have regulations, like stakeholder approach. And we will encourage more promoting and fact-checking in a particular session. And thank you all. Have a good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Bye all. Bye. Bye. Bye.

Agreement Points

Importance of fact-checking in combating disinformation

Giovanni Zagni

Poncelet Ileleji

Nazar Nicholas Kirama

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation as voluntary co-regulatory instrument

Need for fact-checking websites supported by organizations like UNESCO

Proactive content moderation and transparency in algorithm policies by tech platforms

Multiple speakers emphasized the crucial role of fact-checking in addressing disinformation, whether through voluntary codes, dedicated websites, or platform policies.

Need for multi-stakeholder collaboration

Giovani Zagni

Juliano Cappi

Nazar Nicholas Kirama

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation as voluntary co-regulatory instrument

Multi-stakeholder partnerships and collaboration between fact-checkers and platforms

Accountability of tech platforms and social media companies

Speakers agreed on the importance of collaboration between various stakeholders, including platforms, fact-checkers, and regulatory bodies, to effectively combat disinformation.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of localized, culturally-sensitive approaches to combating disinformation, focusing on empowering communities at the grassroots level.

Aiesha Adnan

Poncelet Ileleji

Importance of tailored programs fitting cultural norms

Empowering citizens and communities at grassroots level

Unexpected Consensus

Caution against over-regulation

Giovani Zagni

Unknown speaker

Tension between combating false information and protecting free speech

Caution against over-regulation that could stifle innovation

Despite coming from different perspectives, both speakers cautioned against excessive regulation that could potentially infringe on free speech or stifle innovation, highlighting a shared concern for balancing regulation with other important values.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the importance of fact-checking, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and culturally-sensitive approaches to combating disinformation. There was also a shared concern about balancing regulation with free speech and innovation.

Consensus level

Moderate consensus was observed on the need for collaborative efforts and localized strategies. However, there were differing views on the extent of platform accountability and the appropriate level of regulation. This suggests that while there is agreement on the importance of addressing disinformation, the specific methods and extent of intervention remain contentious issues requiring further dialogue and research.

Different Viewpoints

Role of tech platforms in content moderation

Nazar Nicholas Kirama

Aiesha Adnan

Proactive content moderation and transparency in algorithm policies by tech platforms

Importance of civic education and information literacy programs

Nazar argues for proactive content moderation by tech platforms, while Aiesha emphasizes the importance of civic education and information literacy programs rather than platform-led moderation.

Regulation of tech platforms

Nazar Nicholas Kirama

Juliano Cappi

Unknown speaker

Accountability of tech platforms and social media companies

Multi-stakeholder partnerships and collaboration between fact-checkers and platforms

Caution against over-regulation that could stifle innovation

Nazar and Juliano advocate for stronger accountability and collaboration for tech platforms, while the unknown speaker cautions against over-regulation that could stifle innovation.

Unexpected Differences

Objectivity in identifying misinformation

Unknown speaker

Nazar Nicholas Kirama

Difficulty in objectively identifying misinformation in political contexts

Proactive content moderation and transparency in algorithm policies by tech platforms

The unknown speaker unexpectedly challenges the idea that misinformation can be objectively identified, especially in political contexts, which contrasts with Nazar’s advocacy for proactive content moderation by tech platforms.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the role of tech platforms in content moderation, the extent of regulation needed, and the most effective approaches to combat disinformation (platform-led vs. education-focused).

difference_level

The level of disagreement is moderate. While speakers generally agree on the need to address disinformation, they differ significantly on the methods and responsibilities of various stakeholders. These differences highlight the complexity of addressing disinformation globally and the need for nuanced, context-specific approaches.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for addressing disinformation, but Giovani emphasizes a co-regulatory approach at the EU level, while Aiesha stresses the importance of tailoring programs to specific cultural contexts.

Giovani Zagni

Aiesha Adnan

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation as voluntary co-regulatory instrument

Importance of tailored programs fitting cultural norms

Both speakers agree on the importance of educating the public, but Poncelet focuses on fact-checking websites, while Aiesha emphasizes broader civic education and information literacy programs.

Poncelet Ileleji

Aiesha Adnan

Need for fact-checking websites supported by organizations like UNESCO

Importance of civic education and information literacy programs

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of localized, culturally-sensitive approaches to combating disinformation, focusing on empowering communities at the grassroots level.

Aiesha Adnan

Poncelet Ileleji

Importance of tailored programs fitting cultural norms

Empowering citizens and communities at grassroots level

Key Takeaways

Disinformation during elections is a significant threat to human rights and democracy

Multi-stakeholder collaboration and public-private partnerships are crucial for combating disinformation

There is a need for tailored, culturally-appropriate approaches to address disinformation in different contexts

Fact-checking, media literacy, and civic education programs are important tools for countering disinformation

Regulation of tech platforms and social media companies is a complex issue that requires balancing free speech concerns

The role of traditional and social media in spreading disinformation during elections is significant

Resolutions and Action Items

Promote and support the development of fact-checking websites and tools

Implement civic education and information literacy programs to empower citizens

Encourage collaboration between platforms, fact-checkers, and other stakeholders

Consider adopting co-regulatory approaches like the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively regulate tech platforms without stifling innovation or free speech

How to address the political biases and power dynamics inherent in the spread of disinformation

How to create global standards for addressing disinformation while respecting regional and national differences

The extent to which platforms should be held accountable for user-generated content

Suggested Compromises

Adopting a principle-based approach to regulation focused on systemic risks rather than specific content

Using labeling and providing additional context rather than removing content outright

Balancing platform accountability with user responsibility through community guidelines and transparent policies

The European way, so to say, is to have all the relevant stakeholders around the same table and do not to impose any kind of kind of direct intervention from the authorities on the specific content, but more to have a forum where, I don’t know, like potentially damaging cases or potential threats or things that need to be looked after are discussed and then the platforms decide to take action or not.

speaker

Giovani Zagni

reason

This comment provides insight into the European approach to addressing disinformation, emphasizing collaboration and voluntary action rather than top-down regulation.

impact

It set the tone for discussing different regulatory approaches and sparked further conversation about the role of platforms in content moderation.

Most young people, most political parties, most lobbyists, what they use all over the world today to disseminate information has been through social media. Whether it’s Twitter, whether it’s TikTok, whether it’s X, they have used all this to disseminate information. And most people don’t naturally use mainstream media. They use social media as a way in which they get information.

speaker

Poncelet Ileleji

reason

This comment highlights the shift in information dissemination and consumption patterns, emphasizing the growing importance of social media in shaping public opinion.

impact

It led to a deeper discussion about the role of social media platforms in elections and the need for digital literacy.

I would like to see a place where that we actually build a culture where we promote information integrity across everyone. And when we especially talk about election, then everyone says, it’s the media. It’s the media spreading the information. But yes, of course, some part is the media, but it is the citizen who believe in it.

speaker

Aiesha Adnan

reason

This comment shifts the focus from just regulating media to empowering citizens, introducing the concept of ‘information integrity’.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include the role of citizens and the importance of digital literacy in combating disinformation.

These tech platforms, tech companies and media platforms, electoral commissions without regulation, without guardrails for them to be able to ensure that the content that is delivered on their platforms resonates with what is actually happening on the ground.

speaker

Nazar Nicholas Kirama

reason

This comment provocatively frames tech platforms as de facto electoral commissions, highlighting the need for accountability.

impact

It sparked a debate about the extent of platform responsibility and the need for regulation.

We have to be very careful. I say this because, as a Nigerian, different African governments have found ways of trying to regulate and hyperregulate social media. When we open a door, we have to be very direct to where that door is pointed to, so that we don’t open a Pandora’s box, and it will be very difficult to shut it down.

speaker

Audience member (Nana)

reason

This comment introduces a cautionary perspective on regulation, highlighting potential unintended consequences.

impact

It added complexity to the discussion about regulation, prompting participants to consider the potential downsides of overzealous content moderation.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by introducing diverse perspectives on the roles of different stakeholders in combating disinformation. They highlighted the complexity of the issue, touching on themes of platform responsibility, citizen empowerment, regulatory approaches, and potential pitfalls of overregulation. The discussion evolved from focusing solely on platform regulation to considering a more holistic approach involving digital literacy, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and careful consideration of cultural and regional contexts.

How can we improve processes and foster intersectional collaboration to better integrate different forums addressing disinformation?

speaker

Juliano Cappi

explanation

Juliano suggested we need to improve how we organize and integrate work from different forums, as current efforts may not be sufficiently effective in combating disinformation.

How can we ensure algorithms used by tech platforms for content moderation are explainable and account for cultural context?

speaker

Audience member (Nana)

explanation

The speaker highlighted that algorithms may misinterpret content due to cultural differences, emphasizing the need for explainable AI in content moderation.

How can we design tools and interventions that consider the needs of smaller countries and populations?

speaker

Aiesha Adnan

explanation

Aiesha emphasized the importance of considering smaller populations when designing tools to combat disinformation, as their specific needs may be overlooked.

How can we effectively empower grassroots communities to combat disinformation, particularly through community radios?

speaker

Poncelet Ileleji

explanation

Poncelet stressed the importance of empowering people at the grassroots level, particularly through community radios, to combat disinformation.

How can we implement ‘facilitative regulations’ that balance the need for platform accountability with the protection of free speech?

speaker

Nazar Nicholas Kirama

explanation

Nazar suggested the need for regulations that facilitate platform accountability without stifling innovation or free speech.

How can we improve civic education and information literacy programs to better equip citizens to identify misinformation and disinformation?

speaker

Aiesha Adnan

explanation

Aiesha emphasized the need for broader civic education and information literacy programs to help people identify various forms of false information.

How can we address the regional and national specificities of disinformation while still finding common ground at a global level?

speaker

Giovani Zagni

explanation

Giovani highlighted the significant differences in how disinformation manifests across different regions and countries, suggesting the need for both localized and global approaches.

Summary

This discussion focused on harmonizing approaches for data-free flows with trust (DFFT) in the global digital economy. Experts from various sectors explored the challenges and potential solutions for enabling cross-border data flows while addressing concerns about privacy, security, and economic development.

The panel highlighted the importance of data in driving economic growth and innovation, but noted increasing mistrust and restrictive policies leading to internet fragmentation. Key issues discussed included the need to balance data protection with data utilization, the challenges of government access to data across borders, and the impact of data localization requirements on cybersecurity and economic development.

Participants emphasized the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration and evidence-based policymaking to address these challenges. They stressed the importance of bringing the right experts together to find common ground and develop interoperable solutions. The OECD’s work on trusted government access principles and cross-border privacy rules was highlighted as a positive example of international cooperation.

The discussion also touched on the distinction between personal and non-personal data, the potential of privacy-enhancing technologies, and the need for flexible approaches that can adapt to different regional contexts and emerging technologies like AI. Speakers called for a holistic view of data governance that considers various policy goals and technical realities of the internet infrastructure.

In conclusion, the panel agreed on the need for continued high-level political commitment to DFFT, coupled with expert-driven, collaborative efforts to develop practical solutions that balance data protection with innovation and economic growth in the digital age.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of data flows for the global economy and innovation, balanced with concerns about privacy, security, and sovereignty

– Challenges of data localization policies and internet fragmentation

– The need for harmonized, interoperable approaches to data governance across countries

– Distinguishing between personal and non-personal data flows

– The role of multi-stakeholder cooperation and expert discussions in developing solutions

The overall purpose of the discussion was to examine approaches for enabling trusted cross-border data flows while addressing concerns about privacy, security and sovereignty. The panelists aimed to identify ways to harmonize data governance policies internationally to avoid fragmentation.

The tone of the discussion was largely constructive and solution-oriented. Speakers acknowledged the challenges but focused on potential ways forward, emphasizing cooperation and shared principles. There was a sense of cautious optimism that progress could be made through continued dialogue and evidence-based policymaking. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end as speakers offered final recommendations.

Speakers

– Timea Suto: Moderator

– Bertrand de La Chapelle: Chief Vision Officer at the Data Sphere Initiative

– Maiko Meguro: Director for International Data Strategy at the Digital Agency of Japan

– David Pendle: Assistant General Counsel for Law Enforcement and National Security at Microsoft

– Robyn Greene: Director of Privacy and Public Policy at Meta

– Clarisse Girot: Head of Division for Data Flows and Governance and Privacy at the OECD

Additional speakers:

– Jacques Beglinger: Member of the ICC delegation

– Rapidsun: Audience member from Cambodia

– Evgenia: Online audience member (full name not provided)

Expanded Summary: Harmonising Approaches for Data-Free Flows with Trust in the Global Digital Economy

This discussion, moderated by Timea Suto, brought together experts from various sectors to explore the challenges and potential solutions for enabling cross-border data flows while addressing concerns about privacy, security, and economic development. The panel included representatives from international initiatives, government agencies, technology companies, and intergovernmental organisations.

1. Importance and Challenges of Cross-Border Data Flows

All speakers unanimously agreed on the critical importance of cross-border data flows for the global economy, innovation, and development. Timea Suto framed the discussion by highlighting that while data underpins the global economy, it faces increasing mistrust and restrictions. Bertrand de La Chapelle, Chief Vision Officer at the Data Sphere Initiative, noted that despite a fragmented legal landscape, the internet infrastructure inherently enables free flow of data.

Maiko Meguro, representing Japan’s Digital Agency, emphasised the need for data governance to balance utilisation and protection, highlighting the multi-faceted nature of data. This sentiment was echoed by other speakers, who highlighted various challenges:

– David Pendle from Microsoft pointed out that government access requests fuel mistrust in data flows, particularly across borders.

– Robyn Greene from Meta warned that data flow restrictions lead to internet fragmentation, which can hinder innovation and economic growth. She also emphasized the technical limitations of data localization and the importance of considering the global internet infrastructure when creating regulations.

– Clarisse Girot from the OECD reinforced the crucial role of data flows in driving innovation and economic development.

The speakers collectively painted a picture of a complex landscape where the benefits of free data flows are clear, but concerns about privacy, security, and sovereignty create significant obstacles.

2. Approaches to Enable Trusted Data Flows

The panel explored various approaches to address these challenges and enable trusted data flows:

– De La Chapelle proposed focusing on access rights to data rather than data sharing, highlighting the role of APIs and privacy-enhancing techniques in modern data flows. He challenged the binary perspective on data sharing, advocating for a more nuanced approach.

– Meguro advocated for working on concrete interoperability solutions and institutionalising processes to facilitate trusted data flows.

– Pendle stressed the importance of pursuing evidence-based policies that reflect the nuances of the digital economy and solve for real problems rather than misperceptions.

– Greene suggested attaching rights and obligations to data rather than data subjects, potentially simplifying cross-border data governance.

– Girot emphasised the need to bring the right stakeholders together to find common ground on these complex issues. She also highlighted the OECD’s work on privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) and government access to data, including a declaration on trusted government access and ongoing efforts to promote it.

These diverse approaches highlight the multifaceted nature of the challenge and the need for flexible, adaptable solutions.

3. Differentiating Personal and Non-Personal Data Flows

An important theme that emerged was the distinction between personal and non-personal data flows:

– Pendle highlighted that non-personal data is crucial for the economy, research, and cybersecurity.

– Meguro noted that personal data requires carefully balancing privacy rights with economic value.

– De La Chapelle cautioned that the frontier between personal and non-personal data is not always clear, adding complexity to governance efforts. He also suggested exploring an opt-out system for medical imagery data to support AI development.

– Girot pointed out that health data governance needs special consideration due to its sensitive nature, mentioning the OECD’s recommendation on health data governance.

This discussion underscored the need for nuanced approaches that can address the varying requirements of different types of data.

4. Role of International Cooperation and Harmonisation

The speakers strongly agreed on the need for international cooperation and harmonisation of approaches, though they proposed different methods:

– Meguro called for formalising multi-stakeholder processes at the international level.

– Pendle advocated for harmonising approaches through multilateral and interoperable frameworks.

– Greene promoted the adoption of global cross-border privacy rules.

– Girot suggested building on existing frameworks like OECD guidelines.

– Meguro emphasised the importance of keeping data free flow with trust on high-level political agendas like the G7 and G20.

Despite some differences in specific approaches, there was a high level of consensus on core principles, providing a strong foundation for further international cooperation on data governance.

5. Assisting Developing Countries

The discussion addressed the need to assist developing countries in implementing effective data governance frameworks, as raised by an audience question from Cambodia. Girot mentioned the ASEAN model contractual clauses as an example of regional efforts to address this issue.

6. Unresolved Issues and Future Directions

The discussion also highlighted several unresolved issues that require further attention:

– How to effectively distinguish between personal and non-personal data in practice.

– Achieving legal interoperability across different jurisdictions.

– Balancing data localisation requirements with the need for cross-border data flows.

– Addressing national security concerns while enabling necessary cross-border data access.

– Assisting developing countries in implementing effective data governance frameworks.

Potential compromises and solutions suggested included the use of privacy-enhancing technologies, adopting a gradual approach to harmonisation, focusing on regulatory interoperability rather than strict harmonisation, and using model contractual clauses adapted to regional needs.

In conclusion, the panel agreed on the need for continued high-level political commitment to data-free flows with trust, coupled with expert-driven, collaborative efforts to develop practical solutions. The discussion highlighted the complexity of balancing data protection with innovation and economic growth in the digital age, while emphasising the critical importance of finding workable solutions to enable trusted cross-border data flows. Meguro’s closing remarks highlighted Japan’s efforts to assess regulations in light of digitalization, underscoring the ongoing nature of this work across different jurisdictions.

Timea Suto: won’t be able to hear us and you won’t be able to hear our speakers online. Okay. Check, check. Everybody can hear me? Channel 1. Yeah. There we go. Good. All right. So welcome, everyone. Thank you for starting your morning with us. This is, if you’re wondering if you are in the right room, this is workshop number 102 on harmonising approaches for data-free flows with trust. And I might ask if we maybe can close the door? Thank you. All right. So why are we here discussing this topic today? We know that data, and we have talked so much about data, we know that data underpins every aspect of today’s global economy, supports everything from day-to-day business operations to the delivery of essential government services, and it enables international and multilateral cooperation. But we also know that despite this core role that data has in facilitating economic activity and innovation, there is continued mistrust in data and data-powered technologies. Some of this mistrust stems from the difficulty of understanding data, its nature, its consequences, and consequently the level of risk of its handling. Trust is also eroded by concerns that national public policy objectives such as security, privacy, or economic safety could be compromised if data transcends borders. This increasingly fuels restrictive data governance policies and regulatory measures such as digital protectionism and data localisation. Such approaches deepen internet fragmentation and desegregate information that actually would underpin the broad range of socioeconomic activities and cybersecurity protection. So with growth and development driven by data flows and digital technologies, disruptions in cross-border data flows have broad reverberations that can lead to issues like reduced GDP gains and adverse impacts on local digital ecosystems. So it is important that we talk about trust in data, it’s important that we talk about how we build policy frameworks that actually facilitate the handling, sharing, and access of data in a way that we use it for its potential for developmental gains and try and avoid some of these fragmentation effects of inept policies. So what we try and do here in this session is try and take stock a little bit of the various regional, international initiatives that try to deal with data governance and try and see whether or not we can move towards some commonality between these, if we can find some ways in talking about data governance that leads to more harmonised or at least interoperable approaches to handling data so we don’t fragment the policy space around it and with that we don’t fragment access to the benefits of data. So to help me have this conversation, I’m actually in a very interesting position because I don’t have to answer these very difficult questions, I just have to ask the questions and we have the experts here that will to talk to me and help me answer these questions together. So we have experts both here in person and online, and I’m very happy to see everybody managed to connect. We have, in order of which I will be calling them to speak, Mr. Bertrand de La Chapelle, who’s chief vision officer at the Data Sphere Initiative, Ms. Maiko Meguro, director for international data strategy at the Digital Agency of Japan Online. We have also Mr. Dave Pendle, who’s assistant general counsel for law enforcement and national security at Microsoft, also online in the middle of the night. Thank you, Dave. We have Ms. Robin Green here in front of me at the table, who’s director of privacy and public policy at Meta. And last but not least, also Ms. Clarice Giroux, who is head of division for data flows and governance and privacy at the OECD. Thank you for joining us, Clarice. It’s also quite early in Europe in the morning. So to jump right in, we’ll talk a little bit first on why is it important that we talk about data and to discuss a little bit the added value of data and give some nuance to the perceptions around what we actually mean around data and the conditions that enable cross-border data flows for the global economy. So Bertrand, if I can turn to you first to share some initial insights.

Bertrand de La Chapelle: Thank you, Tymia. Good morning, everyone. I like the fact that you mentioned it’s important to talk about data because, as you know, this was the title of a report that we produced with Lorraine Portioncoula, who was the executive director of the Data Sphere Initiative. And the title was, We Need to Talk About Data, Framing the Debate Between Free Flow of Data and Data Sovereignty. And the way we handle the question of creating the maximum value for everyone out of data is a constant challenge. I want to highlight first that when we talk about fragmentation, it is not a risk, it is a reality. The legal landscape is fragmented because we have 190 countries and they all have different laws. On the other hand, the technical infrastructure of the Internet is by default free flow of data. And it’s the tension between the two that we’ve in most cases have to address. The second thing is we have a tendency when we talk about data to think in terms of sharing of data. And a lot of people have a sort of image that dates back to older times where you are using the database and you share this database and you basically transfer this database. This is not the way it works anymore. The way it works today is through API, it’s through rights of access to data. So many times the data doesn’t travel really. It is just that you query it from another distant place. And even more, there are new techniques called privacy-enhancing techniques. And some people consider that they should be called partnership-enhancing techniques, such as homomorphic encryption or federated learning that allow to leverage existing data without necessarily having to share this data. Because you can do computation on encrypted data or you can do distributed learning for an AI system. So the landscape is changing. And I was impressed by the fact that in a panel yesterday, Yohichi Iida from Japan was answering to a question that I was raising, highlighting that the notion of data-free flow with trust is a high-level concept that is useful to drive the discussion at an international level, to establish the fact that as a principle, we should aim for the maximum capacity to share access to data. And the final point, because we can come back to a few other things, we have a tendency regarding data to think in a very binary perspective. Either data is not accessible for sometimes very legitimate reasons, it can be for intellectual property, for security, for privacy, or confidentiality in general, and so it is okay that this data is not shared. On the other hand, there is a trend, very positive, towards comments, open data, making data widely available so that people can actually build things out of this. But what I want to highlight is that too often we look at this as just a binary alternative, and we lose the fact that in between there are situations where you can not go to the full open data, but at the same time enable some access and some leverage of existing data that has protections for legitimate reasons, but where this data can be made accessible. And in that regard, in this dichotomy of closed data and open data, what the DataSphere initiative is pushing is that we have a common objective, and we should have collectively a common objective, which is to responsibly unlock the value of data for all. This doesn’t mean that data is available for absolutely everybody, it can be for limited groups of actors, but it is important that we share the objective of creating social and economic, as much as economic value, from data, because there is a tendency to think only in terms of monetizing data and there is a lot of possibilities to create social value and most importantly there is a question of having a more equitable digital society because today the data economy is, because of network effects, because of the fact that this resource is non-rival, there are mechanisms that increase disparities and that make the distribution of the value not sufficiently spread and equitable. So these are a few of the of the ideas that I wanted to share to reframe or frame this.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much Bertrand and you mentioned also that we’ve already had discussions with colleagues from Japan, so we’re turning quickly to Japan, from Japan to Ms. Maiko Meguro, but you also mentioned the role of data for various purposes and for both economic social development and other ones. So I think the question is right to ask from Ms. Meguro, how do you see this from a national perspective, from a government perspective, especially sitting where you are in your other digital agency?

Maiko Meguro: Okay, thank you. Okay, first of all, good morning and a good evening, colleagues, and thank you for the opportunity to speak about this important topic. So as Bertrand just spoke, the issue of data flow is basically both the real needs but also the issue of perception. I basically agree with that opinion and obviously, as Bertrand mentioned, the DFFT started as a high-level concept and this concept’s role is exactly the point to shape people’s perception through the concept of trust, namely to pull everybody out of the silos of sectors, and of course, integrate as a matter of data governance. So when I first started working on this topic of DFFT, which was in 2021, the rhetoric, the data is basically the oil of the 21st century was very popular. But the image of data that this metaphor actually present is a very one-sided, why does it trade centric view of the data governance? So discussion of data governance from our perspective must take in account the multi-facets nature of the subject or concept of data. For example, personal information, personal data is obviously the human rights, but at the same time, it also has economic value as recognized by the antitrust authorities of many countries. As digitalization and data linkage progresses, it will be possible to check probably the implementation status of various labor or environmental regulation in all across the supply chain or even across borders, but the data in companies’ production lanes, which are also related to the implementation is also a highly confidential corporate secrets. So there has been concrete cases of conflict in the past in this type of discussion, such as between investment agreements and environmental regulation in different countries, but the problem with cross-border data transfer is that such conflict friction will occur on the permanent basis. Thus leaving the matter to ex-post responses such as individual dispute resolutions or court cases could lead to a market environment that favors and entitles even for those people. who can take the risk of dispute, such a large company with a lot of financial and human capital. So from our perspective, we must think about the effective means of having both enhancing flow, but also necessary protection according to rights and interests attached to the data. But the necessity of cross-border data transfer is of course very clear, with the shift from the hardware base to a software information system-based social economy by digitalization. Obviously, as the moderator had just set out, data has become relevant to all part of societies. But from our perspective, from the government, then this means that the way money is earned is changed, but also the places where the social problems occur have also begun to change. And these matters also concerns distribution of rights and benefits related to data ownership and accesses. So basically, I must also mind that because of this impact of digitalization and what data can do, many governments started to see the threats posed by the use of data and digital technology. And this could also lead to the series of introduction of the regulation, for example, to banning transfer of data outside the country by foreign companies. But it is also important to remember that many countries are unable to procure the data enough to sustain their own economy and innovation within their own borders. So this is the real needs that we need to have the cross-border data flows as a matter of reality. So therefore, if the country only focuses on restricting the cross-border transfer of data in thinking of data governance, their company will not be able to use the data collected from the other country in turn. So data governance might must be always considered from the perspective both maximizing the utilization and data protection security. But lastly, I must say that the question on how to combine the needs of protection and how we want to use the data depends on the social priorities, cultures, even religions or economic structure with each society and government in principle. So it should not be discussed based on like international single rules of values. So this is our perspective that we the government could perhaps start from the working on certain arbitrary treatment, like arbitrary treatment or lack of transparency or perhaps we could work on the concrete solution of interoperability like technologies or lowering the competence costs. So what is more the institutionalizing these processes by relevant actors, both government and non-government to engage with the issue is very important which I could also touch upon later. But for now, that’s all for me, thank you.

Timea Suto: Thank you very much, Ms. Meguro. I’m going to just write into comments from Dave online because we’ve mentioned this dichotomy between how certain governments or certain regions approach data flows. And I would like to explore a little bit more of what those concerns are that fuel some of those restrictive policies that you’ve mentioned. So Dave, if you could enlighten us about that a little bit.

Dave Pendle: Yeah, thanks, Saman. Thanks for having me and good morning to everyone. My name is Dave Pendle. I’m an assistant general counsel at Microsoft. I work on the law enforcement national security team which is the team at Microsoft that responds to government requests for user data from around the world. And certainly government access requests is kind of one source of the mistrust in data flows but I’m hoping to kind of. of uplevel it a little bit and talk more broadly about some of the other concerns and what they may be rooted in. And for many in this room and who are listening this is probably not very necessarily news or insightful but I think it’s kind of interesting to look at these restrictions as being driven by different sides of kind of the same sovereignty coin. And sovereignty does seem to be kind of a major driver of the loss of trust. And the way I see it is that sovereignty can kind of serve as both a solar and a shield kind of pushing contradictory trends. First, clearly governments have a sovereign obligation to protect their citizens, to protect their national security. And that sovereign interest has led to an expansion in surveillance authorities. And certainly governments around the world have kind of exercised increasingly assertive authority to address public safety and national security needs. You also see this come up in terms of, fears of governments expressing fears about going dark and the needing the need to kind of fasten strain encryption protections that are in place. You certainly also see this where governments are seeking access to or authority to access to I should say, cross-border data. And certainly if a government is, it’s investigating cyber crime or child exploitation because data is global generally, the data outside of their borders may be relevant to really important public safety matters within their borders. So that’s somewhat understandable. And indeed the US government, it’s often pointing to the Cloud Act allows for the US government to seek data outside of its borders. But that is not unique by any means. In fact, that same principle is reflected in the Budapest Convention. It’s reflected in the OECD Trusted Government Access Principles. It’s reflected in the evidence sharing regulations that are going to affect in a couple of years in the EU where the obligations exist regardless of where the data is stored. The other side of that sovereignty coin, the shield, if you allow me to use this kind of metaphor, the sovereign interests and the fears of like third-party access to data generally have led to these walls being erected. Walls trying to contain data within a nation’s borders through privacy laws, through trade restrictions. We’ve certainly seen lots of, you know, mandatory data localization efforts, limitations on the use of global technology, the fragmentation of the internet generally are all in this vein. We often hear concerns about, you know, potentially U.S. government access to data, but even here in the U.S., there are concerns about third countries accessing sensitive data of Americans and U.S. persons in the U.S. government. China is often discussed in that vein. So around the world, we see these kind of concerns materialize through requirements for sovereign controls, through requirements or interests in end-to-end encryption in a variety of transfer restrictions. And these, you know, again, these restrictions kind of serve as that shield to the fear of government access. I can’t speak to the legitimacy or the actuality of all of these concerns, but in my world, I can’t speak to concerns about government access. And I would say that there is always some like myth busting that needs to take place from discussing government access and specifically cross-border government access. You know, we report on cross-border data disclosures every six months. We get about 60,000 legal demands from governments all over the world for about 110,000, 120,000 different users each year. In a six-month period, so we’re talking about 30,000 legal demands, you know, we typically get about 50 to 55 content disclosures that are cross-border. In the last reporting period, there was only one that pertained to an enterprise customer. So the majority of those are consumer users. And, you know, for like the EU folks in the room or elsewhere, that one, you know, enterprise customer was not in the EU enterprise. So like the concerns that we hear about, you know, the perception that if, you know, U.S. technology companies are subject to U.S. law and are handing over the world’s data to the U.S. government, it doesn’t really, you know, bear out if you look at the actual numbers. One other distinct factor here is competition. And there is also a sovereign interest, of course, in creating space for domestic technology and innovation that’s also been a driver of some of these restrictions. So that’s not that’s not an exhaustive list, but there is there’s some themes there about some of the restrictions that we see and the causes for fragmentation. Thank you.

Timea Suto: Thank you. And listening to you, I’m reminded about what Bertrand said in the beginning, that this risk of fragmenting the space because of the lack of trust in data, it’s not no longer a risk. It is the reality. And there are a lot of causes for that, as I as we hear from you. But I’d like to turn to Robin to see, so we heard from Dave the causes, what are the consequences of such an approach to data?

Robyn Greene: Thank you. And thank you for having me here to speak. And thank you to everyone for coming. My name is Robin Green. I’m a privacy and public policy director for Meta. And like Dave, while I don’t work on the legal team, I work on the policy team. I do work on law enforcement and government access issues and anything really to do with internet fragmentation. And I just I don’t think there is a conversation on internet fragmentation more important than one on data flows and the implications of restricting data flows. With that in mind, I’m going to just start with a very brief overview of the kinds of impediments to data flows that we see. Because we sort of skipped over that a little bit and not everybody really sort of understands the different ways that these kinds of restrictions manifest. And so just very briefly, we can see them most often in either express data localization requirements that are requiring that data be stored in a specific jurisdiction. Those requirements can be very prescriptive and not allow data to transfer outside of the jurisdiction under any circumstance. Or they may be somewhat more flexible and allow copies of the data to transfer outside of the jurisdictions. In addition to that, we see de facto localization, which is oftentimes where you have regulatory benchmarks, if you will, that you have to meet in order to be able to transfer data out of the jurisdiction. And oftentimes those benchmarks are out of the private sector’s hands because they are, of course, the purview of the governments that the private sector entities are subject to or simply unattainable for other reasons. And oftentimes those reasons are because we are blurring the distinction between the types of data transfers that actually occur. And so one of the things when I was in particular listening to Bertrand’s wonderful comments was just sort of noticing how we really talk only about the idea around data transfers being from one legal entity to another third party in a different jurisdiction. And it’s very natural to think of it that way, right? Especially when you consider how we have really started to consider this debate in the context of GDPR and things like that. But one of the trends that we’re seeing increasingly is actually the regulation and restriction of the physical movement of data. So the idea that even if you are not transferring data between legal entities, that you still cannot move data outside of the jurisdiction where it was created. For providers such as Meta and the kinds of services that we offer, but also for the sorts of providers that do business-to-business kinds of services, the implications of these kinds of restrictions are really dramatic. But they have the same kinds of implications as the kinds of restrictions when you’re talking about restricting third party and transfers to third party entities abroad. The difference is just that in that case, you’re talking about only some data transfers. In the case of the physical movement of data around the internet because of how the internet’s built, the interoperable and international way that it was built, it is literally not built in a way that is technically able to restrict the flow of data across borders when you’re not changing hands between legal entities. Domestic communications can often go to international switch points, for example, in order to get back to the recipient. And so we deal with these kinds of international data flows in a lot of different contexts, not just in the context of transferring data from one legal entity to another legal entity based in another jurisdiction. And so when we think of the risks of this, I think the first and foremost risk is generally of internet fragmentation. And what that means is essentially building walls around our internets, right? Instead of having one global, interoperable, secure internet, the result of that is to have regional or national silos. And the implications of that are really significant and really hard to estimate in terms of how severe they can be. And this is in part because when you think about how people interact with the internet, there is just so much access to information. There’s so much learning. There’s so much economic development. There’s so much connection between different people and different communities. And so putting up those silos would have a really dramatic impact on cultural, social, and economic norms and the threads that bind us across nations. I mean, when we think about what we’re all doing here and trying to find multilateral approaches to governance, internet fragmentation, I think, is one of the gravest threats that we see to the goals that we all have here at IGF. And so when you think about what is the primary driver internet fragmentation, it’s the restriction of data flows. In addition to that, though, as I mentioned, when you restrict data flows, it has really significant chilling consequences for economic development and innovation. As we are learning from Maiko, at the end of the day, we are a data-driven economy. Innovation is data-driven. And so we need to make sure that we’re able to access data from all over the world in order to be able to build new technologies, in order to improve existing technologies, and grow our economies as a result. Additionally, human rights have really significant deleterious effects when you wind up doing restrictions on data transfers. This results in not only restrictions on freedom of expression, access to information, economic rights, because, of course, economic rights are fundamental human rights as well, and are now reliant on access to the internet and access to information, but also rights around safety and things like that. And so we see a really, really significant range of human rights harms result from internet fragmentation and privacy harms as well. Because ultimately, when you are looking at restricting data flows, the result of that is data localization. And one of the major results of data localization is undermining cybersecurity. When you can’t access data and you can’t have global visibility of what this data environment is, it’s much, much harder to be able to identify and quickly respond to cybersecurity threats. And that’s true whether you are a provider of services to consumers or a business-to-business provider. This is across the board. If you’re a financial services provider, if you are a Facebook or Instagram, or if you are a cloud services provider, or really anything else, the number one thing you need to be able to secure your network is visibility. Or whoever you’ve hired to secure your network, the number one thing they need is visibility of what that global threat landscape looks like. Restricting data flows undermines that. And that has really significant consequences, not only for cybersecurity in the sense of what does that mean for our businesses and the integrity of our data, but for national security as well. Because ultimately, cybersecurity is a national security issue. It’s tied to the security of critical infrastructure. And when we interfere with the cross-border flow of data, we interfere with our ability to protect those kinds of critical infrastructure as well. Thank you.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much, Robin. It was quite a comprehensive list. And I’m sure that there is more. But thank you for highlighting the main important ones. I would like to turn to Clarice and ask you, from the role that you are sitting at at OECD, who works with countries in very different jurisdictions, what is the progress that you have seen on this? Because we’ve been talking about the risks of this for quite some time now. Is the idea, this high-level concept of DFFT, of trying to move us away from silos and trying to get a framework that we can all agree on, is this gaining traction? Are we moving towards some more harmonized policies on data? And what is the OECD’s perspective on this? How do you see this work from your perspective?

Clarisse Girot: Thank you, Tymia. And hi, everybody. Good morning, good afternoon, wherever you are. Thanks very much for having me. I mean, it’s very hard to come last because of course a lot has already been said. So let me build a bit on what the other speakers have been, you know, have said and your specific questions. At the OECD, we’ve been working on cross-border data flows for a very, very long time. If you may recall the privacy guidelines of the OECD back 1980, and of course the, you know, things were very different back then, but still the principles that you had to balance cross-border data flows with the privacy and fundamental human rights of individuals while enabling growth, innovation, et cetera, et cetera, was already there. So frankly, in terms of philosophy, nothing fundamentally new, and in a way, DFFT is nothing new either in many ways. The power of the concept of DFFT is that first of all, it was developed at a time when the internet economy was completely different, you know, and we could see that there was a political, geopolitical need to sort of conceptualize a narrative around the significance of cross-border data flows for global leaders, and not only for technicians, if you will, of data protection laws, and, you know, a discipline that was considered fairly niche, right? And that has changed with the concept of DFFT. But that said, it is very important to emphasize that DFFT does not start, you know, from nothing. There’s a lot we can build on, and this is where the positives come from. We have the OECD privacy guidelines, a lot of data protection laws. If we think personal data have been built based on the principles in the privacy guidelines, GDPR and others, and the Directive 9546 before GDPR, we see many more data protection laws, personal data protection laws, privacy laws are developed around the world, which in itself, a very positive thing, obviously. Now, the risks. of fragmentation that come with that should be addressed. But that’s, you know, let’s see still the positive more than the negative in this development. We need an acknowledgement that there is, there are cross-border data flows and to build the trust you need. Even if you do not need per se data transfer provisions in data protection laws, if you have them, then there needs to be a balance between, you know, business interest, innovation, commerce, digital trade, as Micah was saying, and the protection of individuals vis-a-vis the protection of their fundamental rights. Now, we also have at the OECD, a recommendation on enhanced access to and sharing of data, which is even broader, if you will, because it covers both personal and non-personal data. And it’s sort of, it’s first of all, it is based on the fundamental of data-driven innovation and the fact that to enable data-driven innovation, well, you have to take into account the fact that there is a whole gradation, if you will, of different kinds of interests that need to be protected and therefore different kinds of data openness out there. But there is this idea that there is data openness and data-driven innovation at the heart, you know, of the policy, policies, data policies, if you will, of the OECD economy. So that’s at least 38 member countries and actually, and counting, because we work with many more than 38 countries, actually, or the breadth of our work is much larger. So the positives here is, I would say, greater awareness to the significance of data and DFFT has played a role there, more data protection laws, and therefore a greater community of privacy professionals that, you know, sometimes in policy circles, you know, we’re not aware of, but there are thousands of privacy professionals out there that are used, you know, to look at not only privacy, but data governance issues more generally, because data is an asset in itself, and personal data is only, if you will, a subset of that. Now, it is also important. to highlight that we are trying to increasingly sort of sort out the different sources of impediments to cross-border data flows. And there’s a large array of those. And it is important to go back to the roots of these divergences, because then you can try building solutions on them. And so there will be, for instance, variations between the texts of data protection laws, let’s say privacy laws, and in particular, their data transfer provisions. Now, sometimes this clash in provisions is not intentional at all, or there’s just a need for clarification that some data transfer mechanisms are not there, but it should be there. And so it’s always difficult to change a law, but there is no intention to go against standards and some practices out there. We just need to highlight the fact that these modifications maybe could be required. It’s even easier to do this at the level of regulation, and even easier to do that at the level of regulatory interpretations. And I’m very familiar with this exercise, because when I was based in Asia, that’s a project that I was working on across the entire APAC region, raising awareness as to the impact of these variations and the compliance costs that come with them is really a key part of any advocacy exercise, if you will, to facilitate cross-border data flows in a region and globally. Now, when you come to variations in the very fundamentals, if you will, of these data transfer provisions or restrictions, and in particular data localization, I can only go back to what Robin was saying. I mean, this is much, much harder, obviously, to tackle. But even then, since my role is to close on a positive note, I would say even then, data localization provisions often come from the challenges of national security access, law enforcement access to data in overseas jurisdictions. And as Dave was saying, Let’s do a bit of myth-busting here. It is very important to look at what’s really happening out there. And this is where the work that the OECD has done. Very difficult work, believe me. This was no easy, easy work on the building the declaration on cross-border. I’m sorry, I’m so-called trusted government access to personal data held by private sector entities for national security and law enforcement purposes kicks in. And we believe that we can build a lot actually on this declaration. And I’d be happy to talk to that later. One last thing, just to build very quickly, I hadn’t planned on doing that, if you allow me to just take one more minute to build on what Bertrand was saying about privacy or partnership enhancing technologies. The OECD is working a lot on this. On my team, we have a whole work stream on privacy enhancing technologies. Technology cannot solve everything, but there are extremely promising developments here. What is absolutely key is to look at the sustainability of the business models of best providers. And it’s an ecosystem which is far from stable yet these technologies are very often expensive, can actually disrupt some fundamental business models. So it’s not easy. At the end of the day, it’s all about looking at things in a holistic way. What are the technologies out there? What is the business model behind each technology? How can they be used? Are they sustainable at all? Exactly like data transfer provisions need to be unpacked and data localization requirements need to be unpacked so that in each category of challenges, we can actually try and find solutions. And that’s very much the way to close. We’re looking at the implementation of the DFFT policy agenda is by looking at the big policy objectives, the different challenges under them and how we can build a multi-stakeholder ecosystem to address each of them. And that’s why I think, we can still be very positive and. look ahead. That’s my role, to be positive. So with that, I will hand it over to you, Tim.

Timea Suto: Thank you. Thank you very much, Clarice. And in the spirit of continuing on a perhaps more positive note than all the risks that we’ve discussed in the first part of the conversation, I’d like to turn back to all of the speakers and ask your ideas and opinions to what we can actually pull out as tangible solutions to the problems and the fragmentation risks that we’ve outlined in the beginning. I will ask you to keep it to three minutes each if you can, because we’ve been going a bit longer in the first segment. But also keeping in mind, I heard Clarice saying, the OECD works a lot on this. It is 28 countries. That’s a great start. We are at 190 something in the world. So how we can also move towards that objective of elevating some of the existing solutions into the broader spectrum. Bertrand, I’ll go to you first.

Bertrand de La Chapelle: Yeah, I think it’s important also for some of the people who are listening, either here or online. There are some comments that may be mentioned without a full understanding of what is behind. The term electronic evidence and access to government, access to user data. Let me explain just very briefly. If you have a criminal investigation for a crime that is committed in one country, the victim is in this country. The perpetrator or alleged perpetrator is from that country. In order to conduct the investigation, you need to have access to sometimes the email exchanges or the trace of the communications, etc. The problem is that in most cases, this is being stored by a company that is outside of a territory of the place where the crime was committed. This question of electronic evidence is becoming absolutely essential in almost any criminal investigation today. And we do not realize that in some countries, because of the lack of trust, it can take up to one year or two years to get access to this information. And it has been mentioned, but I wanted to emphasize this. And the OECD has done work in this. The Cloud Act in the US and the E-Evidence Regulation in Europe have been mentioned. It is absolutely fundamental for everybody to understand that a lot of the debate about data localization is driven also by this factor, the inability to conduct criminal investigations, because there is no access to the data that is needed. It is a very complex problem. But until we find a solution for this, which is basically that every single country should develop a legislation similar to the E-Evidence Regulation that establish clear due process mechanisms for the requests that are being sent to the private companies in another country, particularly in the US, we will not remove one of the main incentives for data localization. I wanted to explain this, because it went through, and people are not necessarily familiar. The second thing, and again, it is not a justification. It’s just to understand what are the drivers. The second thing is the fundamental difference in perception regarding privacy protection between Europe and the United States. I mean, you’re all familiar with the fact that the European Court of Human Rights, as for the third time, or maybe we’re going to have the third time, or the Schramm’s thing.

Robyn Greene: The CJU, so the Court of Justice of the European Union, so the European Court of Human Rights. It’s the European Court of Justice. And yeah, so Schramm’s 2 happened. The court has not looked at the new decrimes.

Bertrand de La Chapelle: There’s a new one. So anyway, at two occasions, at two occasions, arrangement that was made between Europe and the United States in order to take into account the discrepancy between the privacy rules in Europe and the U.S. has been rejected by the courts. And there is a fundamental difference, and if I can mention an anecdote, there was a G20 digital economy working group that was taking place two years ago, and there was an intense discussion on the wording around should the different countries foster convergence to achieve interoperability, or should they foster interoperability to achieve convergence. It looks completely esoteric until you understand that behind those words is the difference between two approaches. The European approach is about adequacy, setting a standard and asking other countries to basically reach the same level exactly, versus an American approach that is more about model contract clauses that basically says even if the country as a whole doesn’t match the privacy protection, if a particular company is abiding by a certain number of rules, then the transfer of data can happen. So that’s a second tension that justifies or not, and let’s be honest, in many cases the protection of privacy is also an alibi by certain countries that want to have a better surveillance of their citizens. So let’s be clear. But that’s the second criteria. And the third one, very quickly, is that because of the expression, and Meiko has mentioned, the data is the new oil, which is probably the worst analogy you can ever use for this thing, there is a Malthusian approach about data that completely overlooks the nature, the specific nature of the digital data, which is non-revalerous but excludable. You’re all familiar probably with the work of Elinor Ostrom, who has worked on the reverse, on things that are revalerous but non-excludable, the famous commons and governing the commons. We’re confronted here with something that is amazing. We can share it without depleting it. We can use it without preventing anybody else to use it. and there is a feeling because of this wrong metaphor of data is the new oil that we should hoard the data that we shouldn’t give it because it’s bad if I keep it I will make the most value out of it and it is fundamentally wrong because in most cases you need to join forces to leverage groups of data that doesn’t prevent you from using it or somebody else from using it so these are three drivers that do not justify but explain some of the trends towards in particular data localization and and restrictions.

Timea Suto: Thank You Bertrand and I’m turning back online to to to Maiko we’ve talked a little bit about your approach sorry from your approach from active in and then Chloe can you hear me all right actually your voice is breaking down from our side yes yes I so just wanted to ask you you’ve talked about Japan’s approach in the national context how do you elevate that either in the context of the OECD or or even broadly to move some of those perspectives into the international sphere and drive towards a bit more harmonized approach. much for your question I mean in terms of making our approach

Maiko Meguro: in terms of making of our appraoch internationalizing it’s actually stayed the same so we put a lot of emphasis to the clarification across the murky reality of data transfer data collection or access of data throughout the lifecycle data internationally to see clearly where the bottleneck what challenges lies just as Bertrand said many discussion regarding data flow or restricting data flow are based on very unclear understanding of of how actually technology works or how actually data is hosted, right? So it’s really helpful to work with, for example, OECD to actually understand that what is happening at the ground where the risk lies. And we also have to break down the discussion because everybody talk about, whoa, there’s internet fragmentation, data restriction is too much. Yes, this statement basically reflect that one side of the truth. But we also have to think about, we need to break down those statement to see that, we have to make the problem into the size of pieces that we can actually work on. Because if we break down the issue, then we could see where those multilateral incorporation is actually effective, right? So if you start talking about, for example, government access as a whole in a very abstract level, it’s very difficult to actually tackle. But we really have to understand where actual real bottleneck actually lies. And government are quite open to hear your voices, but we’d like to hear the voices in terms of more specific, more, I’m trying to find the right word, but consumable size of the discussion. Because like everybody said, data is multi-phase issue. So if we talk about data in a very vague sense, then here comes the privacy regulators, here comes the security regulators, here comes the trade negotiator, and it’s very difficult to solve the problem. So it’s always helpful to work with the people like OECD to see how the data actually flows, how the data is actually hosted, where the bottleneck is, where people’s actually having the issue. And to work on this discussion, we definitely need to have the people like the panelists from the private sector in this discussion, because often the government do not. understand how actually data is hosted in their clouds, for example. So it’s always helpful to work with multi-stakeholder, like different types of people from a different part of the world. But in order to do so, in order to do so, we definitely need to formalize the multi-stakeholder processes at the international level. We need to have certain permanent places where people can gather and discuss and work on those issues. Because often those digital discussions are ad hoc. We always have this very futuristic, fancy, multi-stakeholder ad hoc discussions, ad hoc places. But ad hoc does not always help, because often the case is we’re talking about security regulation. We’re talking about privacy regulation. And these things are not something you can have a solution in two years. We need to discuss things part by part, and we need to have piling up to reach the solution at the height. So which means we need to formalize the processes. This is where Japan put a lot of political resources to establish the formalizing processes. We call it institutional arrangement of partnership, where the G7 leaders actually authorized. And we really work together with OECD to work on formalizing this process of multi-stakeholder participation, work on the actual solution, very much looking at the solution-oriented processes. So we are really looking at actual problem solving rather than working with abstract discussion. So I think this is really the important approaches where we are really talking about topics like data, which concerns a lot of different policy spheres. And also, we need to also talk about how the actual technology works in the reality of digital economy. I’ll stop here, but happy to continue.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much, Michael. That was very clear on what we need moving forward. And a huge thank you also to Japan and to the OECD for all the work that you are doing and the evidence-based and expert discussions that are being driven here. Because you’ve said there needs to be political will, but it also needs to be expert conversation. And sometimes the two go hand in hand. Sometimes there is also an issue there of what the political conversation is. is and what is the actual evidence-based expert discussion. To respond to your call on breaking things down a little bit, we’ll try to do that with the next speakers, at least differentiating between what are the issues when we talk about non-personal data and what are the issues when we talk about personal data. So I’ll turn to Dave first online and focus a little bit about what policy frameworks enable the cross-border flows of non-personal data and then I’ll ask Robert to talk about the personal side.

Dave Pendle: Sounds good, thank you. Yeah and I would also just want to reiterate my appreciation, respect and thanks to both Japan for leading the way on DFFT for so long in such an impactful way and also the OECD for convening these discussions and bringing together the right stakeholders to really kind of move the needle in ways that I think that have accelerated and a lot of folks didn’t think were quite possible not too long ago so I think things are getting better in a pretty quick fashion due in large part to some of the contributors here. Non-personal data obviously comprises just a massive amount of global data and it’s a big driver in the global economy but of course it’s usefulness, you know, it’s ability to solve problems related to global health, medicine related to global warming and scientific research, detecting cyber attacks and protecting critical infrastructure depends on its ability to flow across borders and maybe I’ll pause there for just a second mindful to may have the three-minute request but you know Robin’s point about the impact on cybersecurity is a really good one and the ability to detect cyber malicious actors today and to thwart them depends on observing certain telemetry and signals that are traveling across the internet. Microsoft you know has publicly said that we scanned about 78 trillion signals every single day. in trying to detect malicious cyber activity. And we’re tracking something like 1,500 threat actors. And that has resulted in a lot of really good ability to protect the internet as a whole. And that is made oh so much harder if you have limitations on the ability to see that data across borders. That’s like one really concrete example that kind of maps security, cybersecurity space probably doesn’t get enough attention, but it’s really a critical one. But so any restrictions that are placed on non-personal data really do need to remain balanced. They need to reflect the very specific purposes of that non-personal data. And of course, ensure that access and usability and the transfer capability remain. Most importantly, and this is probably the theme throughout the entire panel, of course, is that the approaches need to be harmonized and it’s critical that they be multilateral and interoperable. Nothing will stifle innovation more than a patchwork of onerous and sometimes conflicting regulatory requirements across jurisdictions. So that part is just so critical. So policymakers, of course, have to work together and learn from each other and pursue evidence-based policies to kind of reflect the nuances of this discussion and debate and are mindful of how the digital economy operates and the many ways that society benefits. There is some really important work going on with non-personal data. DFFT and OECD are at the top of the list. There are also just some really valuable success stories and precedents, many of which are on the personal data side. And I suspect Robin will touch on those. But if I could just quickly note, like the OECD Trusted Government Access Principles, one of the reasons why those were so successful is because they did exactly what we just discussed about bringing policymakers together, kind of bringing all of the stakeholders into a room. So often different audiences in these discussions almost talk past each other. They speak from their own vantage points. I’m certainly guilty of that as well. But the way the OECD convened those discussions and brought in privacy people and national security stakeholders, which are often kind of not part of these discussions, as well as the law enforcement stakeholders and others, was, I think, why it was probably so successful when they were able to find as much consensus as they did. So kind of convening the right people is such an important part of that formula. And we’ve seen, you know, this success with the data privacy framework, the current evidence sharing negotiations between the U.S. and the EU are really critical to show that these kind of bilateral multilateral discussions are blossoming. And it’s just a start. We need a lot more. There are a lot more countries out there that need to be represented. But when governments sit down and work on these hard problems together, they find they have more commonalities and differences. Thank you.

Robyn Greene: Thank you, Dave. Robin? Oh, is this working? Okay. Well, first, I want to echo everything that Dave just said in terms of thanks to the government of Japan, to the OECD, and also, Bertrand, to you and the DataSphere Initiative around the years of work that you’ve done and the incredible progress that we’ve made, having these kinds of permanent places to have these conversations, which I hope we have more of, and discussions around sort of exploratory, you know, or experimental approaches to regulation, like sandboxes and things like that. Given the three-minute limitation, I’m going to just burn through what I think are the sort of seven key things that we should keep in mind when we’re thinking about how to make sure that we are protecting personal data and promoting data free flows with trust. Many of them are covered by Dave, because ultimately, even when you’re talking about non-personal data, it’s the same kind of like technical issue. And so, some of this will sound a little similar. I think the first thing, and this is very specific to personal data, is to attach rights and enforceability of obligations to the data rather than to the data subject. By doing this, you can ensure that the rights and obligations travel with the data, irrespective of where in the world the data is stored or transferred, and you don’t have to worry about whether the actual like data subjects seeking to enforce their rights are in that same jurisdiction. In addition to that, international collaboration is key beyond things like the trusted government access principles and the sort of forums for discussion like the IAP. There are opportunities for collaboration and multi-stakeholder engagement and adopting shared norms around the basic things that are interfering with, or that might facilitate better data free flows with trust. So, this would be things like promoting adoption of global cross-border privacy rules, global CBPRs. It would also be things like promoting countries becoming party to the Budapest Convention, which would also give those jurisdictions the benefits of the access to the kinds of data sharing that will happen under the second additional protocol. And so, that I think is one of the most important things that we can do, because that will also help to do one of the other really important things, which is increased interoperability and harmonization across laws and legal standards. And so, you know, by joining the Budapest Convention, I think that’s something that can actually be, can help to achieve that kind of interoperability. But when you’re talking about sort of like non-cyber crime and evidence sharing regulations, I do think it’s still extremely important to be focusing on whether and and how you can improve the interoperability of domestic regulation with other jurisdictions regulation. The next thing is a holistic assessment of the policy goals. I think one of the problems that we have is not only that we have these conversations in silos and silo at sectors, but we also think think about digital policy and silos. We think about privacy as living in its own silo, and safety as living in its own silo, and cybersecurity. But increasingly, the reality is that all of those things are in a melting pot together. And we need to be able to look at what the various policy goals are when we’re assessing what our data governance frameworks are, and figure out what’s the best way to get to the end goal, rather than how to regulate each individual silo as perfectly as possible. Because then you’re not going to build that kind of intersectionality that you need, and you might wind up having data governance approaches that undermine economic policy goals, or cybersecurity goals, or the like. In addition to that, I think having an understanding of the legal and policy environments that invite foreign investment in data centers is critical. One of the things that we see as many of the jurisdictions that are considering data localization requirements are doing it as a means of forcing domestic investment. And that is really not an effective way to encourage foreign investment in jurisdictions. The most successful jurisdictions that are inviting for foreign investment in building data centers have certain qualities, like rule of law, have an open regulatory environment that is very predictable, and basically have economic environments that make it possible for companies to build data centers. And then there’s infrastructure issues and things like that, making sure that you have the kinds of stability in electricity access, and clean water, and things like that. In addition to that, though, I think we need to do a lot more work at the outset of drafting regulations, particularly where those regulations may restrict the flows of data, making sure they’re technically compatible with the internet infrastructure and consistent with the values of an open, interoperable, and secure internet. If that can be the North Star for all of the regulations that we put forward, then I think we’ll do a much better job at promoting data flows while accomplishing many of the other policy goals. And finally, look to the future. We cannot just regulate for what the technology of today is. We need to be regulating for what the technology of tomorrow will be. AI may be one of the best current examples of that. Restricting data transfers internationally is very deleterious to the development of effective and accurate AI models. They, of course, require diverse data sets, accurate data sets, and significant amounts of data in some cases. And so when we’re thinking about this, not only in the context of AI development, but also in the context of what’s going to be the next technology, I think we should be thinking about today’s regulations in the context of how it will impact the future.

Timea Suto: Thank you, Robin. Quite a lot of mentions of expert conversations needed, overviews of policy systems, trying to figure out commonalities, holistic approaches, and a lot of mentioning of the OECD. So Clarice, if you’d like to respond to any of this, but also if you’d like to highlight anything in particular that the OECD does to try and drive forward these frameworks.

Clarisse Girot: Yeah, thanks so much. much. And thanks to everyone for, you know, praising the work of the OCD, which, you know, in this space and of Japan, of course, I mean, you know, I just took a board of the train, as it had already left the station, all credit to Audrey Plonker really initiated this work at the OCD on government access. I think the, you know, to build on what Bertrand was saying, indeed, we we have a globalization of criminal evidence, you know, criminal evidence now is, you know, 80% of the time located in another jurisdiction, if I listen to what, you know, experts around us have been telling us, and we also see that national security agencies are now part of the global ecosystem on data flow. So it is a fact of life, right? And and it was very difficult to touch these issues beforehand, also, because there is no such thing as a national security community, if you will, like there is a privacy community or a global privacy assembly for privacy regulators, and just saying national security, I think, where, indeed, to build on what Michael was saying, what is key is to bring the right people into the room. And we shouldn’t understand how difficult it can be, and particularly in the area of government access, but if we’ve done it, in this particular field, which is probably one of the hardest, it is definitely possible in other other areas. Just FYI, you know, we’ve been talking a lot about the declaration since adoption, and there’s not so much out there about what we’re doing with it. But you know, there’s a lot of work happening behind the curtain. So we haven’t stopped with the adoption of the declaration, we’re promoting it very hard, we’re working, we’re inviting non OECD countries to adhere to the instrument, we’ve been doing a lot of work, which is extremely promising. And we hope that, you know, in 2025, we see more, more interesting developments to share with you. Just another another example, and I will close with that the possibility of doing the right thing once you have the right people in the room, building on the data free flow with trust community. that we have built at the OECD as part of the so-called IAP. There is a working group that feeds into a very complex area of work on the intersection of cross-border payments and data frameworks, work which we do with the Financial Stability Board, Financial Action Task Force, IMF, BIS, et cetera, et cetera. It is the first time that everybody comes in the room to discuss the challenges met by cross-border payments. And the intersection with cross-border data flow regulations. This is happening at a fairly fast pace. It is extremely technical. It’s extremely complex. You cannot make any progress without having everybody in the room talking to each other, making efforts to understand each other. It takes here again, a lot of effort and a lot of resources to be honest. The Data-Free Flow with Trust community, this particular working group is exceptionally useful because we bring in all the payments operators and financial institutions that feed into the expertise that we need to do the right policy work on the site. So it’s just an example. If you bring the right people, there is hope. I could mention also work with young privacy enhancing technologies. Very happy to keep discussing with Dave and Robin on long personal data and cybersecurity issues in particular, as long as there is a space to meet and a team that can animate a network of experts, there is hope. And I think really, I don’t want to sound naive or anything because this takes a lot of hard work. Believe us, we know what it takes at the OECD. But to go back to what I was saying earlier, I think there is greater awareness as to the risk of the actual risks for society as a whole, not only in terms of compliance challenges for businesses to impede cross-border data flows. I think this has come top of the agenda for global leaders. a greater awareness of the solutions that are already out there, that we’re not starting from scratch, as I was saying earlier, there are communities of experts out there. There is, you know, there are a number of legal frameworks out there that we can build on. And some conversations remain exceptionally hard, and maybe we need to keep working on those. Data localization, there, here again, a gradation of data localization requirements, exceptionally hard. But, you know, again, if we’ve made progress in these very complex areas, there is no reason why we cannot have, you know, sound, stable, long-term discussions here. And of course, fora like the IGF are absolutely fundamental in that respect. And with that, I will stop.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much, Clarice. I think we have about maybe 10 minutes for one or two questions from the audience. If there’s anything that those who are listening to us online or here in the room might want to raise. I’m sorry, I can’t see everybody from here, but yeah, maybe I’ll pass the mic to you.

Audience: Good morning, I’m Rapidsun from Cambodia. So based on the discussion, so I would like to ask, how do you, like Meta or Microsoft or OECD, assist the developing country on the data governance? Because in, for example, like in Cambodia, not only the, we don’t have a national data governance, but the policy maker also not well aware or see the comprehensive of the data governance, especially the cross-border data flow. So my question, how you can assist the developing country? Thank you.

Timea Suto: Thank you for your question. Are there any others that we could maybe group together or should we take them one by one? No, I don’t see anything online either. No, I see, sorry, apologies for jumping in. I see someone online. Let’s go to Evgenia. Can the speaker who raised their hand online try and speak? And then we have another question here in the room and maybe we’ll go back online to the speaker. Jacques, please. Thank you.

Audience: My name is Jacques Beglinger. I’m also a member of the ICC delegation. But what I see in practice is also a certain difficulty when it comes to regulation and when it comes to handling data to distinguish between personal data and non-personal data. And I think this is an absolute crucial thing for industry in particular, consumers to know exactly to look into which policies. So maybe the panel can enlighten me somehow how to distinguish.

Timea Suto: Okay. I think I’ve heard something online, so we might be able to hear the question from online. If you would like to please try again. Yeah.

Audience: Thank you. Glad to see you. It’s a very interesting discussion. So my question may be more general. You touched many aspects. I guess it’s very interesting. So I would like to highlight an intervention of my colleague who mentioned G20 legislation between the United States and Europe. So I guess it’s a real problem in terms of how we may not to approach, but to maximize approach like GDPR in Europe and approach more flexible regulations. In this case, how we can find common ground? Thank you. trying to collaborate on personal data or market data or whatever, we should use less restrictive or higher restrictive approach. In both cases, each country will be not happy because in case of Europe, GDPR provides enough restrictive limitations or regulations. In Russia, we have very similar. But when we are going to Asian market, for example, yes, we should have bilateral cooperations and regulated case by case. If we try to find common ground like for less restrictive, I’m not sure could my country, could Europe, agreed to degree level of these regulations. How we could proceed, how we find middle ground in this case? Because each country like the United States, Europe, or Japan, have own reason why we have regulation like we have. What is the possible approach? Because frankly speaking, I do not believe to have some global equal or unified regulations. I guess it’s impossible to reach for the next years. Thank you.

Timea Suto: Thank you. Thank you everyone for your questions. So I could turn it back to the speakers and see if anybody would like to pick one question in particular or address all of them together. I think there’s a common thread there of how do we drive to actual tangible solutions to this? How do we assist developing regions or those who have questions or different approaches to this? And how do we drive for commonalities? We know that it’s impossible to have one single global regulation. I don’t think anybody is driving for that. But I’m just wondering. if there’s a way, I think if speakers hear solutions to how we drive towards more harmonized or more interoperable approaches. We’ve lost the online room, but I hope that we can, yeah, we see you now. Okay, perfect. Now I see all the speakers. Who wants to go first? Yeah, Bertrand first and then Clarice. Go ahead.

Bertrand de La Chapelle: Quickly, a few elements. The first thing is that we’re using the term interoperability and legal interoperability is actually an expression that I personally have pushed a lot in the last few years. But at the same time, this is a very good concept, but its implementation is not really something that we are able to describe very, very clearly. So it’s an aspirational element, but I think we need to have a serious discussion of what do we mean by interoperability, because we know what technical interoperability is. Legal interoperability is a little bit difficult. It’s envelopes of regulation what is required, what is acceptable, and what is forbidden, which is what in logic is called the deontic operators. How do you combine the overlap of legislations when you have a situation where they actually both apply? So the debate that I was mentioning regarding is it an adequacy or is it a CBPR type of approach is a typical core. I think we need to explore this topic a little bit more. The second thing is, to go to what Jack was saying, we don’t pay enough attention to non-personal data. Personal data is an extremely important element, but there is so much value that can be created by non-personal data that we need to be very careful not to be just obsessed by one dimension, and we need to go to other things. What is really interesting in his question is, as he said, the frontier between the two is not as clear-cut. and particularly a field that I’m particularly interested in which is the medical data, I think there is an enormous potential in the training of AI for diagnostic. This requires an enormous amount of data to train the AI. I think it is, and Clarice was mentioning the work done on pets, this is typically something that can be done using federated learning, which is very applicable, and medical imagery is something that can relatively be anonymized without too much fear of de-anonymization. So this is a perfect example of something that leverages a new technique, which is federated learning, which is different from just sharing the databases. Using anonymization to bring the data that is normally a very sensitive data to something that is anonymized, to develop something that is clearly an AI application beneficial for humanity. And if I want to throw an idea here, for people who are familiar with how organ donation function, in most cases when you have an accident, your organs can be used if you have opted in, to say yes my organs can be used. In some countries, and I think it’s the case in France, they’ve moved to an opt-out. Like unless you say I don’t want it to be used for transplants, if you have an accident and it can be used, the organs are going to be used. I’m wondering whether on medical imagery an equivalent shouldn’t be explored to say you have the right to the personal information that is related to your medical imagery and your personal data. Absolutely. But there is a global public interest to making the anonymized picture available under certain conditions for the training of AI. And I think this is a discussion that is typically around trust, it’s about new technologies like pets that respond to the motto I was mentioning of responsibly unlocking the value of data for all. I think we need to have a more innovative approach to how we leverage data and how we responsibly share data.

Timea Suto: Thank you for that. Clarice, you wanted to comment on that?

Clarisse Girot: Very quickly. So, first of all, to the comment, the question of our colleague from Cambodia, I think it’s very important. You know, Cambodia sits within ASEAN and there are lots of very interesting developments within ASEAN. I was part of an expert group, you know, working with the ASEAN Working Group on Data Governance to put it very shortly. And together, we put together a set of contractual clauses, ASEAN model contractual clauses, which were sort of a simplified version that worked for the ASEAN and basically, you know, the Asian region. And that could be articulated with the EU standard contractual clauses, which, you know, were made back for some of them in 2001. And it was actually very interesting to do this sort of benchmarking exercise, like in ASEAN, given the state of the laws at the national level, we do not need more than this. And actually, it works. It’s plug and play. The ecosystem locally is less, you know, used to complex data protection laws like we have them in Europe and in the US and elsewhere. And therefore, you know, it works. Like I was in Singapore a few weeks back, and actually, practitioners there told me that for their ASEAN based business, they actually, clients, they actually use this model ASEAN clauses. In other words, no one size fits all, for sure. And they are similar in nature. initiatives in Latin America, which are extremely interesting to watch as well. I would point you to a report that we published last year called Moving Forward on DFFT, on data free flow with trust. We did actually a huge range of interviews with global at the global level, you know, in all regions of the world to understand what the particular challenges were. Government access, always a challenge, but, you know, generally speaking, lots of very positive findings in there. Lots to build on. So I think there is room for cooperation here at the OECD. We’re not limited by the boundaries of the 38 member countries, far from. We do work with a lot of stakeholders outside, including governments, of course, outside of the membership. Very happy to keep discussing this. It’s very important to not impose the idea of harmonization. And I know we’ve talked a lot about the Brussels effect, which is a fact. It’s true, like the GDPR sort of exported in a way. But that does not mean that beyond the principles and some key rules and like accountability, for instance, and basic data subjects, right, you have to export sometimes a complexity, which in turn protects that, you know, builds on a long legacy with the principles. And I think there is a global acknowledgement of that. So that’s that’s a good point. I won’t go too far into the PETS conversation because it is extremely complex. Just to say that at the OECD, we also have an important recommendation on the health data governance, which looks in particular at the sharing of health data, health data being understood very broadly. And indeed, the border between personal and non-personal data can be a bit blurry and there can be worked on here. But still, there is a very clear difference between non-personal data, like in the cybersecurity space, you know, attacks on infrastructure, et cetera, et cetera, that has nothing to do with personal data at all. So we need to look at the at the border in the middle, like anonymized data, how anonymized is it? to be de-anonymized, de-identified. There is still here a margin of maneuver and of cooperation between privacy regulators in particular with the support of industry and civil society groups whose expertise is sometimes underestimated in this case. Anyway, there’s too much to say in an hour and a half, but I’m happy to continue the conversation offline.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much, Clarice. With, I think we have three minutes left on the panel, so, and three panelists who haven’t spoken in this last round. Any last words, key takeaways from Maiko, Dave, Robin? Go ahead, Maiko.

Maiko Meguro: Perhaps like from myself. So it was great to have this discussion across the private sector, international organization and also government, which is myself, because we really see that we need to actually have the right people in the room in building the DFFD and working on the real problem and setting the right questions. This is also really proved by this panel. That’s how I see this panel. But also we really see that, so today we really heard a lot of private sectors, heard from a lot of private sectors that, you know, difference of regulation, uncertainty in government access are really the issue. And I think that through the DFFD, we really should sit together and put together the legal and technical perspective together to identify what is the real genuine problem that company has, and also what are the actual purpose and function that those regulation actually need to tackle on, because Japan is actually working on this sort of exercises with expert to assess more than a thousand regulations with view to the changing assumption and the condition following the digitalization. So we’re really trying to work on integrating the privacy sensing technologies with our governance. And we’re really trying to have, to see that we are trying to see where the regulation comes from. and what has been changed and what needs to be changed in order to adapt our society into those digitalizing realities. So we really think that DFFD is materializing this sort of approaches to bring together the people from the different sectors and trying to break down the silos so that we could have more innovative solution towards a new situation which is set by the DFFD. Also, one last note that it is very important to keeping DFFD as the agenda for high-level political discussion like G7, G20 or other forums because high-level political instruction is very important to push the government to move towards innovative approaches. So of course, Japanese government is keep trying, always politically leveraging the DFFD at the high-level political discussion, but also please remember those people from the different sectors that actually those high-level forum really means to set those important topics as a priority for the governments. So this ends my words, but thank you very much.

Timea Suto: Thank you, Maiko. Dave?

Dave Pendle: Just take maybe 15, 20 seconds, but I mean, cooperation on data governance requires trust and you’ll never achieve that unless you’re talking to each other. So it’s been really encouraging to see a lot of governments roll up their sleeves and do just that. And then to make one point that I think has been made a few times, but is probably the most critical is that these conversations about problems must be grounded in real world experience. And it’s important that policymakers not solve for misperceptions, but they solve for problems and risks that are evidence-based. So bringing in those right people is key to that. So maybe just close with, in the words of Clarice, if you bring in the right people, there is hope. Thank you.

Timea Suto: Robin?

Robyn Greene: Sure, it’s fair for me to have to follow this group of folks circling up their final thoughts, but I really do agree with everything that’s been said. I think the only other thing that I would add is the really critical importance of keeping in mind the technical limitations and the importance of the technical compatibility of regulations with the global internet infrastructure and the importance of ensuring that you’re looking at each of these policy issues, not in a silo. but in the larger context of what the policy and data governance environment looks like and what the implications of one regulation that restricts data flows or promotes data flows could be on other policy goals. Thank you.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much. I’m being signaled that we’ve run over time so I won’t take too long in wrapping this up. I would just like to highlight that we’ve heard quite a lot of commonalities here around needing common principles at the top, common direction at the top, and political will at the top to want to address this. That needs to then translate into a holistic view based in understanding and evidence of what the issues actually are and that that needs to be followed up by action by experts in multi-stakeholder forums such as this one to ensure that the will and the principles translate into actionable solutions that are not just looking good on paper but are actually implementable by those who work on it on the ground. And we’ve heard quite a few examples on this from the work of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network back in the day on e-evidence, to the work of the data sphere, to the work by Japan and the OECD and what companies are doing on the ground and also what they need to progress on this. So if you want to hear more about what the private sector thinks, come by the ICC Basis booth. We have a QR code there with our publications and data. Please make sure to take a look. You’ll also find us online. And with that, I just want to say a huge thank you to the panelists for being here and for this very rich discussion. To all of you who have stayed up late or woke up very early, thank you as well online and everybody who joined us here in the room and the line. And of course a huge thanks to my team, many just, and I know who has helped us pulling this session together. So with that, thank you so much and a huge round of applause to the panelists.

Agreement Points

Importance of cross-border data flows for global economy

Timea Suto

Bertrand de La Chapelle

Maiko Meguro

David Pendle

Robyn Greene

Clarisse Girot

Data underpins global economy but faces mistrust and restrictions

Legal landscape is fragmented but internet infrastructure enables free flow

Data governance must balance utilization and protection

Non-personal data crucial for economy, research, cybersecurity

Data flow restrictions lead to internet fragmentation

Data flows are crucial for innovation and economic growth

All speakers agreed on the critical importance of cross-border data flows for the global economy, innovation, and development, while acknowledging the challenges and risks associated with these flows.

Need for multi-stakeholder approach and international cooperation

Maiko Meguro

David Pendle

Robyn Greene

Clarisse Girot

Work on concrete interoperability solutions and institutionalize processes

Pursue evidence-based policies reflecting nuances of digital economy

Promote adoption of global cross-border privacy rules

Bring right stakeholders together to find common ground

Speakers emphasized the importance of bringing together diverse stakeholders, including governments, private sector, and civil society, to develop effective and balanced approaches to data governance and cross-border data flows.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers advocated for a shift in approach to data governance, focusing on access rights and attaching obligations to the data itself rather than traditional notions of data sharing or subject-based rights.

Bertrand de La Chapelle

Robyn Greene

Focus on access rights to data rather than data sharing

Attach rights and obligations to data rather than data subjects

Both speakers emphasized the importance of building on existing frameworks and pursuing evidence-based policies that reflect the realities of the digital economy.

David Pendle

Clarisse Girot

Pursue evidence-based policies reflecting nuances of digital economy

Build on existing frameworks like OECD guidelines

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of technical compatibility in regulations

Bertrand de La Chapelle

Robyn Greene

Focus on access rights to data rather than data sharing

Data flow restrictions lead to internet fragmentation

Despite coming from different perspectives (DataSphere Initiative and Meta), both speakers highlighted the importance of considering technical realities and compatibility when developing data governance regulations, which is not always a primary focus in policy discussions.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agreed on the importance of cross-border data flows for the global economy, the need for multi-stakeholder approaches, and the importance of balancing data utilization with protection. There was also consensus on the need for evidence-based policies and building on existing frameworks.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles, with some variations in specific approaches. This suggests a strong foundation for further international cooperation on data governance, but also highlights the complexity of implementing these principles in practice across different jurisdictions and stakeholder groups.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to data governance

Bertrand de La Chapelle

Maiko Meguro

Focus on access rights to data rather than data sharing

Data governance must balance utilization and protection

While de La Chapelle emphasizes a shift towards access rights and privacy-enhancing techniques, Meguro stresses the need for a balance between data utilization and protection, considering social priorities and cultural differences.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific approaches to data governance, balancing data utilization with protection, and the methods for achieving international cooperation and harmonization.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. While there are some differences in emphasis and approach, the speakers generally agree on the importance of cross-border data flows, the need for trust, and the value of international cooperation. These minor differences in perspective are unlikely to significantly impede progress on the topic of harmonizing approaches for data-free flows with trust.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for international cooperation and harmonization, but they propose different approaches. Pendle emphasizes evidence-based policies, Greene advocates for global cross-border privacy rules, and Girot focuses on bringing diverse stakeholders together.

David Pendle

Robyn Greene

Clarisse Girot

Pursue evidence-based policies reflecting nuances of digital economy

Promote adoption of global cross-border privacy rules

Bring right stakeholders together to find common ground

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers advocated for a shift in approach to data governance, focusing on access rights and attaching obligations to the data itself rather than traditional notions of data sharing or subject-based rights.

Bertrand de La Chapelle

Robyn Greene

Focus on access rights to data rather than data sharing

Attach rights and obligations to data rather than data subjects

Both speakers emphasized the importance of building on existing frameworks and pursuing evidence-based policies that reflect the realities of the digital economy.

David Pendle

Clarisse Girot

Pursue evidence-based policies reflecting nuances of digital economy

Build on existing frameworks like OECD guidelines

Key Takeaways

Cross-border data flows are crucial for the global economy and innovation, but face challenges of mistrust and restrictions.

A fragmented legal landscape exists alongside internet infrastructure that enables free data flow.

Data governance must balance data utilization and protection.

Restricting data flows can lead to internet fragmentation and hinder economic growth, innovation, and cybersecurity.

International cooperation and harmonization of approaches are needed to enable trusted data flows.

Differentiating between personal and non-personal data flows is important but not always straightforward.

Multi-stakeholder engagement and evidence-based policies are crucial for developing effective data governance frameworks.

Resolutions and Action Items

Continue work on formalizing multi-stakeholder processes at the international level

Promote adoption of global cross-border privacy rules

Keep data free flow with trust on high-level political agendas like G7 and G20

Work on concrete interoperability solutions for data governance frameworks

Pursue evidence-based policies that reflect the nuances of the digital economy

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively distinguish between personal and non-personal data in practice

How to achieve legal interoperability across different jurisdictions

How to address the tension between data localization requirements and the need for cross-border data flows

How to balance national security concerns with the need for cross-border data access

How to assist developing countries in implementing effective data governance frameworks

Suggested Compromises

Use of privacy-enhancing technologies to enable data sharing while protecting sensitive information

Adopting a gradual approach to harmonization rather than seeking immediate global uniformity

Focusing on interoperability of regulations rather than strict harmonization

Using model contractual clauses adapted to regional needs, as done in ASEAN

The way it works today is through API, it’s through rights of access to data. So many times the data doesn’t travel really. It is just that you query it from another distant place. And even more, there are new techniques called privacy-enhancing techniques.

speaker

Bertrand de La Chapelle

reason

This comment challenges the common perception of data sharing and introduces new technical concepts that are reshaping how data flows work.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards considering more nuanced and modern approaches to data flows, beyond simple data transfer models.

So from our perspective, we must think about the effective means of having both enhancing flow, but also necessary protection according to rights and interests attached to the data.

speaker

Maiko Meguro

reason

This comment highlights the need for balance between data flow and protection, emphasizing the complexity of the issue.

impact

It led to a more holistic discussion about the multifaceted nature of data governance, considering both benefits and risks.

In a six-month period, so we’re talking about 30,000 legal demands, you know, we typically get about 50 to 55 content disclosures that are cross-border. In the last reporting period, there was only one that pertained to an enterprise customer.

speaker

David Pendle

reason

This comment provides concrete data that challenges common perceptions about the frequency and scale of cross-border data disclosures.

impact

It introduced an evidence-based perspective into the discussion, encouraging a more factual approach to assessing risks and concerns.

Nothing will stifle innovation more than a patchwork of onerous and sometimes conflicting regulatory requirements across jurisdictions.

speaker

David Pendle

reason

This comment succinctly captures a key challenge in global data governance and its potential impact on innovation.

impact

It reinforced the importance of harmonization and interoperability in data governance approaches, shaping subsequent discussion on policy frameworks.

I think we need to be regulating for what the technology of tomorrow will be. AI may be one of the best current examples of that.

speaker

Robin Greene

reason

This comment introduces a forward-looking perspective, emphasizing the need for adaptable regulations.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards considering future technological developments in current policy-making, particularly highlighting AI as a key area.

There is a global acknowledgement of that. So that’s that’s a good point. I won’t go too far into the PETS conversation because it is extremely complex.

speaker

Clarisse Girot

reason

This comment acknowledges the complexity of privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) while also noting global progress in understanding data governance issues.

impact

It balanced the discussion by recognizing both progress and ongoing challenges, setting a realistic tone for future work in this area.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by introducing nuanced technical perspectives, challenging common perceptions with data, emphasizing the need for balanced and harmonized approaches, and encouraging forward-looking policy-making. They collectively moved the conversation from theoretical concepts to practical considerations, highlighting the complexity of data governance while also pointing towards potential solutions and areas for future focus.

How to implement legal interoperability in practice?

speaker

Bertrand de La Chapelle

explanation

The concept of legal interoperability is aspirational but its practical implementation is not clearly defined. This needs further exploration to understand how to combine overlapping legislations.

How to distinguish between personal and non-personal data in practice?

speaker

Jacques Beglinger (audience member)

explanation

There is difficulty in distinguishing between personal and non-personal data when it comes to regulation and handling data. This distinction is crucial for industry and consumers to know which policies apply.

How to find a middle ground between restrictive (e.g., GDPR) and more flexible data protection approaches?

speaker

Evgenia (online audience member)

explanation

Different countries have varying levels of data protection regulations. Finding common ground between restrictive and flexible approaches is challenging but necessary for international collaboration.

How can developed countries and organizations assist developing countries in establishing data governance frameworks?

speaker

Rapidsun (audience member from Cambodia)

explanation

Many developing countries lack national data governance frameworks and policymakers may not be fully aware of comprehensive data governance issues, especially regarding cross-border data flows.

How to explore innovative approaches to leveraging and responsibly sharing medical data for AI training?

speaker

Bertrand de La Chapelle

explanation

There is potential in using anonymized medical imagery data for AI training in diagnostics. This requires exploring new approaches, such as opt-out systems for data sharing, to balance personal privacy with public interest.

How to formalize multi-stakeholder processes at the international level for addressing data governance issues?

speaker

Maiko Meguro

explanation

There is a need for permanent forums where diverse stakeholders can gather to discuss and work on data governance issues over time, rather than relying on ad hoc discussions.

Summary

This workshop focused on how digital technologies can benefit everyone equally and inclusively. Speakers from various countries and backgrounds discussed challenges and opportunities in bridging the digital divide. Liu Chuang presented on using GIS technology to support sustainable agriculture in rural areas. Horst Kremers emphasized the importance of information governance and stakeholder involvement in disaster management. Xiaofeng Tao highlighted big data as a tool for reducing inequalities and supporting environmental monitoring. Ricardo Robles-Pelayo discussed challenges in closing the digital divide in Mexico and Latin America, emphasizing the need for universal internet access and digital skills training. Daisy Selematsela and Lazarus Matizirofa presented on democratizing digital scholarship and preserving cultural heritage through digitization in South Africa. Tamanna Mustary Mou focused on meaningful internet access for women, highlighting barriers such as affordability and digital skills gaps.

Key themes across presentations included the need for multi-stakeholder cooperation, infrastructure development, digital skills training, and policies to ensure equitable access. Speakers emphasized that digital technologies can support sustainable development goals but require intentional efforts to bridge divides based on geography, gender, and socioeconomic status. The discussion concluded with calls for continued collaboration and concrete actions to ensure digital technologies benefit everyone. Participants agreed that realizing the full potential of digital technologies for inclusive development requires ongoing dialogue and coordinated efforts across sectors and regions.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Using digital technologies and big data to reduce inequalities and improve quality of life

– Challenges of the digital divide, especially for marginalized communities and women

– Importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation and governance in implementing digital solutions

– Role of education and capacity building in bridging the digital divide

– Potential of digital technologies to support sustainable development goals

Overall purpose:

The goal of this workshop was to explore how digital technologies can be leveraged to benefit everyone equally and inclusively, with a focus on reducing the digital divide and promoting sustainable development.

Tone:

The overall tone was collaborative and solution-oriented. Speakers shared insights and case studies from their respective fields and regions in a constructive manner. There was a sense of urgency about addressing digital inequalities, but also optimism about the potential of digital technologies to create positive change if implemented thoughtfully. The tone remained consistent throughout, with participants building on each other’s ideas in a collegial way.

Speakers

– Xiaofeng Tao: Professor, workshop moderator

– Gong Ke: Professor, Chair of CCIT

– Liu Chuang: Professor, Institute of Geography and Natural Resource Chinese Academic Science, Editor-in-chief of Global Change Research Data

– Horst Kremers: Chair of RIMA, Germany

– Ricardo Robles Pelayo: Professor at the University EBC campus, La Nepantla, Mexico

– Daisy Selematsela: Professor, University of Worcestershire

– Lazarus Matizirofa: University of Pretoria

– Tamanna Mustary Mou: PhD fellow at St. John’s University, New York

– Xiang Zhou

Additional speakers:

– Abdullah Swaham: Minister (mentioned but did not speak)

Digital Technologies for Inclusive Development: A Comprehensive Workshop Summary

This workshop brought together experts from various countries and backgrounds to explore how digital technologies can benefit everyone equally and inclusively. The discussion focused on challenges and opportunities in bridging the digital divide, with speakers presenting diverse perspectives on leveraging digital tools for sustainable development and addressing inequalities.

Key Presentations and Themes

1. GIS Technology for Sustainable Agriculture

Professor Liu Chuang from the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, presented on the application of Geographic Information System (GIS) technology to support sustainable agriculture in rural areas. She highlighted specific examples, including:

– The use of GIS to map soil nutrient levels, enabling targeted fertilizer application and reducing environmental impact.

– Precision agriculture techniques that optimize water use and crop yields.

– Mobile apps that provide farmers with real-time weather data and crop management advice.

Liu Chuang emphasized how these technologies can significantly benefit smallholder farmers, improving their livelihoods and contributing to food security.

2. Big Data for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Professor Xiaofeng Tao from Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications discussed the role of big data in reducing inequalities and supporting environmental monitoring. He highlighted:

– The potential of big data to contribute to the implementation of SDGs, particularly in areas such as poverty reduction and climate action.

– Challenges in realizing this potential, including the “data divide,” “computer divide,” and “algorithm divide” between developed and developing countries.

– The need for capacity building and technology transfer to address these divides.

3. Information Governance for Disaster Risk Reduction

Dr. Horst Kremers, Chair of the CODATA Germany Task Group on Methodologies of Data Handling and Knowledge Management, emphasized the importance of information governance in disaster management. Key points included:

– The need for national platforms to coordinate disaster risk reduction efforts.

– The importance of inclusive communication strategies that reach all segments of society, including vulnerable groups.

– The role of digital technologies in improving early warning systems and disaster response.

4. Digitizing Cultural Heritage and Scholarship

Dr. Daisy Selematsela and Dr. Lazaros Matizirofa from the University of South Africa presented on democratizing digital scholarship and preserving cultural heritage. Their work highlighted:

– Efforts to digitize historical papers and rock art, making these cultural artifacts accessible to a wider audience.

– The development of digital repositories and open access platforms to enhance education and research.

– Challenges in digital preservation, including funding and technical expertise.

5. Meaningful Internet Access for Women

Tamanna Mustary Mou, from the Digital Empowerment Foundation in Bangladesh, focused on barriers to meaningful internet access for women. She presented data showing that globally, men are 21% more likely to be online than women, and discussed barriers such as:

– Affordability of devices and data plans.

– Digital skills gaps and lack of relevant content.

– Social and cultural norms that limit women’s access to technology.

6. Digital Technologies in Latin America

Ricardo Robles-Pelayo discussed challenges and opportunities for digital technologies in Mexico and Latin America, with a focus on:

– The potential of ICTs to address educational equity challenges.

– Opportunities for digital health services to improve healthcare access.

– The need for policies to promote digital inclusion across the region.

Areas of Agreement and Consensus

Speakers broadly agreed on:

1. The potential of digital technologies to promote inclusive development across various sectors.

2. The existence of significant digital divides based on geography, gender, and socioeconomic status.

3. The importance of digital skills and education in bridging these divides.

4. The need for inclusive approaches in implementing digital solutions.

Key Takeaways and Future Directions

The workshop concluded with several important takeaways and suggested actions:

1. Enhance partnerships and collaboration on big data for SDG implementation.

2. Invest in digital infrastructure and skills training, especially in rural areas and for marginalized groups.

3. Develop policies to ensure universal and affordable internet connectivity.

4. Continue efforts to digitize cultural artifacts and knowledge to increase access.

5. Address specific barriers to women’s internet access and digital participation.

In his concluding remarks, Professor Xiaofeng Tao emphasized the need for ongoing international cooperation and knowledge sharing to realize the full potential of digital technologies for inclusive development.

Conclusion

The workshop highlighted both the significant potential of digital technologies to promote inclusive development and the persistent challenges in ensuring equitable access and benefits. Moving forward, realizing the full potential of digital technologies for inclusive development will require coordinated efforts across sectors and regions, with a continued focus on leaving no one behind in the digital age.

Xiaofeng Tao: Yes, he’ll join us. Yes, don’t worry, he’ll join us. I’ll just continue, but he’ll join us. Yes. And he will do the presentation with you together. Right. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah. We’ll share the time slot. Yes. Yes. Hello, Daisy. Good morning. Good morning. Greetings from Riyadh. And greetings to Horst also and to everybody. Ni hao. Guten Morgen, Horst. Good morning, Daisy. After so many years of acquaintance, it’s always very nice to meet friends again. Also, like Gong Ke and Liu Chuang and others. Thank you very much. Very greetings from Berlin. Hope we can meet each other in person recently. That would be a good idea, yeah. It will be early morning in Berlin, in Deutschland. Oh, well, it’s not so early. You see, now I’m retired a few years already from my official work. And then that was normal time. You see, now I enjoy a cup of coffee along in that region. Thank you. Yeah, it’s also normal time for us here in South Africa. It’s normal working time. It’s the time to be at the office now. Yes, we start to work at eight. Yeah. That’s why my colleague Lazarus is on his way. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So I think we should start in two minutes. Yeah. Okay. Okay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Gong Ke: So, CCIT itself is the platform of multidisciplinary collaboration, linking the scientific technological society with policymakers in ICT domain in China and international dialogue, such as IGF, WCs, and so on and so forth. So today we gather here to discuss the topic as just mentioned by Zhou Xiang, benefit everyone by digital tech equally and inclusively. So I think we gather here to discuss this topic because we know on one side, the remarkable benefit brought up by the technology tech already to every country, everywhere, but not to everyone by far. So we have to explore the ways how to collaborate in the spirit of a global digital compact to help everybody, everywhere, in every eco-social status to get the benefit of digital tech. Today, even though there’s a small workshop, we have experts from Asia, from Europe, from Africa, and from America to join our hands and to share our insight, explorations, and good practices. And we also encourage all participants in this room later on site or online to join the discussion. I firmly believe with our joint discussion and joint efforts, we should make this workshop a great success and open a new opportunity for the further collaboration on the inclusive and equitably development of the digital technology for everyone. Thank you so much. I stop here and give the floor back to Zhou Xiang.

Xiaofeng Tao: Many thanks to Professor Gung and he gave us very inspiring remarks and also highlights the importance of digital tech through the multistakeholder cooperation. I think today we have a lot of experts and scientists from different fields to share their viewpoints. Actually we have six invited speakers with various backgrounds from different disciplinary on different aspects including the policy technology and also education. So our workshop after the presentation from speaker will follow by a panel discussion with all the speakers also on-site and online participants. So I would like to remind our speaker each of you will have 10 minutes to present your thoughts and ideas so I will remind you when two minutes left. So let’s move to the part of presentation. Firstly we have Professor Liu Chuang to give us an on-site presentation about GIS methodology and the technology transformation for SDGs. Professor Liu Chuang is from the Institute of Geography and Natural Resource Chinese Academic Science and she is also editor-in-chief of Global Change Research Data published in the reportatory World Data System. Now we welcome Professor Liu to give you a presentation. You have floor please.

Liu Chuang: Thank you. Thank you very much. So, ladies and gentlemen, and good morning. And then 20 years ago, and we get together. This is Geneva. So I think it is some of us in there. And then Tunis. And then also 20 years ago we coded how we work together to set up the tassel group in developing countries, I think that they see. So we we work together for that. But now, we, we focus on 20 years later so now we work. This is how the data can benefit for everybody. So, and the work. Okay, so the topic is a GIS methodology and technology transformation for STDs. So, this is from our experience so we are in China we have was the biodiversity. So, richly in the biodiversity, and we have more than 3000 t geography indications in China. However, that’ll work. Okay, go ahead. So this next. So, but the problem is not only China had the problem but a whole world. I feel initiative with the OCOP program. Then, this is a 85 countries join this each country have their diverse, different products agriculture product. However, challenging is go to the next one. Uh huh. Okay. Before that. Yeah. So the challenging is a good product, a good nutrition, a good environment, but not because the good product is not to cut the feedback of the good price in the market. So this is a big problem. So how did you seal three seals in meeting the challenges? One is the product are not well geolocated, and the special geosocio-economic assessment, which the product of the origin are not illustrated clearly and not well-known by consumers. The intellectual property or brand of these special agricultural products have not been established or well-protected. So this is the challenging, and there was a solution. One is very important is the cooperation. So then in this February, in the Chinese Academy of Sciences, so sign up MOU with the FAO. Link the FAO’s OCOP program together to Chinese Academy of Sciences GIS technology. That’s one. Then Chinese Academy of Sciences promised to work with the FAO on the GIS for three aspects. One is open science, open data and knowledge shared, and also technology transfer and capacity building. Go ahead. The solution is what is GIS solution. So we transfer the technology methodology to the whole world. This is innovative solution for linking production, environmental marketing, and the consumers of a special agricultural products. Go ahead. Then the key word, in this technology, one is geography, education, environment, and sustainability for the world. And then we saw the high quality, what does it mean high quality? We need the brand, quality, appearance, brand, modernity, and culture. So in that case, we get better product, better nutrition, better environment, and a better life, leave no one behind. So the key policy and the technologies is one is we need the multiverse stakeholder teamwork. And then we need to link science, technology, engineering, and the standard management, and also culture. We need the open data, open science, and open knowledge, and then traceable, all the information can traceable. Okay, go ahead. So the key technology is big data, professional knowledge, internet of things, retrieval, digital network, and the intelligence of the farmers, consumers, and the decision makers. So we link all this kind together. This is a good data, peer-reviewed data set, and the professional knowledge that’s published in the peer-reviewed journal, and also link all these kinds of things together. Right now, what does the solution impact? In China, we have right now 19 cases in China, and then more than 600,000 farmers get the benefit. For example, in the small village, Lanna Village, in only three years, originally the community income’s zero, and the second year, we got 100,000, and the next year, more than half a million, and then, yes, it’s more than one million. So the local farmers got benefit. This is the experience of China. Okay, next slide. And then, the… in Asia and the Pacific. We work with FEO in Asia, that is in the Bangladesh, in the Bhutan, and also in the Papua New Guinea. And now it’s not only in Asia Pacific, but the world, including the Panama and the South Africa, and also other countries right now is working on that. So I think this is a good solution. We need to work together, and then in the cooperation with the data open science, with data open data, and then the knowledge, and the link, and then network together, and the intelligence of GIS. Thank you very much.

Xiaofeng Tao: Thank you, Professor Liu, you saved the time. Okay, let’s move on the next speaker. It will be a presentation on the information governance for implementation of UN, all of society principle in data management. The speaker is Mr. Horst Kramer from his chair of RIMA, Germany. Now you have the floor, Horst, please.

Horst Kremers: Yeah, please allow me to share the screen.

Xiaofeng Tao: Okay. She wants to share a screen. Yeah. Does it work? You can share. Can you see this? Not yet.

Horst Kremers: No, no, I was unable to share a screen here. I don’t have the sign on my screen, on my Zoom. Give him the light. Okay. Okay, Horst, you can share the screen on your side. Horst, is- I don’t. I don’t sorry sorry I don’t see I don’t see that I don’t see that line that says share screen I don’t see it oh is his monitor fell here maybe can you check at the bottom host the bottom of your screen the tabs at the bottom of your screen it will be green oh not up I apologize knowledge management knowledge management yeah knowledge is very important thank you Desi great contribution okay okay we saw we see your screen okay thank you very much good morning colleagues I’m very happy to contribute to be able to contribute to that workshop today my aspect today is on information governance for the implementation of the United Nations all of society principles in disaster management since about 2025 years I ran from from environmental sustainability information into into disaster aspects and the information management in disaster and today I want to share about that principle of all of all of society I refer to the United Nations Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction and this Sendai framework has already indicates on whom to whom to involve in disaster discussion and here for us is of course always the question what is the information management aspect of all this so explicitly listed in the Sendai framework is women children and youth and so on migrants academia business media So when I show you this, and if you have a contact into disaster management, you would see that the inclusion of indigenous people is starting, but for migrants, not in every country migrants are enclosed in such discussion, and so on. So there is a lot to do, and we try of course to improve in work groups at UNDRR, the United Nations Disaster Risk Reduction Organization, and others. The role of stakeholders is defined in that framework, especially to engage in the implementation of local, national, regional, and global plans and strategies, contribute to and support public awareness, culture of prevention, and education on disaster risk, and advocate for resilient communities, and an inclusive and all-of-society disaster risk management. So that is not just an idea, it’s a mandate from the Zendai framework to work in this. During my work with UNDRR, and also nationally here and in Europe, I compiled a list of those stakeholders, which I call also existing pillars of societal resilience in all phases of disaster management. A lot of people focus on the core phase of rescue and first aid, but we have this whole circle of disaster management. Now I don’t want to read all of these here, but for instance, Gokke would be interested maybe also in chambers of engineers. How are they involved? It’s not only these blue light first aid organizations, but it’s Salvation Army, school services, medical care organizations, amateur radio associations. When all the transmission fails, when all the internet is down or something, you have to rely on amateur radio today and so on. So to make that short, you can read all these for download of my presentation with the link I give in the end. For example, then all these groups, all these actors in disaster normally should work together

Xiaofeng Tao: in so-called national platforms, which also the CEDAW framework suggests to implement everywhere. National platforms for disaster risk reduction. And I just made a short copy of the one here of the Luxembourg government here in Europe. And this platform constitutes a sustainable network that aims to stimulate a regular exchange, sharing of information and data health by different ministerial departments and all those involved. Just to give you some idea of what is also the question of how to work in these crises, the Swedish Civil Contingency Agency made a brochure just a few months ago, the new version which is titled In Case of Crisis or War. So, and this addresses all of society. That in Sweden is translated into Arabic. Well, this is the name of languages in Swedish language. So, in English, Farsi, and when you know this, even in Ukrainian language. If you know some of these names here are local languages, local ethnical groups throughout the big country of Sweden. I listed that here because of international aspects of all those people living in the country. These are not only Swedish people or in any other nation. It’s the same. But this is a good example how to include, for the information part, also other languages in the country, local languages, native languages, indigenous languages, which is also a role there. In the case of what I think is one of the best examples and best documented examples for community development is the one from Scotland here, which deals with the whole circle of disaster management from communication, inclusion, support, planning, working together, and the methods with an impact that we work together for for our society’s safety and well-being. What are today my short, because of time, recommendations for action and target achievements? We should review progress regularly at the local level and contribute to national and regional progress reviews by sharing information with the national government, develop a communication strategy, internal and external, to inform local authorities, the community, and different actors. When you see the complexity of the list of actors involved, you see what is the real challenge, because we are far from addressing all these in the, and communicate with all these in a standard way,

Horst Kremers: to inform local authorities, community, and different actors about gaps, problems, and achievements. So it’s not only about warnings. It’s absolutely important, these warnings, but the whole process is about talking about gaps, on problems, and so on. Put in place communication mechanisms that allow local leaders and the community to provide input, suggestions, and comments. Other recommendations for action are something like recording of status and situation, evaluation of documentation of previous experiments, data management plans, and so on. So also to be short, don’t want to read all this, but I just say, if you haven’t looked at this, from management point of view, the question is, do we have all professions involved in this? Not only someone, actors, some single organization or something. Do we have all the professions on board that are especially working for society here? So I think there is a long way to be done to have that all of society principle ensured in so many technical and governance way. Very short in selected aspects of governance is you would need an office secretariat. It’s a permanent… process. So it’s not a working group, it’s not a project, please. Governance in disaster is something which needs permanent support of structures. That means you need steering committees, you need working committees, focus of working groups, drafting teams, technical drafting teams who make proposals for standards. As we did, Liu Chang especially certainly would know from former times when we did so in sustainable development, environmental information and geographic information standards, you would need to sit together with colleagues from different organizations, from different professions to sit together and draft standards, technical standards for meta-information, for processes and whatsoever. We are far from this in disaster management, by the way. Promote and document lighthouse realizations, feasibility studies based on these standards to be supposed, prototypes, testbeds where others can come with their data and say, no, let’s see what your analysis tells about our data. Discuss and negotiate strategy at national Sendai platforms, that is what I mentioned already. Every nation should have one. Roadmaps for objectives, two years, five years, 20 years, is typical management things. Do you look in your country, do you see what is a two years plan? Do you know what is a five years plan, a 20 years plan? I think that is also something we could support. Now, I want to close my presentation to invite you to come to Switzerland in June. In Geneva is the 8th session of the Global Platform Disaster Risk Reduction. of United Nations, and one month later, WSIS in July also allows a discussion on Information Society. My session proposal is on Information Society in times of risk. Those who are interested and maybe consider to join for contributing to such session are invited to contact me. I thank you for your information and you see the download link for my presentation to read and see the links with the documents. Very interesting documents I recommend and thank you for the opportunity to be with you. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much

Xiaofeng Tao: and thank you for sharing very interesting information about the events to be held next year in Switzerland about WSIS last 20 years. I think we will have discussion during the panel part. So let’s move to the next speaker myself. So I will give you a brief introduction about enhancing partnership on big data for SDG. So as we know, digital tech like IoT, big data artificial intelligence, this advanced technology has greatly changed our life, but there are also increasing challenges and risks ahead, not only on economic and society, but also on the environment we live. So when we talk about achieving SDG, we normally focus on the development of human society. and economic development, but at the same time, the nature and the environmental are also concerned. So this morning, I would like to talk about importance of strengthening cooperation on tackling this environmental issue with support of big data. Please, go ahead.

Xiang Zhou: Oh, it works. Thank you. So as you can see from the screen, our world is facing myriad global changes. For example, the disaster, as Austin mentioned, occurred every day around the world. Air pollution is definitely a very severe situation in South and Eastern Asia. Frequent flooding happens not only in the rural area, but also I think we are experiencing more and more severe disaster in Southeast Asia, which is a big problem for the sustainable agriculture and production. For at the same time, the South America are experiencing severe deforestation, and meanwhile, the extreme degradation of grassland on Central Asia, and also climate change worsens the severity of the welfare worldwide. It’s too much. Okay. So as we all know, the big data can be a key tool for supporting and evaluating the implementation on SDG. The new technology not only can provide the strong powerful to give us the accurate information about the environmental and human activity, but also it can provide a lot of data, which will be a source of knowledge, can be decision making for government, academia, and also private sector for them to take action to improve our daily life and industry development and every aspect of our world and human life. So as we all know, the SDG has 17 goals with 169 targets, and we also have more indicators. If I remember right, it’s more than 213. So how can we use the new technology, for example, big data IoT, to support the implementation of SDG? And also we need to evaluate the stator and the progress of this implementation. So we need to improve the link between the observation, computing, analysis, and also the knowledge discovery. As Minister Abdullah Swaham mentioned yesterday, there are also a lot of challenges and obstacles need us to overcome, as he addressed, data divide, computer divide, and algorithm divide. So I think if we want to try to promote the application of big data, we… We need to think about how to make the new technology to play more important roles during this process. So I think there are a lot of features of big data we need to improve as a new infrastructure to align the objective of benefiting everyone. For example, the technical reliability and the stability. So we need to build reliable infrastructure all over the world at local level, national level and the regional level as the host mentioned. Also the equity and the diversity as our workshop title mentioned, these also to help the gap between the different community, different country. The other things we need to think about is the responsibility and accountability, which will help to promote application and the service by implementing data openness, integration and analysis. And also the data security is also a very important issue for us to think about because it will integrate all kinds of data source by extract the information and produce knowledge for decision-making. So there are a lot of things we need to think about. So that’s why we need to enhance our MATIC. stakeholder cooperation mechanism, which will accelerate and enhance the process of big data in our society and life. So the organizations can play more important roles in this process. For example, for research community and the commercial sector, they can work together for building the analysis platform to facilitate the computing service and maybe big data computing platform. Okay, so there are also application model and the policy aspects. The stakeholders can work together to go forward. Here I have some case because personally I’m from the technical community. So as you know, the satellites are playing more and more important roles for monitoring the natural resource environment. But there are different capacities on earth observation and data accumulation at different countries at different levels. So we try to build a data hub by reducing the data divide from this kind of framework. So you can see some organizations are working on the data integration, some working on the algorithm optimization, and also we have a private sector like Amazon and other companies which will provide a computing facility. So we can strongly support different applications with this flexible framework by multi-stakeholder cooperation mechanism. And there are other case, there are case called the knowledge hub. It’s provide more opportunity for us to cooperating together from data to information for decision making. So the algorithm can be correct and optimized for the further information extraction. So in this case, we created a knowledge graph for more than 450 remote sensing satellite and which will be very important knowledge base for information for kinds of application. There are some cases about using big data for environmental monitoring and rapid response. So I would like to spend too much time on speaking and maybe you can see with the support of this big data, we can monitor and accessing global change by deriving key variables from satellite. We also can realize real-time data monitoring by with the support of high technology. Okay, so a short summary. The first one, big data finds new knowledge, create new value and improve new capability and think it has great potential as a new emerging technology and the data resource. And also big data and AI, not only have intensive application in responding to environmental issue, but also it can be a very powerful tool by reducing the digital wide as we talked recently. from yesterday’s forum. And the third one, Big Data Governance and Collaborative Action will improve the ability of society to cooperate with the virus, public safety and health challenges. And most important, it will improve the quality of economic and social life for achieving SDG. So, I think that’s all from my presentation. Thank you for your attention.

Xiaofeng Tao: Okay, let’s move to the next speaker. Now, we welcome Professor Ricardo Robles-Pelayo from Mexico to give us a presentation. His topic is Closing the Digital Wide, Challenges and Opportunities in Mexico and Latin America. You have the floor, please. Thank you very much. I will see if that works.

Ricardo Robles Pelayo: So, good morning, everyone. I am Ricardo Robles-Pelayo, Professor at the University EBC campus, La Nepantla. And thank you again for the invitation to the IDF 2024 here in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. On this occasion, participating in the workshop benefits everyone for digital tech equality and inclusivity. I will discuss Closing the Digital Divide, Challenges and Opportunities in Mexico and Latin America. Okay, perfect. As we will know, we are living in a transformative era in which technology has become the driving force behind social, economic, and cultural change. In Mexico and Latin America, information and communication technologies have opened enormous possibilities to reducing inequalities and improving quality of life. However, this technological revolution highlights significant challenge on equal access digital. exclusion and widening economic and social gaps. Today, I want to share a profound reflection on how to close the digital divide in our region, analyzing its impact to key sectors such as education, health, labor justice, and business development while proposing transparent and sustainable solutions to address this challenge. Before finding solutions to benefit everyone for digital technology with equality and inclusion, we must observe the number of people who have first-hand access to the internet. As we observed in yesterday’s opening session, many people worldwide don’t have internet access. As we can see in the graph, leaving aside the number of people who live in each of the Latin American countries, internet access has grown significantly in Latin America, now serving as an essential social and economic participation tool. However, this reality is ordinary. Despite progress, more than 240 million Latin Americans still need to learn to use the internet. Whether due to higher costs, lack of infrastructure, and insufficient technological skills, internet access remains a luxury in many rural communities, reforcing social and economic exclusion. Internet connectivity is not just a technical matter, but a fundamental right that enables access to information, job opportunities, healthcare services, and quality education. In a globalized world, technological disconnection equates to exclusion. For this reason, we need initiatives that ensure universal affordable and high-quality connectivity for everyone, regardless of geographic location and socioeconomic status. In Mexico, protecting personal data, the right to access telecommunications and transparency, and our rights regulated in our constitution and secondary laws. However, we are currently experiencing political changes and constitutional reforms that threaten the application of those mentioned technological digital rights, which are considered as human rights in Mexican constitution. The digital divide is not solely a technological problem, but a manifestation of pre-existing economic and social inequalities. In Mexico, this divide disproportionately affects indigenous community, low-income households, rural areas, while digital devices and internet connectivity are becoming more common in urban areas. These tools remain out of reach for most or marginalized regions. It is essential to highlight that information and communication technologies can become a driving force for economic development. However, their limited adoption and marginalized context perpetuates conditions of poverty and exclusion. Ambitious and well-designed public policies are needed to ensure access to these technologies and their effective use to generate opportunities in these communities. Education is one of the areas where ICTs can have the most significant impact, especially in Latin America, where educational equity remains a challenge. Incorporation of technological tools in classrooms modernizes teaching and opens new opportunities for students, otherwise excluded for quality education. However, their implementation still needs to be be improved. In Mexico, a student still needs access to essential devices such as computers in most rural schools, and teachers must receive the necessary training to use ICTs effectively. In addition, government digital education programs often require more transparent evaluation, which limits their impact. To harness the potential of ICTs in education, we must focus on training, teacher training, investing in technological infrastructure, and ensuring that digital tools are accessible for all students. Health is another sector where technology can make a crucial difference. In Mexico, advanced tools such as the da Vinci robot used for high-precision surgeries represent the future of medicine. However, their availability is limited for a few hospitals in Mexico. Leaving millions needing access to this innovation, this unfair centralization underscores our healthcare system’s profound geographic and economic inequalities. To close this gap, we must democratize access to medical technology, ensuring that advancements reach regional hospitals and marginalized areas to achieve the above, invest in infrastructure, medical personnel training, and policies prioritizing equity in access to health services are required. Technological change transforms labor markets, driven by advances in artificial intelligence and robotics. According to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, up to 62% of jobs in Latin America are at risk for automation, mainly affecting workers in less qualified sectors. This action can generate employment. and while labor equalities benefit fighting to those advanced skills and marginalize others. And just to try to finish as soon as possible, digital transformation also reaches the justice system, which through such electronic portals, artificial intelligence, this innovation can improve efficiency and transparency, but also raise ethical challenge, ensuring that access to digital justice is universal and now to make the decisions and understandable of our parties are crucial. Unfortunately, in Mexico, a judicial reform is implemented that would involve economic material and human resources, slowing down the advance of technological systems and resources that are being filled in other parts of the world. In conclusion, in conclusion, there are some aspects that we must consider. Guarantee universal access to the internet in rural and marginalized areas where the government and the private sector can invest in technological infrastructure, great educational programs to teach technological skills to students from early age based on inclusive digital training for teachers. Prioritize teacher training and create inclusive digital content to encourage ethical innovation, provide tax incentives, financing, and technological training to support MSMEs with the appropriate technological tool, and train workers in a digital and human skill implementing collaborative technological tools and foster a culture of continuous learning to ensure the adaptation job. Decentralize advanced medical technology to benefit all regions and implement regulation to ensure transparency and equity using artificial technology. And just to finish, just want to continue the thought that yesterday to whether we can bridge the digital divide and build a more inclusive and equitable future for people worldwide. Thank you very much.

Xiaofeng Tao: Thank you very much, Ricardo. Thanks for sharing your deep analysis and also solution proposed for better inclusion. Now we will have next speaker, Professor Desi Salamanca from University of Worcestershire and also her colleague Lazaros from the University of Pretoria. And the topic is Centering Social Justice Cohesion in Digital Technology Accessibility Equally and Inclusively. And now, Desi, you have floor, please.

Daisy Selematsela: Okay, I’m trying to put it on play mode. Just a second, Tony. He has a similar program. You’ll have to help yourself. You are an expert. We believe you. Yes, I can share, but I’m trying to minimize. Okay, good morning colleagues from South Africa and we’re happy that you are joining you from far. So we are focusing on the two aspects whilst I just want to put it on slideshow. My screen is too big here so I can’t put it on slideshow but my colleague will come shortly. So we’ll be focusing on centering social justice or social cohesion in digital technology accessibility, equality and inclusivity. And this is linking to what we are discussing this morning when we look at information society at times of risk. Also like what Professor Juha has highlighted, facilitating access at all levels and also what Ricardo just highlighted regarding the unequal access. And we are looking at this from the Global South perspective. And if we look at social integration and inclusion, I want to highlight how the Department of Sports Arts and Culture in South Africa, where the libraries for example, report to this ministry look at social cohesion. And this is how it’s defined by the ministry. The degree of social integration and inclusion in communities and in communities and society at large and the extent to which mutual solidarity finds expression itself among individuals and communities. And this leads us to how do we look at social cohesion or social justice in the South African perspective because this also impacts the Global South. And like Professor Juha has highlighted the SDGs on our site there, as you can see there. So for us, when we look at social cohesion, we have four elements here. we’re looking at libraries that stimulate social cohesion by fostering inclusivity, and that’s what we’re discussing today when it relates to technologies, libraries advancing social cohesion by supporting the sustainable development goals, also nurturing social cohesion through education, and this was highlighted also by Professor Zhu and Professor Ricardo, libraries facilitating social cohesion through information technology, and this is what we’re focusing on today. So social integration intervention to attain SDGs in South Africa, it’s quite key on how we want to address these things. When we look at social and economic disparities, and I’m glad that my colleague Professor Ricardo highlighted how on the issues around widening social and economic exclusion. Now I want to touch base on what are policy documents, for example, that are relating to this, for example, in South Africa. The intention of reducing social economic disparities, i.e. poverty and so forth, are also stated as part of the reconstruction and development program of 1994, which further is reaffirmed by the national development plan of 2012, and these documents emphasize the following. No political democracy can survive and flourish if the mass of the people remains in poverty and so forth. Then I want to move to the next slide. What is the context then of social cohesion? The context of social cohesion looks at poverty, inequality, and social exclusion, which have also received global attention in the post-2015 development agenda, and this is the Africa agenda. For more than two decades, South Africa has sought to address poverty and inequality in a wide range of initiatives, and the national development plan of 2030 predated the sustainable development goals, yet it is largely aligned with the goals of addressing poverty, inequality, and exclusion. And the context of social cohesion, again, as we can see that it also linking to what I’m saying around policy legislation documents around redress and skewed distribution of social and economic opportunities. And when we move again to social cohesion interventions, it looks at protection that aims to ensure a basic level of well-being to enable people to live with dignity, and that governments tend to introduce social cohesion policies to meet social, economic, and political objectives. And I want to highlight that social cohesion, like Professor Zhu highlighted earlier in one of the slides there, Carniki and Emilio are indicating that it is wide in many African countries, encompassing a range of social protection and interventions and societal safety nets. And I just want to quickly jump, because of the time, as part of the interventions, the African Union has made the promotion of social protection and cohesion as its defining principle, and it’s quite important with what we’re talking about today on information society at times of risk and how do we deal with it. But now the thrust of our talk is to focus more on how do we deal with these technological access issues, and we focus for us, myself and my colleague Lazarus, and we’re looking at democratizing digital technologies. What are the challenges if digital technology accessibility is left unchallenged? The role of African research in the global knowledge economy is impacted. We’re grappling with what open scholarship on open science and research agendas mean in different areas and context. Researchers in low and middle income countries are facing a lot of challenges. income countries are vulnerable, as we have heard also from Professor Ricardo, regarding the pressures on publishing, and also the issues around public data publishing. Also, the global knowledge environment and local needs and impacts are not addressed properly, and undervaluing institutional repositories, which are also the conduit to accessing the information. And these are part of the technologies that we need. Sustainable open access publishing in Africa, and funding challenges for education and research growth, because this also impacts, if infrastructure is not up to par, then it impacts all this. And the other element, when we look at democratizing digital technologies, the challenges that will impact on this is widening digital technology, and my colleagues have highlighted to that. Sustainable national and regional infrastructures, valuing indigenous knowledge and local languages are also important when you talk about access that links to digital technologies. Also, promoting inclusivity and diversity of voices, misinformation in public policy is also key, and open research to the broader community, and allowing for greater cultural and linguistic diversity to support local and regional knowledge production. And my colleague Lazaros will jump in on the technologies regarding digital scholarship transformation. OK. Thank you, Desi.

Xiaofeng Tao: OK. Welcome, Lazaros, for joining us.

Lazaros Matizirofa: Thank you, Prof. Go ahead. Yes, thank you so much. So in the university, what we are trying to do is to broaden the digital scholarship transformation and underpin our strategy to enhance providing solutions for the digital divide. So as you can see, my first slide is actually going to divide. illustrate how we define digital scholarship in higher education. So in this slide, you’ll notice this is the first planetarium of its size built in Africa, the new digital dome, which is hosted here at the University of Witwatersrand. And it is there to give our clients the in-depth understanding of the natural world as well as whatever lives in the sky. And this is a phenomenal dome that we are going to enhance as a university to ensure that we provide students both within the universities and in primary schools and secondary to have to imagine what the world looks like from this environment. Lazarus, sorry to disturb you. If you need to play the next one, just tell me, okay? Because I’m controlling the slide playing on site, okay? Okay, next slide, 15. It’s a bit slow, sorry. Okay, slide 15. Yes, so linking digital humanities to digital scholarship. This is what we are doing at the intersection of humanities and digital technology, providing digital humanities. Scholars usually engages with humanities topics through digital collaboration, creating digital projects and using digital tools to fuel research. And as such, this could mean utilizing materials and resources that were born digital, and we also digitize them for existing material objects like print books and artworks. This could also mean exploring computational technologies such as algorithms. code or data, text mining, tools to understand how large collection and information will all intersect. Also digital scholarship, we also assume this will visualize timeless maps and data organization tools to visualize and analyze and interpret text and data in innovative ways. Next, please. And on the digital scholarship in South Africa and higher education, these are some of the things to democratize digital scholarship. We need resources. We also need people who can give the instruction and how then people engage and with all this to ensure that we have a simple and complex environment, connect researchers to communities and empower scholarship and action. Next slide, please. So at Digital Humanities at VITS Libraries, we have our museums, which we are also ensuring that we provide digital solutions and also enhancing the library digital scholarship services through the archives and other things that we can digitize in our collections, artifacts, new tools, and also providing the optical character recognition for the digitized collections so that researchers can have vast amounts of textual data they can use. However, these advances are not limited to just text. We are also providing sound images and video that have been subjected to these new forms of research. Next slide, please. So you will see with our advancement on historical papers, we have the richest archive of research papers in South Africa. And so our Our agenda here is to digitize some of these collections, provided copyright will permit us, so that most of the archived material can then be accessible to our clients, and also sensitive archives from the upper third area. And also provide digital solutions to them, so that they’ve, they can transform and be accessible to, to other people outside the university. And so this includes combining stem with digital scholarship and digital humanities, through our makerspace, which combines humanities together with other in and promote cross disciplinary collaboration, that’s helping students and researchers to move beyond the historical division between the sciences and the humanities. Next slide please. Rather us. Because we still have to leave some time for panel discussion, could you please finish your presentation in three minutes. Yes, thank you, sir. So most of these things that we are going to digitize are in our, our museums, and also already we have digitized the last slides which picks on this rock art research institute. These are African rock art that presides around most of the African countries where which were collected, and we’ve digitized them to ensure that they have a wider audience. So thank you, sir. I’m at the end of the presentation. Yes. Yes. Yeah, so you see, these are African potteries that were created a long time ago, which were also digitizing and providing the 3D dimension to ensure that researchers can utilize and analyze them and write something about them. Next slide. Yes, so this is the Rock Art Research Institute, as I mentioned before, which we have digitized. Most of these materials came from different African countries. From the, you know, these are images that you will find on our mountains and caves, which we are providing here as a digital archive at WITS. I think this should be the last slide. I think so. Thank you. Okay.

Xiaofeng Tao: Very impressive presentation from Desi and Lada Ross. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Now, we have our last invited speaker on-site presentation from Havana Mastery Moo. She is from St. John’s University, New York, and her topic is Meaningful Access and the Football Internet for Women. She will stay on the stage to give her presentation. Good morning.

Tamanna Mustary Mou: Good morning, everyone. So I’m from Bangladesh, but this time I came from New York because I’m a Ph.D. fellow at St. John’s University, New York. So I’m presenting my slides in front of you because you know that Bangladesh and China are very friendship country, and at this time I represent the Asian women. That’s why I’m here to present these slides. topic is meaningful access and affordable internet for women. So all of we know that women are a bit behind using internet. So I have selected that topic to let you know that was the barrier for the women to use internet and this is the internet governance forum and I believe this is very relevant for all of us to know the problems and the barriers which hinders women participation especially in the South Asian country. Connectivity. I would like to focus on the meaningful connectivity that what is called meaningful because all of we know that we can use internet anywhere and everywhere but is that using are meaningful or it is like is meaningless. So a first connection 4G now is 5G is available also and an appropriate device regular internet use broadband connection at home and workplace. Those are the key points that we need to ensure for the women and since we are very limited time we are having very limited time that’s right very so now the thing is that what is the what is the situation of our country like progress challenges opportunities and way forward and we have meaningful connectivity when we can use the internet every day using an appropriate device with enough data and first connection the FAA all of you know that publisher reports that reveals one of the 10 people across nine countries in Africa Asia and Latin America have solid working access to internet and this is very very very limited because it’s just one in 10 people and these issues of our connectivity involve how the action needed to provide affordable and meaningful access and men were far more likely to engage in a range of online activities including posting comments about political social and economic issues and data men are more likely to use internet and Yesterday, when I was in the plenary session, I found that it was discussed that men are always using more internet than women. And this is the situation not only in Asia and Africa, but also in Europe and America. Next, please. And this is the scenario in politics, in economics, in business, and everywhere. And we have to admit that without the full participation of women, it is impossible to progress as a whole for the society. Because women are half and maybe more than half of the society. So if women are behind using internet, the progress in all respects will be hindered. And this is the situation. We are having some data that 144 developing countries buy up to $18 billion USD. Meanwhile, 180 million women and girls would be able to generate more income, and nearly 500 million would improve their education level. So since I’m working in the Ministry of Education, I found that if women can afford the internet and they are getting the full facility to using internet, the education sector will be developed like anything. So in education, the previous speaker has also focused on the using of internet in education. And this is a very important part that we need to change our education as a digitalized system. And nowadays, we are using chat GPT, and we are using technology, technological innovation in education. So in every sector, we need that kind of participation for women, either in business or in education or in commerce, in everywhere. Next, please. So the thing is that we found that barriers for meaningful connectivity and affordability and digital skills gap remain stubborn barriers to gender equitable access to and use of internet. Across the globe, fewer women than men use the internet. And research from Wave Foundation found that globally, men are 21% more likely to be online than women. And those are the problem. There are some barriers, that lack of digital skills, like the affordability is sometimes more expensive for the women to afford, because most of the women feeling that they have less income. So since they have less income, they cannot afford the internet, which is very expensive for them. So this is the things that women are. And there are some issues for privacy also. Some women are afraid of privacy or any kind of online harassment. They are also aware of the social harassment. They are also aware of the online harassment and the vulnerability and safety, security concern. Those are the things that interrupt using of internet, as opposed to men. So next, please. This is a source for digital divide. And other barriers found to ensure meaningful access and affordable internet for women, unavailability of broadband access, or less access to public internet center, insufficient income, and unable technological device, and cultural norms or social barriers. I have discussed this. And those are the gender-focused policy to address women. Those are the things that can highlight the use of internet by women. And less gender-focused policy to address women’s ability to access and benefit from the internet. So the policymakers should be concerned about those things that we are facing nowadays. So what policy should be women-friendly? The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting should also change their policy so that women can have access. Thank you. Next slide, please. We are at the very end of the things that we use internet in education. I’ve told that economic affairs, commerce, transportation, media communication, in production, and medical sector. We have already discussed those. And the next, please. And the thing is that to ensure that equality, no equality, no internet and no equality is just similar. So if we want to ensure the equality, we have to ensure the internet for the women. So this is just a vice versa situation. If women are far behind than men in any kind of development, the internet should be assured for the women to develop equally. So this is the data from online population, internet use, gender gap, and mobile broadband penetration. Those are the data I have found from some LNs for affordable internet, meaningful connectivity, unlocking the full power of internet access. So these are the data. We all the data focus that women are less likely using internet than men. Next please. But those are very, the situation, it is like a village situation. Now it is the situation is, assuring gender sensitive environment, and the government of Bangladesh is very much aware for the development all over the country, even in the village. So now it is the village women are using mobile phone, like smartphone and internet, you can talk with friends and family, like video calls, chat, and everything. So they are becoming changing. So this is the situation we have found from ICT source, that women empowerment is like before, it’s very much changing the situation. Next please. And key to achieving international standard of communication by using internet. Since we are here for internet governance forum, we need to change the situation as a global village. We need to change the situation for women using internet. So this is a global community, and now are here to promise to keep the internet for all the citizens, all over the global village. So this is the promise, and we think that in future, the next IGF, we will able to ensure internet for women also, as we can ensure internet for men. And this is my presentation, and thank you very much for your kindness to give me the privilege here to present my slides. Thank you very much. Have a good day.

Xiaofeng Tao: Thank you. Thank you, Tamara. Thank you for sharing your insight, idea about meaningful access for the internet for women. So we still have a few minutes for the discussion. Maybe our on-site speaker or online speaker can share your viewpoints in very compact words. Okay. Osk, do you have some words to say?

Horst Kremers: Thank you very much. I’m just, I’m just, can you read the chat? I’m just preparing a remark on my session proposal in WSIS, I’m just writing it, can I please complete and come back later, just a minute.

Xiaofeng Tao: Okay. Do not circulate WSIS after you’re finishing, okay? It’s a very good proposal, I believe. Okay.

Liu Chuang: Yeah, I think this is a very good session in a different aspect, in different regions. And I think we have a common understanding for our common future, one is we need to work together, right? Yeah. So, in order for disaster, for the GIs, for the women, and for the law, you know, we need to first thing, we need to work together, right? So yeah, so I think that’s how we can think about the next step, how we can work together, right? Yeah. And then the second one is that now we go to the intelligence area, so we need to think about how to migrate, to benefit the data, and the internet, and to the society, to everybody, leave no one behind, right? So we need action, so what action we should do, so we need to discuss about that, right? So I would like to transfer to…

Ricardo Robles Pelayo: Thank you very much. I think since yesterday at the opening session, we have a common issues to do about education, about the economic issues, and to share all the knowledge around the world, and in this forum, I think it’s a good place to do it. So I think that is very usual that consider that around the world, we have to work together as Mr. Luke says, and we can share this space to do it as well. So thank you very much for the invitation again, and let’s work together to reach that goal. Thank you very much.

Xiaofeng Tao: Okay. So, Stacy? You have some words for us?

Daisy Selematsela: Yes. I think what’s important with today’s discussions from the different presentations that we all converge with what we are trying to put forward on access, and in the use of, or the availability of infrastructure, and… also the issues around data to address societal issues. And that’s why I see the convergence that even though our presentations were different, however, they were coming together to address issues of access that links to the SDGs, issues of access that addresses societal impact, and how do we want to see all the societies being able to access information and the use of data in that aspect. Lazaros, you can come in, thanks.

Lazaros Matizirofa: Lazaros, can you hear us? Yes, thank you, Chair. I think from my side is the role that we need to play in terms of, particularly in the African context, is to digitize some of the materials that should be then be provided as information resources to a wider audience. And I think majority of Africa as a continent, be it universities or public institutions, they do have a lot of rare materials that still needs to be streamlined to access on a digital platforms. And therefore, the internet then will provide that link to everybody having access to these collections.

Xiaofeng Tao: Thank you, sir. Okay, thank you, Lazaros. Now, Tamara, you have some words to say? Maybe you, sir, next. Yeah, some short words about our workshop before cost of speaking. Okay, you can go ahead if you have some words to say.

Tamanna Mustary Mou: Thank you very much. We need to be ensure women active participation and leadership in our country as well as all the South Asian country. And we already have ensured the participation of women mostly in the European countries. Now, in Poland IGF, I have attended 2021 in Poland UN IGF as an UN fellow. So that time, that was a promise that women’s voice should be heard from everywhere. So when the women are eligible to speak out, they can ensure their own right. So my last word is that women should speak out, women’s voice should be heard, and women are the part of the world and they are the active participants everywhere. So we cannot ensure our development without women’s participation. So this is the last part that we need to ensure internet for women and as well as men everywhere. Thank you.

Xiaofeng Tao: Thank you Tamara. Host, do you still have some words? One minute?

Horst Kremers: Yeah, thank you. Yeah, to be short, I put a note in the chat with links that you may be possible to see. I will, of course, keep you informed. The question is that I have a long time and I see the situation in disaster risk reduction and I see the problem really from full scale and we can do very positive things. The question also is, just to see the importance of the thing is, now is the time that slowly starts preparation of the follow-up United Nations program on risk reduction, which must be some program from 2030 to 2045, the next 15 years. And in preparation of this, we have to argue for rewording, improving the wording of United Nations instruments in this case where I work. with UNDRR with the disaster risk reduction things. And other colleagues here certainly in sustainable development and whatsoever also could contribute to wording the next program. So that is what I see as a general positive aspect of that. Thank you.

Xiaofeng Tao: Thank you very much, Faust. As the final or last speaker for our workshop, I think we do have an intensive and informative workshop covering key issue about digital tech for benefiting everyone. Unfortunately, due to time, we have to make a concluding remark. So firstly, many thanks to all the speaker. We have such a great opportunity to communicate and exchanging regarding diverse aspects. We’ve seen one and a half hour, we talk about add some value on sustained agriculture with support of digital tech, information governance on disaster management, the principle practice recommendation at different level, local, regional, national, and so on. So also I talk quite a lot about big data as a powerful tool for reducing digital divide, algorithm, data, computing. And also there is very important for internet connectivity to foster opportunity for rural and indigenous people through education. We talk about the importance of democratic thing, digital technology, digital scholarship, and the digital humanities. And Tamara gave us very insightful understanding about meaningful connectivity and the equity. So thanks to all for your participation in workshop 14.9. For the way forward, everyone will and should be benefited from digital tech and its implication relies on the joint effort from all the stakeholder today on site and all the stakeholder in our information society for future actions. And lastly, please follow the activity of CCIT and contact us if you have any suggestion on future cooperation. So our workshop ends here. Thank you all for your active participation. Thank you. Thank you. We are organizing a training workshop in Bangladesh next February. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I will send me the agenda. We have maybe have a picture. We have an operation with local. You can also meet with John in Ghana for presenting something. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Digital technologies can promote inclusive development

Liu Chuang

Xiaofeng Tao

Daisy Selematsela

Tamanna Mustary Mou

GIS methodology can benefit farmers and rural communities

Big data can support SDG implementation and environmental monitoring

Digital technologies need to be democratized to address inequalities

Meaningful connectivity is crucial for women’s participation

These speakers agree that digital technologies, when properly implemented and made accessible, can contribute to inclusive development across various sectors and demographics.

Infrastructure gaps hinder digital access

Xiaofeng Tao

Ricardo Robles Pelayo

Lack of infrastructure hinders access in rural areas

There are significant digital access gaps in Latin America

Both speakers highlight the issue of insufficient infrastructure as a major barrier to digital access, particularly in rural and marginalized areas.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of collaboration and inclusive governance in implementing digital technologies effectively.

Horst Kremers

Gong Ke

Information governance is needed for inclusive disaster management

Multi-stakeholder cooperation is key for technology implementation

Both speakers highlight the importance of digital skills and education in bridging the digital divide, albeit focusing on different aspects (general education and women’s access respectively).

Lazarus Matizirofa

Tamanna Mustary Mou

Digital scholarship and humanities can enhance education

Digital skills gaps and affordability are barriers for women

Unexpected Consensus

Cultural preservation through digitization

Liu Chuang

Lazarus Matizirofa

GIS methodology can benefit farmers and rural communities

Digitization of cultural artifacts can increase access to knowledge

While focusing on different areas (agriculture and cultural artifacts), both speakers unexpectedly converge on the idea that digitization can help preserve and promote local knowledge and cultural heritage.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the potential of digital technologies for inclusive development, the need to address infrastructure gaps, the importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation, and the role of digital skills in bridging the digital divide.

Consensus level

There is a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the importance of digital technologies for development and the need to address access gaps. This consensus implies a shared understanding of the challenges and potential solutions in bridging the digital divide, which could facilitate more coordinated efforts in policy-making and implementation of digital initiatives.

Different Viewpoints

Focus of digital technology implementation

Liu Chuang

Horst Kremers

GIS methodology can benefit farmers and rural communities

Information governance is needed for inclusive disaster management

While both speakers advocate for the use of digital technologies, Liu Chuang focuses on GIS for agricultural development, while Horst Kremers emphasizes information governance for disaster management.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement were in the specific focus and application of digital technologies for development and inclusion.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers was relatively low. Most speakers agreed on the importance of digital inclusion and the need to address various digital divides. The differences were mainly in the specific areas of focus or application, which can be seen as complementary rather than contradictory approaches. This suggests a multifaceted approach is needed to address digital inclusion comprehensively.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the existence of digital divides, but Ricardo Robles Pelayo focuses on regional disparities in Latin America, while Tamanna Mustary Mou emphasizes gender-specific barriers for women globally.

Ricardo Robles Pelayo

Tamanna Mustary Mou

There are significant digital access gaps in Latin America

Digital skills gaps and affordability are barriers for women

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of collaboration and inclusive governance in implementing digital technologies effectively.

Horst Kremers

Gong Ke

Information governance is needed for inclusive disaster management

Multi-stakeholder cooperation is key for technology implementation

Both speakers highlight the importance of digital skills and education in bridging the digital divide, albeit focusing on different aspects (general education and women’s access respectively).

Lazarus Matizirofa

Tamanna Mustary Mou

Digital scholarship and humanities can enhance education

Digital skills gaps and affordability are barriers for women

Key Takeaways

Digital technologies have great potential to benefit everyone, but significant divides and inequalities in access still exist

Multi-stakeholder cooperation and partnerships are crucial for implementing digital technologies inclusively

Big data, GIS, and other digital tools can support sustainable development and environmental monitoring

Improving digital access and skills for women and rural communities is a key challenge

Digital technologies in education, healthcare, and cultural preservation can enhance development outcomes

Resolutions and Action Items

Enhance partnerships and collaboration on big data for SDG implementation

Invest in digital infrastructure and skills training, especially in rural areas

Develop policies to ensure universal and affordable internet connectivity

Digitize cultural artifacts and knowledge to increase access

Address barriers to women’s internet access and digital participation

Unresolved Issues

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

Ways to make advanced digital technologies like AI accessible to marginalized groups

Balancing open data sharing with privacy and security concerns

Funding mechanisms for digital infrastructure in developing countries

Measuring and evaluating the impact of digital inclusion efforts

Suggested Compromises

Combining open data initiatives with robust data protection policies

Balancing investment in cutting-edge technologies with basic digital access

Public-private partnerships to expand digital infrastructure cost-effectively

Adapting digital solutions to local contexts while maintaining global standards

We need to work together, right? So yeah, so I think that’s how we can think about the next step, how we can work together, right? Yeah. And then the second one is that now we go to the intelligence area, so we need to think about how to migrate, to benefit the data, and the internet, and to the society, to everybody, leave no one behind, right?

speaker

Liu Chuang

reason

This comment synthesized key themes from multiple presentations and proposed concrete next steps, emphasizing collaboration and inclusivity.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards actionable steps and reinforced the overarching goal of benefiting everyone through digital technology.

Education is one of the areas where ICTs can have the most significant impact, especially in Latin America, where educational equity remains a challenge. Incorporation of technological tools in classrooms modernizes teaching and opens new opportunities for students, otherwise excluded for quality education.

speaker

Ricardo Robles Pelayo

reason

This comment highlighted a specific, high-impact application area for digital technology in addressing inequality.

impact

It focused the conversation on the practical implications of digital technology for social development, particularly in education.

Across the globe, fewer women than men use the internet. And research from Wave Foundation found that globally, men are 21% more likely to be online than women.

speaker

Tamanna Mustary Mou

reason

This comment introduced concrete data on gender disparities in internet access, bringing attention to an important aspect of digital inequality.

impact

It brought gender issues to the forefront of the discussion and prompted consideration of targeted approaches to increase women’s access to digital technology.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by synthesizing diverse perspectives into common themes of collaboration, inclusivity, and targeted interventions. They moved the conversation from theoretical concepts to practical applications and specific challenges, particularly in education and gender equity. The comments also reinforced the need for multi-stakeholder cooperation and data-driven approaches in addressing digital divides.

How can we enhance multi-stakeholder cooperation mechanisms to accelerate and enhance the process of big data in our society and life?

speaker

Xiaofeng Tao

explanation

This is important to address challenges in implementing big data for SDGs and reduce digital divides.

What specific actions should be taken to improve the link between observation, computing, analysis, and knowledge discovery for supporting SDG implementation?

speaker

Xiaofeng Tao

explanation

This is crucial for effectively using new technologies like big data and IoT to support and evaluate SDG implementation.

How can we democratize access to medical technology to ensure advancements reach regional hospitals and marginalized areas?

speaker

Ricardo Robles Pelayo

explanation

This is important to address profound geographic and economic inequalities in healthcare systems.

What initiatives can ensure universal, affordable and high-quality connectivity for everyone, regardless of geographic location and socioeconomic status?

speaker

Ricardo Robles Pelayo

explanation

This is crucial for addressing internet access as a fundamental right and reducing digital exclusion.

How can we improve the wording of United Nations instruments, particularly for the next program on disaster risk reduction from 2030 to 2045?

speaker

Horst Kremers

explanation

This is important for preparing effective future UN programs and improving global disaster risk reduction efforts.

What policies should be implemented to make internet access more women-friendly and address barriers to women’s internet use?

speaker

Tamanna Mustary Mou

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring gender equality in internet access and use, particularly in developing countries.

How can we digitize rare materials from African institutions to provide wider access through digital platforms?

speaker

Lazarus Matizirofa

explanation

This is important for preserving and sharing valuable cultural and educational resources across Africa and globally.