Day 0 Event #187 Your Organization Is Ready for AI, But Is Your Data

Day 0 Event #187 Your Organization Is Ready for AI, But Is Your Data

Session at a Glance

Summary

This presentation focused on artificial intelligence (AI) readiness, particularly in the context of generative AI and its impact on organizations. The speaker, Alaa Zaher from Gartner, discussed the evolution of AI from traditional machine learning to generative AI, highlighting the revolutionary capabilities of large language models like ChatGPT. He emphasized that while generative AI has made AI more accessible to individuals, organizations face challenges in implementing it safely and effectively.


Zaher introduced the concept of a “technology sandwich” to describe the evolving AI landscape in enterprises. This framework includes layers for data sources, AI platforms, and governance structures. He stressed the importance of data management, semantics, and fine-tuning in preparing for AI implementation. The speaker also highlighted the shift from centralized, structured data to decentralized, unstructured data in AI applications.


The presentation addressed the risks associated with AI adoption, including data interpretation errors, security concerns, and the phenomenon of “bring your own AI.” Zaher emphasized the need for organizations to develop robust governance structures and risk management practices to mitigate these challenges. He noted that while AI vendors are racing to embed AI in their products, organizations should take a measured approach to AI adoption, focusing on productivity improvements unless their industry is being disrupted.


The discussion concluded with questions from the audience, touching on topics such as successful implementations of the technology sandwich concept, the role of major AI labs in ensuring AI safety, and the trend of organizations developing their own generative AI models. Overall, the presentation provided a comprehensive overview of the current state of AI readiness and the considerations organizations must address as they navigate this rapidly evolving landscape.


Keypoints

Major discussion points:


– Overview of AI history and recent developments in generative AI


– Components needed for AI readiness in organizations (data, talent, infrastructure)


– New AI paradigm emerging with unstructured data and decentralized applications


– Importance of data management, semantics, and fine-tuning for AI


– Concept of the “technology sandwich” for managing AI in organizations


Overall purpose:


The purpose of this discussion was to provide an overview of AI developments, particularly generative AI, and discuss what organizations need to do to prepare for and effectively implement AI technologies. The speaker aimed to highlight both the opportunities and challenges of AI adoption.


Tone:


The overall tone was informative and educational, with the speaker taking on the role of an expert explaining complex topics to an audience. The tone remained consistent throughout, with occasional moments of humor or lightheartedness to keep the audience engaged. The speaker maintained a balance between enthusiasm for AI’s potential and caution about its risks and implementation challenges.


Speakers

– Alaa Zaher: Senior Executive Partner at Gartner, technology research and digital expert


– Audience: Multiple unnamed audience members asking questions


Additional speakers:


– Amal: Audience member who asked a question about successful applications of the “technology sandwich” concept


– Mohamed: Audience member who asked about organizations developing their own generative AI models


– Martina Legal-Malakova: Audience member from GAIAxApp Slovakia, focusing on data spaces and data sharing


Full session report

AI Readiness and Implementation: A Comprehensive Overview


This detailed summary expands on a presentation by Alaa Zaher, Senior Executive Partner at Gartner, focusing on artificial intelligence (AI) readiness and its impact on organisations, particularly in the context of generative AI.


Evolution and Impact of AI


The discussion began by tracing the evolution of AI from traditional machine learning to the current era of generative AI. Zaher emphasised the revolutionary capabilities of large language models like ChatGPT, which have made AI more accessible to individuals. This democratisation of AI technology is changing how people interact with and utilise AI in their daily lives.


The impact of AI on industries was highlighted, with Zaher noting that an increasing percentage of CEOs believe generative AI will have a significant impact on their sector over the coming years. This underscores the urgency for organisations to consider their AI readiness and strategy. Zaher further illustrated the rapid pace of AI development by stating that new foundation models are being created at an unprecedented rate, emphasising the intense competition in the field.


Data Requirements and Management for AI


A crucial point in the discussion was the importance of data for AI systems. Zaher emphasised that without data, there can be no AI, highlighting the critical importance of data in a relatable way. This led to an explanation of different data types and sources needed for various AI applications.


The presentation highlighted a shift in data requirements from traditional machine learning, which relied on structured, centralised data, to generative AI, which can work with unstructured data from various sources. Despite this evolution, Zaher stressed that data management and governance remain necessary for effective AI use. Organisations need to focus on data semantics and fine-tuning for AI implementation.


The concept of data sharing was also discussed, touching on its implications for both social and economic spheres, particularly in sectors like manufacturing and energy.


Enterprise AI Readiness and the “Technology Sandwich”


Zaher introduced the concept of a “technology sandwich” to describe the evolving AI landscape in enterprises. This framework includes layers for data sources, AI platforms, and governance structures. The bottom layer consists of various data sources, including structured and unstructured data. The middle layer comprises AI platforms and tools, such as large language models and other AI technologies. The top layer focuses on governance, including security measures, access controls, and risk management practices.


He emphasised that organisations need to prepare for a new AI paradigm with decentralised applications and develop this “technology sandwich” approach to manage AI risks and implementation. This framework helps organisations understand the components necessary for successful AI integration and the potential challenges they may face.


The discussion touched on the trade-off between using third-party AI services and developing in-house capabilities. Zaher used a metaphor to communicate the risks associated with giving AI systems access to unstructured organisational data, comparing it to letting someone into a messy room. This led to a discussion about the importance of data management, access rights, and security considerations when implementing AI systems in organisations.


Challenges and Considerations for AI Adoption


The presentation addressed several challenges associated with AI adoption, including data interpretation errors, security concerns, and the phenomenon of “bring your own AI.” This refers to employees using personal AI tools for work purposes, potentially exposing company data to external systems. Zaher emphasised the need for organisations to develop robust governance structures and risk management practices to mitigate these challenges.


There was agreement on the importance of strong security practices and governance for successful AI implementation. The discussion also touched on the need to balance the push from AI vendors with organisational readiness. Zaher noted that while AI vendors are racing to embed AI in their products, organisations should take a measured approach to AI adoption, focusing on productivity improvements unless their industry is being disrupted.


Cost implications of AI implementation were also discussed, with Zaher highlighting the potential for significant expenses related to data preparation, model training, and ongoing maintenance of AI systems.


Audience Questions and Future Considerations


The presentation concluded with several thought-provoking questions from the audience:


1. An audience member asked about successful applications of the “technology sandwich” concept, seeking real-world implementation examples.


2. Another inquiry focused on the role of major AI labs like Google DeepMind and OpenAI in ensuring AI safety within the technology sandwich framework.


3. A question was raised about whether enterprises are expected to develop their own generative AI models to protect their data, or if big tech companies will dominate this space.


4. An audience member questioned the categorisation of data sharing in the context of data analytics and AI, exploring its implications for both social and business initiatives.


These questions highlighted unresolved issues in AI implementation, including the full extent of generative AI’s impact on various industries, best practices for balancing vendor pressure with organisational readiness, optimal strategies for cost management in AI deployment, and the role and implications of data sharing across different sectors.


In conclusion, the presentation provided a comprehensive overview of the current state of AI readiness and the considerations organisations must address as they navigate this rapidly evolving landscape. It emphasised the need for a measured approach to AI adoption, strong data management practices, and robust security and governance frameworks to ensure successful and responsible AI implementation.


Session Transcript

Alaa Zaher: you You You You That’s me You Okay Can everyone hear me Hello, yes, okay great So I’ll I’ll be raising my voice like this in case you’re not actually using the headset You can still hopefully hear me. I think it makes for a more natural interaction So where you like and then because my voice is also probably quite loud You can if you’re using the headset, you can turn down the volume So first of all, thank you for coming and welcome Like to introduce myself. I’m a let’s say her a senior executive partner at Gartner Gartner is a research technology research and digital Any And we have of being here today in the IGF digital government agency event To talk about a number of things. My colleagues have been talking about and I’ll be talking specifically about readiness when it comes to artificial intelligence and specifically on data, but I’ll also expand the discussion beyond the data aspect of the readiness. So, I’ll basically be looking at a little bit of history of AI, the impact of generative AI, and then what that means for consumers, what it means for enterprises, and then we’re going to zoom in on the enterprise part to really look at what it takes for you to build the right capability in your organization in order to harness the power of artificial intelligence. How does that sound? All good? All right, let’s get going. So, I’d like to start with this quote from this gentleman over there, Sir Arthur Clark. You may not know him, but he is a British futurist, screenplay writer, somebody who’s really embedded into innovation, and he said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, right? Come to think of it, two years ago, 2023, end of 2022, 2023, I think what we saw with this thing, ChatGPT, is nothing short of magic, right? I think we all agree, the world was stunned by what this chatbot can do, right? And you would think, we’ve had chatbots for ages, yeah? So, if you break down the word ChatGPT, we’ve had chatbots, they weren’t as magical, they weren’t as spectacular. So, what is this that makes it so magical? It’s the other part of the name, the GPT. And what is GPT? Well, it’s short for Generative Pre-trained Transformer. Never mind, we’ll just call it a large-language model. Never mind. So what is a large-language model? It is one derivative of artificial intelligence, right? Intelligence has been around for decades, right? But it is the large-language models, the generative AI, basically. So if you kind of look at the landscape of artificial intelligence… Sorry, just before that. So in case you were hiding under a rock over the past two years, let me show you what ChatGPT can do, right? So when I first laid my hands on technology, I asked it this question. I wanted to test it. I said, summarize the story of Cinderella in 100 words. That’s this chatbot. And it went in a split of a second and generated for me this wonderful summary in a split of a second, in 100 words. Cinderella recounts the story of a kind-hearted, mistreated young woman living with her wicked stepmother and said, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Brilliant. I couldn’t have summarized it this way in two hours, maybe even half a day, right? Incredible. Now I challenged it a little bit further. So I asked it, now, can you summarize it for me in 50 words? And again, bang, in a split of a second, it did it in 50 words. In fact, it was 51, to be honest, so just a little bit over. Nonetheless, it’s incredible. Now I really wanted to test it even further, so I kind of pushed the boundaries. And I said, what if I ask it in a different language, in Arabic? Mind you, this was ChatGPT 3, not even 3.5, right? So I asked it, I gave it a really big challenge. Give me a piece of poetry in Arabic. So this is the question I asked it for us, for those of us who are Arabic speakers. speakers that’s what I asked it okay now that that’s quite a challenge for for a computer right and there you go that’s what it gave me behold the mulukhiyah tia fatah nama to an adobe tune for Tommy Tata Rojo fill maklouba Tosca buff and I’ll add three or four huddle Tahi Tata Raqqa so I slam Wow incredible isn’t it and then it goes on and on all right so it might not be the perfect poetry but it’s incredible you know and again it generated in seconds so that is what Chad GPT is capable of that’s what large language models are capable of and this is just the tip of the iceberg because now we have not just 3.5 not for not for but 4.5 for oh that is so what let’s go back and to the technical discussion so the large language models they are a subset of generous AI right there are different types of generative AI models and large language models happen to be the one that Chad GPT uses because it’s for words and for verbal communication but generative AI itself is a subset of machine learning right and that is basically the foundation of most artificial intelligence applications it’s not the only one but it’s the most common one it’s delivering for the more than 15 years so let’s think about you know let’s talk about machine learning for a moment what you know what does it work machine learning basically we’ll take the example the classic example of what machine learning does classification right this is you know the basic function that a machine learning algorithm can actually perform classification so let’s say we want the machine learning model to to classify a picture of a dog when it sees one, right, sees one, when we introduce it to it. So what do we do? We give it the training data set, as many pictures of dogs as we possibly can, right, as many as we can. Training data. Now, go ahead, examine those pictures, and we run it through a statistical model. There are many different statistical models that are used for predictive analysis of the model. Some of the most common are linear regression. You might have heard of decision trees. So these ones, essentially what they do is basically this. They examine each picture. They look for patterns in the pictures, and through the pattern, create a set of rules. And once it has the rules embedded, typically the rules are embedded in a black box, so it doesn’t expose the rules to us, right? We only can judge it by the result. So we present to it the picture, another picture that it hadn’t seen in the past, of a dog. And if the rules are correct, it will identify that this is indeed a dog. And then another one. Oh, it says, that doesn’t conform to my rules. That is not a dog. We present it with a third picture, which happens to be of a dog, doesn’t quite fit the training data, and it gets confused. And so what do we do? We take that picture, feed it back to the model as part of the training data set, and it keeps learning. So this is what we call supervised learning, right? So supervised learning includes this kind of reinforcement, and it also includes what we call feature engineering. So as we were giving it the pictures of the dogs, we might have given it a little help with labeling. Like, this is what a nose of a dog typically looks like. We call it feature engineering, right? So that’s the essential mechanism through which machines. learning models work. Now, let’s project that on what’s happening in the generative AI world, in the large language models. How does that differ? You’ve got the training data. The training data, what do you think is the training data for ChatGPT? It’s text, right? What kind of text? Is it some text that some company gave it to ChatGPT? It’s from the web. You’re absolutely right. It’s not just from the web. It’s the entire World Wide Web. It literally is the entire World Wide Web. 500 billion words. And you might think, how on earth did it ingest the entire World Wide Web? There are tools to do that. You can do it, yeah? You can actually download the entire World Wide Web. So, 500 billion words. It was trained on that. We ran it through that statistical model. And here’s where it gets a bit different. So, remember that GPT part? That generative pre-trained transformer? It’s a transformer architecture. And that transformer architecture is really good at identifying context. If you really want to think about it, it is like an autocomplete on steroids. That’s really what it is. So, you think, when you’re typing on your iPhone a message and it kind of goes… Like I always tell my wife, I’m going to be… And then it says late, right? So, how does it know that? Because it’s just found out that I’ve said it so often. And then it autocompletes. That’s exactly what the pre-trained transformer does. It’s a great autocomplete. So, it gets the context without us having to label for it that feature engineering that I was referring to in the classic machine learning. So, this autocomplete is what allows it then to summarize the story of Cinderella so quickly and without supervision. Because it’s learned the patterns and the context from the training data happens to be the entire worldwide web. And so we get this wonderful summary that we were just looking at. So that’s as far as the large language models and generative AI is concerned. So undoubtedly, generative AI is a revolutionary milestone in the world of artificial intelligence. But we need to remember that artificial intelligence is more than generative AI, and it has been delivering. Let’s remind ourselves of what it has been delivering for us. Some of the things we take for granted, your face ID on your iPhone, that’s computer vision, which is a form of machine learning. If you think of, on top of that, what it does in terms of identifying our friends and family members from our photo albums, et cetera, that is also machine learning, computer vision. Now, take something, again, that never probably crosses our minds in terms of we watch a football game or a sports, and we can see all that is going on in the screen. It’s identified that there’s a player that’s moving there. The shot’s going through that way. All of that is happening in real time, and that is artificial intelligence. Not just that, and specifically in sports, a lot of clubs are using artificial intelligence, have been using artificial intelligence, to actually inform them of the right team formation. So they study the opponent beforehand, and it informs the coach of what kind of formation, who they need to put on the field, et cetera. Liverpool is topping the Premier League this season, and they have been in many past years. And they have a reputation for having one of the strongest AI teams in the Premier League. They’re really leveraging that in a way that allows them to choose the players, so they don’t often get the best stars, right? You can see that they’re getting the right players to allow Liverpool to win. Right, but they’re not necessarily paying the big bucks for the biggest stars So so that’s that’s another Implementation of AI something else that’s been happening and is happening to us right now Through all the social media apps, you know Your Facebook’s your Twitter’s your Instagram’s etc your tick tocks. And again, that’s all happening in the back doing it’s looking at our behaviors and Basically analyzing it in order for it either to suggest to us what post we should look at who we should follow or actually deliver to us a an ad right an ad that that that it predicts is going to be of Interest to us based on our individual behaviors, right? So that’s been going on for at least the past decade hasn’t it right and we’re all bombarded by social media in many different ways That’s artificial intelligence is machine learning Now we move on to the enterprise world in the world of business, right one industry that has been benefiting from AI has been the insurance industry, so it typically you make an insurance claim and You know, it either gets approved or rejected based on the kind of damage the analysis of the accident, etc Assessing the actual cost of the repair that used to be done by humans today It’s it’s supervised by humans But essentially a lot of the effort that goes into this analysis is cut through artificial intelligence So you run the pictures through an AI model that machine learning model and it’s able to tell To give you a recommendation on what to do with the claim whether to approve it or not Now I come from a telecoms background um, we used to use artificial to our network planning So, you know when you’re handling 40 million customers as my company was, you’re basically looking at a very fluid environment of usage, right? So you have certain times of the year where there’s going to be a lot of demand in a particular area, then less demand elsewhere, and you need to be in that dynamic position to predict the usage. We used artificial intelligence to tell us by looking at thousands and petabytes of data, basically, to allow us to predict where the demand is going to come from, where we’re going to have the shortages, et cetera. And not just that, we also used it for understanding the customer behavior. If certain customers were likely to leave our network to the favor of a competitor, then we’d be able to, it would be able to give us early warning signals that we need to save that, rescue that customer by giving them some compelling offer. Another machine learning application, predictive maintenance, given the manufacturing industry, you don’t want to wait till a piece of equipment it stops your production line to anticipate that early enough, and machine learning has been helping manufacturers do that, preemptive maintenance. Right, so as we’re talking about AI for enterprises, what does it take to enable machine learning in your enterprise, is the question. The first element is data, right? No data, no AI, sounds like a song from Bob Marley, right? So no data, no AI, but it’s data, and actually so much data. So I was just telling you about the example from telecoms, we literally were processing petabytes of data on a daily basis, right? So the more data you have, the more opportunities you have for your machine learning models to learn, right? Take the example of the World Wide Web, or when we talk about the dogs. So the more data you provide, the more reliable it’s going to be. So the first element is data. The other element is the geek. A key component of any machine learning environment, of any AI environment, is a data scientist. So when we talked about those complicated models, you will like decision trees, regression analysis, et cetera. You need somebody who knows how to program. So they need to actually have a combination of two skills. They need to be someone who understands statistics and also someone who’s good at programming, typically Python, for example, or R. So you’ve got that combination of very rare skillset of a data scientist. And there’s been a race to hire those people. I can tell you, we were hiring them in my company. And they would stay with us for a year. And they were off to double their salary or something. So it’s a very competitive market. And that’s what makes it difficult for companies to grow that AI capability within the organization impediments. And what else do you need? Well, if you want to process the petabytes of data, you need a huge data center, right? So you need a lot of storage, you need a lot of compute. So that is something that actually is now not absolutely necessary to own, because we have cloud, right? And I think that’s a great thing about the fact that we have cloud. So cloud saves us to invest in huge data centers, and especially that you don’t need all that capacity on an ongoing basis. You need it when you run a model at a particular point in time. So if you get that elasticity from a cloud, then you just use it when you need it. And you’re not paying for a full-scale data center in that manner. So if we were to summarize the components, so you’ve got the computing and the algorithms, they’re pretty much something that are accessible to any organization today. Why? Because the likes of AWS or Google, they will provide those to you and you can pay as you go, so you don’t, so it’s not, there’s no real obstacle there. I mean the obstacle it might be that you, you know, if you do it a lot then the bill might go a little bit high, but at least it is accessible, right? So the models, you know, they exist on platforms like AWS and Google and Microsoft and the compute likewise. The challenge is here, right? The data and the talent, so that, and I think that’s what has held back organizations from progressing on AI over the past years. Only those who have been able to capture the data and the talent are the ones that have been able to make a difference through AI in the core of their business, right? So that, that’s as far as the classic AI, the machine learning is concerned, but that paradigm is changing because generative AI is imposing a new paradigm, right? Specifically what is changing? AI is becoming everyone’s business. It’s becoming accessible to everyone. You don’t need to invest in the data scientist and the data in order to actually have some generative AI capability, right? So think of this. How many of us are able in our day-to-day work to leverage generative AI to help us with our writing? Show of hands, please. Okay, that’s the majority. Maybe PowerPoint? Less? Yeah, okay, that’s great. So it is accessible to us because it is, it’s just so easy. You don’t need to actually… buy anything you just you know pay pennies and sometimes even free tools and likewise for illustration creative work you know the other these are some of the people who have you know leveraged AI and maximize the use of it you know whether it’s artists whether it’s composers etc so that is something that is becoming accessible now of course developers software developers you know systems very much a commonplace today many developers are leveraging AI to help them with that and finally I think last but not least is learning right so and that learning can start from instead of googling I’ll just ask you know the like of a chat GPT and it’ll give me an answer or it could actually be an actual learning but like we have in Khan Academy for example if you’re familiar with that so there’s an actual tutor that helps you and has that discussion with you until you feel that you’ve actually grasped the topic so really generative AI is allowing artificial intelligence to become ubiquitous accessible at the consumer level right at the individual level of the personal level and so what’s it that now do it necessary the geek in every use case of AI do we need the data scientist the examples that I mentioned we don’t know they know this is sitting in the background somewhere in open AI or in Microsoft but on a day-to-day basis we don’t need them in an hour in our own organization and so there’s it’s out with the geek and in with what in with natural language conversation you ask the AI you know I please generate for me a PowerPoint presentation about bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum and it got it you got it I’m very impressive tool that I had a look at recently it’s called builder dot AI so this is basically a piece of software that allows anybody to have a conversation with a chatbot verbally and tell them I want to build a web page for a marketplace where and you give them a description of the marketplace that you have. Goes in the background, generates for you the website. It’s that incredible. So really we’ve kind of, we’re using natural language conversation and that’s what makes it so compelling. And the list goes on and on I mentioned Builder AI but you know look at the hundreds of startups that are coming into this space. Startups every day. In fact you know we have a statistic from Gartner as you know the number of generative AI foundational models that are created. How often do you think we’re seeing a new foundation model? I’ll give you some choices right so that’s once a month new foundational new generative AI model. Once a month? Once a week? Once a week sounds reasonable. Yeah well it’s actually two and a half days. Every two and a half days a new foundation model is created. Now that is the race. There’s a race for a land grab on AI specifically driven by generative AI. Now so here comes the question of this presentation. So is your organization ready? Well I’ll give you another statistic. This is a survey also from Gartner in the past few years. That’s before 2023. We were typically asked our clients who are technology leaders about what they think of AI. Whether they think AI will significantly impact their industry. This is a survey with CEOs. And so the question I asked them was, do you think AI will significantly impact your industry? A lot of CEOs kind of felt that this was, you know, a bit distant from their business, from their industry, like AI, you know, what do I think of when I hear the word AI? So it wasn’t, only 20% said they did, only 20%. Until in 2023, that changed to 59% of CEOs believing 59% of CEOs believing it will make a difference in their industry. And then last, this year, in 2024, this jumped up to 74%, right? 74% of CEOs that we have surveyed believe generative AI will have a profound impact on their industry, right? Now, what this tells us is that there is certainly a big appetite for AI as far as leadership is concerned. So we work with a lot of clients, and we’re seeing that pressure with the technology leaders that we work with. Now, they are asked to do something with AI. There’s a fear of missing out. There’s something we need to do here. How can we just watch there and miss the boat? So that’s a reality. Also, if you look at Gartner’s hype cycle, Gartner’s hype cycle is basically a reflection of the different emerging technologies and looking at their state of adoption and maturity. So generative AI is at the peak of inflated expectations, and now it’s kind of normalizing. It’s kind of normalizing now. But generally, what you’re seeing there is, there is a wide adoption of generative AI. So when I ask the question, is your organization ready for AI? I think the simple answer is, organizations have expectations from AI. Right? So that is certainly a fact. Well, that’s good news, right? That’s good news. So there’s this eagerness. There’s this hunger for AI. But now comes the question, is your data ready for AI? Now, the data discussion on AI is a bit nuanced, because we talked about machine learning, and we talked about generative AI. So they’re not exactly the same animal. Let’s have a look at that. So typically, this is what a data and analytics landscape would look like in terms of its components. So you’ve got different data sources, operational systems, mobile applications, websites, et cetera. And then you’ve got some infrastructure there related to analytics, whether you’ve got a data warehouse, a data lake, or smart. And then you’ve got integration mechanisms like data streaming, batches, ETLs. And you’ve got then data governance, which is basically more of a management activity. And then you’ve got virtualization layers. And then you’ve got the actual presentation and analysis layers related to data science, machine learning. You’ve got business intelligence, which has been the mainstay in the past decades. And then you can actually build on top of that some external services. So that’s kind of the overall ecosystem, if you will. If we simplify it a little bit and think of a data warehouse, because this is really where this all originated. A data warehouse, basically, it tries to capture all the data that you have in your organization and centralize it into a central repository that can then serve the organization in terms of insights. The insights don’t necessarily have to be AI. They could be just analysis through Power BI reports, for example. So typically, what you have there is a what we call a… call an ETL, extract, transform, and load transaction. So you’re trying to collect the data for all those different operational databases and put them in a staging environment, structure them in a way. The key word here is structure. So we really, the big effort we made there was all about structuring the data, preparing the data for consumability, right? So we had to do that through the transform and load. And then we put it into the data warehouse. And once it’s in the data warehouse, let’s build a little data mart for our marketing guys, another one for our finance guys, another one for our operations guys. So where they can actually consume the data through reports from things like Power BI, et cetera. So that is the classic way of going about your data and analytics environment. The key words there were two. There’s data, there’s structured data. All of that is based on structured data. And there’s centralized data, right? We’re trying to centralize the data as much as we can, and we’re trying to structure it. And we’ve got centralized technology. Now, when you think of generative AI, it’s, like I said, it creates a new paradigm. You don’t have to have structured data. You don’t have to have centralized databases or even centralized technology. So that is changing. And let’s have a look at what that means. If you think of the use cases, we’ve been asking our clients, you know, using generative AI, where has it delivered for them? And in most cases, like we’ve got 21% saying that in software development, it’s been most effective, right? 19% saying in call center and help desk, it’s been very effective. And 19% in marketing content creation, and HR self-service, 4%. Right? So these are kind of the use cases that are developing. They’re changing by the day. But these ones have kind of proven themselves in a way more than others. But let’s think about those use cases. Take a moment to kind of zoom in on each one of them and look at what it really means in terms of data. So if you think of a call center agent, they take the call. And very much like what’s happening with me now, the call is being transcribed in real time, right? So the generative AI is playing in the background. It’s listening to the agent, listening to the customer. And it starts interpreting what’s going on. And through the intelligence that it has, through the access it has to corporate policies, our customer care portfolio, et cetera, it’s actually recommending to the agent what they need to do, what to advise the customer on the call, right? So not just that. After the call is over, it’s able to assess the agent and actually do the work of what a supervisor would typically do in a back office. So that is a compelling use case. And it’s working very well. We haven’t yet reached the stage where we’re saying we’re replacing the customer service agent. It’s probably going to happen maybe two years from now, five. I don’t know. But it’s probably going to happen. At the rate of acceleration that we’re seeing with the maturity of the technology, it will be good enough. Right now, it’s about assisting a customer service agent. But when you think of what that means in terms of data, what key data item have we used there? Data asset have we used there? It’s an audio file. It’s not even an audio file. It’s live audio, right? And perhaps also combined with our policies and our regulations and service portfolio. And again, that is something that’s probably in a PDF document. or something. Another use case that’s quite common, AI for resume screening. That’s being extensively used by the HR folks. And that’s basically the data asset there is email. So that’s unstructured data. Think of an advisor on legal. That’s another use case that’s also picking up. So use AI to advise you on legal by lawyers, basically. Likewise for HR also, when it comes to your HR policies. So what are we looking at here? We’re looking at a PDF repository. And a PDF repository is also a form of unstructured data. It’s not tabular. It’s not something that you can put into a database. And if you think of programming and software development, the data source there is a Git repository. It’s a code repository. So as you can see, the theme that we’re building here is that the data is very much unstructured. And when you think of unstructured data, you need to think of a messy room. So imagine yourself walking into a messy room. And there’s data everywhere. I mean, there’s data. We can’t even see it. But the beauty of generative AI, before generative AI, if you think of this analogy, we would have to clean up every inch of that room in order for us to use the data. But with generative AI, you don’t need to clean it anymore. You just leave it up to generative AI. And you’re able to pick up the data lying on the floor, the data on the sofa, the data in the pot, and even the data that we’re not seeing. It will figure out that there is a pair of running shoes under that cupboard. They’re size nine, and their color is pink. So it’s actually identifying the data that you’re seeing. And you can think, wow, that’s amazing. I don’t need to structure my data anymore. I don’t need to do the housekeeping. I can be lazy. Quite, to some extent, but not quite. Why? Because first of all, it’s expensive. So if you’re going to fully rely on generative AI to do the housekeeping, it’s an expensive housekeeper. But there’s another big reason why. Because of the risk. Right? So think of who you are going to let into your room. Who are you going to allow to touch your stuff? Right? So access rights is an extremely important part. You let it in, you will basically to vacuum everything that it can. It will label everything. It will capture all the data. And that might not go well for you. Think of your corporate presentations, your payroll, your organization chart, et cetera. So all of that, you need to be careful. Don’t want to leave the door open without control. So access rights, basically what we’re saying is, get the data, structure data. Your data will not be ready for AI until you do that. Get the data access rights for unstructured data. The other risk that we need to manage is data interpretation. Now we’ve all heard about AI hallucinations. Yes? AI hallucinations. Basically when it interprets things incorrectly. So large language models can sometimes get it wrong. Sometimes they can get it dramatically wrong. Now I’ll give you a simple example. Actually it might not be a large language model example, but it just shows how AI can be wrong. You see these pictures? These are pictures of what? Oh, bagels, right? But within the bagels, what else do we have there? We have dogs, right? AI doesn’t see that. You know, that’s something that wasn’t, it classified them all as being bagels. Another one, muffins, right? You see the dogs there? OK, I’m sure you do, because you’re human, right? Because AI builds up from the details. Humans fill in the missing details with their experience. So we need to be careful with what the AI gives of misinterpretation. And if we rely on it blindly, then we can really go astray. The second aspect of data, the risk of readiness, is that we need to guide the model. Our context. And that is basically two things, semantics and fine tuning, right? Semantics is basically where you tell it, what does revenue mean? So remember, if we talk about, you know, ChatGPT has the knowledge from the world. So it knows what revenue means in general. It doesn’t know what revenue means for my organization, right? A good example, a client of mine, you know, they were basically, they provide citizen services. But they provide citizen services within a specific jurisdiction, right? And they were trialing this generative AI chatbot with the citizens, where basically the citizen would come in, ask for the service, but they weren’t entitled for it, right? So the AI had to know that this person doesn’t live within that jurisdiction of services, and it had to tell them, I’m sorry, you’re not a resident of this particular county. Now, it didn’t do that. It was actually offering them the service. And that’s a problem, because the semantics weren’t actually done in the way that told them what it means by a citizen, right? The citizen of this particular service. So that’s the semantics. You need to work a lot on your data dictionary, and you need to fine tune the model. That’s true. So we talked about generative AI not needing the supervised learning. Well, I wasn’t 100% accurate when I said that. Generally, it doesn’t. But then when you want it to be useful for a particular use case, you need to fine tune the model. So that’s the other aspect of AI readiness, which is semantics and fine tuning. So when I talked about the housekeeper and we can be lazy, all right, I was only joking. Data management actually continues to be a necessary practice for taming the generative AI. That’s absolutely necessary. In fact, it’s even more important today. But perhaps we’re focusing on some of the less laborious efforts of structuring the data and more on the contextual efforts in what the data means. So we said there’s a new AI paradigm for enterprises. The data is unstructured. The data is no longer centralized. And the other thing is that applications are no longer centralized. So think of today, Gartner estimates that application providers, your software companies, only 5% of them today have a software provider. They have embedded AI in their software, only 5%. Now, in 2026, we believe 80% of all software providers will have a form of embedded AI. Now, 2026 is just around the corner, right? So that’s going to happen very soon, meaning that the AI you will leverage and utilize is not just the AI that you built. It’s actually the AI that will come to you with your software, right? And again, that’s good news, but it could be bad news. Remember when we talked about, who are you going to let into your messy room? So actually, this is a fact from Gartner. the Magic Quadrant, and this is one of the more recent Magic Quadrants that we have, which we’ve built specifically for the generative AI emerging markets for knowledge management applications. As you can see there, look at the number of players there, a lot of them would be familiar to you, all in a race to add AI features and functionality into their software, right? And this Magic Quadrant, we update every quarter. Typically, we update Magic Quadrants every year. For this one, we update it every quarter because the pace is phenomenal, right? So it changes from quarter to quarter. So that’s what’s happening. It’s a reality, you’re gonna get embedded AI, not just the AI that you build. And then, there’s another phenomenon which is even more dangerous. It’s what we call, bring your own AI, right? Right? Remember, bring your own device? Now it’s bring your own AI, because you know what? You’ve got your HR folks who say, we have this nice tool, our colleagues in company X are using it, and it’s fantastic. It makes our lives so much easier. We don’t need to read all the CVs or whatever. You’ve got your marketing folks already using so many stuff that’s creating their artifacts for them, and they never even ask for permission, right? So there’s this phenomenon of bring your own AI that is being progressively introduced to our organizations. And so if we look at the landscape, the evolution of the AI tech stack, this is a classic, this is the classic AI tech stack. Remember when I was showing you the diagram of the data warehouse, et cetera? So this is what you used to have, yeah? All data was centralized and structured. You’ve got an AI platform that you built, right? You’ve got your built AI. And then you serve different functions in your organization, right? How’s that changing? First thing, the data is. centralized, we have some data centralized, like you know, we talked about our policies, our customer records, et cetera. Yeah, that’s cool, we have it, it’s centralized. But now the data is coming from everywhere and every kind. You know, we talked about bring your own AI, talked about the embedded AI. And you’re going to have your AI platform, you’re going to build a lot of blended AI at the moment. Meaning that, for example, you can learn from open AI or from Microsoft and leverage them within an application of yours in order to not to reinvent the wheel, right? So you’ve got the blended AI, but on the top, you’ve also got the embedded AI where you have no control whatsoever in terms of what the AI does. It’s embedded in the software. And you’ve got your bring your own AI efforts that are completely wild and out of control. And in order for us to make sure that it doesn’t get wild and out of control, here comes this middle layer, the trust, risk, and security management. So we alluded to that when we were talking about semantics, when we were talking about access rights. So that’s extremely important. But it’s a conceptual layer there that every organization will need to build in order to mitigate the risk of generative AI. And then in the middle, on top of that, you’re going to have to have some governance, some actual committees. So you’re going to have a central AI committee that looks at, what are we going to allow in the organization, and what can we not permit? You’re going to have communities of practice where people are exchanging knowledge and experiences about their AI. And you’re going to have the trust, risk, security, and oversight. This, my friends, is what Gartner calls the technology sandwich, right? So this is our technology, AI technology sandwich that basically describes how. the AI landscape is evolving. And in fact, it’s a paradigm shift in how it has existed in the past years. And so we invite every company, every organization to really understand what Sandwich means for their organization. And look at what do they need to introduce. And it’s very much a learning curve. So I don’t think any organization we’ve seen has actually figured it out. This is a conceptual framework, and we need to make sure that we’re learning how to apply it. And so, let me conclude. First point, I need to emphasize that we are at the cusp of an AI revolution. And it’s triggered by the AI that was started by ChatGPT, but it’s not going to end there. The other take out is that at the individual level, we’re already feeling the impact. It’s making us much more productive. Each one of us is using it in different ways. And really, suddenly, I see emails that are so proficient that were maybe one year ago, were very different. So that is a reality. For enterprises, it will take longer than individuals because of the risks and the challenges of actually safely introducing AI. And in order to introduce AI safely, you need practices. So that’s a key input. And which basically two of them, access rights and fine tuning and semantics. And for IT leaders, technology leaders, you need to be prepared that you will not have everything centralized and fully under control. You will have to accept that there will be an ecosystem around you, but you just need to put the guardrails around it and not actually own every aspect and every piece of AI in your organization. And that basically means that you need to prepare and customize your own. technology sandwich. Bon appétit. Thank you. So thank you very much for your time. Please take some time to fill the survey of what you think of this session. So the QR code will take you to a landing page, and you’re going to see the title of the presentation. We have a question, please.


Audience: What are the, I would say, successful stories that you’ve had to apply to the max level and what were their experiences?


Alaa Zaher: OK. You’ve already asked your question. I’ll just summarize. So Amal, right? Amal. Amal. So Amal was asking, when it comes to the technology sandwich, what experiences have we seen in terms of fulfilling it successfully, right? Well, it’s a tricky question, because like I said, technology sandwich is a concept we just came up with a month ago. But if you break it down into its components, what we’re seeing are organizations that are fulfilling bits and parts, bits and pieces of it. So we’re seeing organizations that are actually introducing very strong security management practices. We’re seeing organizations that have committees for governance. We’re seeing organizations that are introducing data management and really harnessing, trying things out. So I was telling you about this example of the organization that was serving its citizens with this pilot chatbot. Interestingly enough, another instance where it went wrong was when somebody said, I’m unhappy with the service, right, and the chatbot was responding to them, the degenerative AI model, it said, OK, if you’re unhappy, you can escalate to the office of the minister, right? So this is. that you would never get your call center agent asking you to escalate to the office of the visitor. They should be proposing some solutions. And so what they learned on the back of that exercise is that they really need to double down on the semantics and the fine tuning. So there we see a lot of organizations that are now, that have actually made those trials and they’re learning how to master the art of fine tuning because it’s not easy. You need to look at all the consequences, all the possibilities and feed the model back with the learnings. So it’s an evolving landscape. And I think we’re all in that journey to learn together about it. Thank you very much for your question. Any other questions? Yes, please. Can you pass the mic?


Audience: So, oh yeah, so it is a nice presentation and I really like the technology sandwich thing you showed.


Alaa Zaher: I can hear you. Can you turn the volume up? Okay, because that goes straight to the headset. Oh, nevermind, I’ll just come closer. Everybody else can hear, it’s just me.


Audience: Hopefully. Yeah, so I really like the technology sandwich bit. How do you think these big AI labs like Google DeepMind and OpenAI, they have certain frameworks. So I think OpenAI has their preparedness framework and DeepMind has the frontier safety frameworks. What would you like those labs to do in the line of your technology sandwich to make safer AI and so on?


Alaa Zaher: Thank you, that’s an excellent question. So the question is about the big tech giants, the people who actually produce the generative AI. You remember we said most of us will not create generative AI, we’ll just leverage it, right? We’ll just leverage it from Google, from Amazon, from OpenAI, et cetera. Now, in Gartner, we also talk about two AI races, right? There’s the tech vendor race, the Googles of the world, and there is end user. The tech vendor race is an accelerated race, as we saw in those embedded AI functionality. So they’re going full on, wanting to capture land and be first. For us, in our organizations, we can take our time and slow down. And especially if our industry is not being disrupted by AI. So we’re still kind of very much, most organizations are in this improvement of productivity. So there’s no sense of urgency in terms of, I need to do this very quickly. So my advice is that, as an organization, if you’re not being disrupted, then maybe you have the leverage to actually start installing those practices and looking at what the vendors are providing and deciding safely what matters to you. Now for them, obviously, they’re gonna push. You know, I’ve had customers where they’ve deployed Microsoft Copilot, OpenAI on Azure, and they came back with huge bill shocks to start with, right? The cost of the tokens is incredible, right? And so we just need to slow down. We don’t, we should not be following the vendors because they will try to sell us as much as we can, as they can. And the business case for generative AI is still very much under development, yeah? So what you spend is not necessarily gonna give you an immediate return. So we say there’s a steady pace. For most organizations, it’s the steady pace. For other organizations, it might be an accelerated pace, but then there’ll have to be some, yeah? I hope, all right. Thank you very much. We’ve got two more questions in five minutes. I’ll take this one first.


Audience: From your experience with different, from your experience with different customers, it is expected that to increase the generative AI with enterprise and a lot of entities will start to develop their own generative AI models to protect their data. Or it is expected to dominate from the big guys.


Alaa Zaher: Yeah. Again, a brilliant question. So Mohamed is asking whether we should, are we seeing organizations developing their own generative AI large language models? Not necessarily large language models, but are we building it in-house rather than using it directly from a provider? For example, you can use open source large language models on Hugging Face, et cetera, or Lama, for example. So we’re seeing organizations leverage those open source models. Why? Because they want to host them internally. They don’t want them to be on the cloud. But that then requires a lot of skill in terms of being able to leverage that model internally in-house. So there’s more effort there. And also, less maintainability. You’ll have to take care of it, just like any open source piece of software. So you’re going to own it. And so you’re going to have to have the skill sets to maintain it in the future. We’re seeing that being a driver for many organizations that don’t want to be exposed. So they get the large language model. It’s hosted. And then they need to invest in GPUs. That’s another limitation. So they need to actually start investing. When I talked about cloud, it takes away the hassle and the investment in your infrastructure. Well, you’re going to have to invest in it if you’re going to host it internally. So really, I think it’s a trade-off. We’re seeing some organizations, typically those that have good software engineering capability, they tend to go down that route. They want to try things out for themselves. But many of the organizations that are typically dependent on third parties and outsource, very difficult for them to do that. So they just go down the route of third parties. And one final question from you, please.


Audience: Thank you very much for the presentation.


Alaa Zaher: Very nice. I’ll have to come closer.


Audience: Yes. My name is Martina Legal-Malakova. I am from GAIAxApp Slovakia, which is focusing on data spaces and data sharing. And I have a question to your presentation, because on the slide, data analytics and NI landscape, you put data sharing as a social initiative. Why?


Alaa Zaher: Yeah. OK. Well, thank you, thank you for that. Yeah, so your question is on the slide where we had the ecosystem of data and analytics, you said data sharing part of the social. Yes, so many organizations are looking to leverage some data assets and some data components that they have to the benefit of external parties.


Audience: Yes, but I ask you, for example, for example, as I am focusing on data spaces, but the most important data spaces is for the… Sorry. For the most important data sharing is for the, for example, manufacturing sector, energy sector, circular economy, and this is why I asked you the question, why you put on this social initiative? Right. It is really business initiatives.


Alaa Zaher: It could be a mix of business and social. I’ll give you an example. When I worked for a telecoms company, like I said, we sat on vast amounts of data, and the data was about, a big part of it was about consumer behavior, right? We knew where everybody lived, where they go, who they called, and we created models to basically profile consumers. And that model could be interesting, in the same way that the social media companies do, like Facebook, they do targeted advertising. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you


A

Alaa Zaher

Speech speed

154 words per minute

Speech length

8295 words

Speech time

3212 seconds

AI has progressed from traditional machine learning to generative AI

Explanation

Alaa Zaher discusses the evolution of AI from traditional machine learning techniques to more advanced generative AI models. This progression represents a significant leap in AI capabilities and applications.


Evidence

The speaker mentions the transition from supervised learning models like image classification to large language models like ChatGPT.


Major Discussion Point

Evolution and Impact of AI


Agreed with

Agreed on

AI has evolved significantly and is becoming more accessible


Generative AI like ChatGPT has created a revolutionary milestone in AI capabilities

Explanation

Alaa Zaher emphasizes the revolutionary impact of generative AI, particularly models like ChatGPT. These models represent a significant advancement in AI’s ability to generate human-like text and perform complex tasks.


Evidence

The speaker demonstrates ChatGPT’s capabilities by showing its ability to summarize the story of Cinderella in different word counts and generate poetry in Arabic.


Major Discussion Point

Evolution and Impact of AI


Agreed with

Agreed on

AI has evolved significantly and is becoming more accessible


AI is becoming ubiquitous and accessible at the consumer/individual level

Explanation

Alaa Zaher argues that AI, especially generative AI, is becoming widely available and accessible to individual users. This democratization of AI technology is changing how people interact with and utilize AI in their daily lives.


Evidence

The speaker mentions examples of individuals using AI for writing, PowerPoint creation, and learning.


Major Discussion Point

Evolution and Impact of AI


Agreed with

Agreed on

AI has evolved significantly and is becoming more accessible


74% of CEOs believe generative AI will have a profound impact on their industry

Explanation

Alaa Zaher presents survey data showing a significant increase in CEOs’ belief in AI’s impact on their industries. This statistic indicates a growing recognition of AI’s potential to transform various sectors.


Evidence

The speaker cites a Gartner survey showing an increase from 20% to 74% of CEOs believing in AI’s significant impact on their industry from previous years to 2024.


Major Discussion Point

Evolution and Impact of AI


Traditional machine learning required structured, centralized data

Explanation

Alaa Zaher explains that traditional machine learning approaches relied heavily on structured and centralized data. This approach required significant effort in data preparation and management.


Evidence

The speaker describes the traditional data warehouse model with ETL (extract, transform, load) processes for structuring data.


Major Discussion Point

Data Requirements for AI


Agreed with

Agreed on

Data management remains crucial for AI implementation


Generative AI can work with unstructured data from various sources

Explanation

Alaa Zaher highlights that generative AI models can effectively utilize unstructured data from diverse sources. This capability represents a significant shift in how AI can process and learn from information.


Evidence

The speaker provides examples of generative AI working with audio files, emails, PDF documents, and code repositories.


Major Discussion Point

Data Requirements for AI


Agreed with

Agreed on

Data management remains crucial for AI implementation


Data management and governance are still necessary for effective AI use

Explanation

Alaa Zaher emphasizes that despite advancements in AI’s ability to work with unstructured data, organizations still need robust data management and governance practices. These practices are crucial for ensuring the responsible and effective use of AI.


Evidence

The speaker introduces the concept of a ‘technology sandwich’ that includes layers for trust, risk, and security management in AI implementations.


Major Discussion Point

Data Requirements for AI


Agreed with

Agreed on

Data management remains crucial for AI implementation


Organizations need to focus on data semantics and fine-tuning for AI

Explanation

Alaa Zaher argues that organizations must pay attention to data semantics and model fine-tuning to ensure AI systems understand and operate within the specific context of their business. This is crucial for accurate and relevant AI outputs.


Evidence

The speaker provides an example of a chatbot misunderstanding the context of citizen services, highlighting the need for proper semantics and fine-tuning.


Major Discussion Point

Data Requirements for AI


Agreed with

Agreed on

Data management remains crucial for AI implementation


Organizations need to prepare for a new AI paradigm with decentralized applications

Explanation

Alaa Zaher suggests that organizations must adapt to a new AI paradigm where applications are increasingly decentralized. This shift requires a different approach to AI implementation and management within enterprises.


Evidence

The speaker mentions that by 2026, 80% of software providers are expected to have embedded AI in their products, compared to only 5% currently.


Major Discussion Point

Enterprise AI Readiness


Companies should develop a “technology sandwich” approach to manage AI risks

Explanation

Alaa Zaher introduces the concept of a ‘technology sandwich’ as a framework for managing AI risks in organizations. This approach involves layering various components of AI implementation, including data, applications, and governance.


Evidence

The speaker describes the technology sandwich model, which includes layers for data, AI platforms, trust and risk management, and governance.


Major Discussion Point

Enterprise AI Readiness


There’s a trade-off between using third-party AI services and developing in-house capabilities

Explanation

Alaa Zaher discusses the decision organizations face between using external AI services and developing their own AI capabilities. This trade-off involves considerations of control, cost, and expertise.


Evidence

The speaker mentions that organizations with strong software engineering capabilities might prefer to host AI models internally, while others may rely on third-party services.


Major Discussion Point

Enterprise AI Readiness


Organizations face challenges in safely introducing AI due to risks

Explanation

Alaa Zaher highlights the challenges organizations face when implementing AI, particularly regarding safety and risk management. These challenges necessitate careful consideration and planning in AI adoption.


Evidence

The speaker mentions the need for access rights management and the risks associated with AI misinterpretation and hallucinations.


Major Discussion Point

Challenges and Considerations for AI Adoption


Cost considerations are important when deploying AI solutions

Explanation

Alaa Zaher emphasizes the importance of considering costs when implementing AI solutions. The expenses associated with AI deployment can be significant and need to be factored into decision-making.


Evidence

The speaker mentions examples of organizations facing ‘huge bill shocks’ when deploying AI solutions like Microsoft Copilot.


Major Discussion Point

Challenges and Considerations for AI Adoption


A

Audience

Speech speed

148 words per minute

Speech length

273 words

Speech time

110 seconds

Successful AI implementation requires strong security practices and governance

Explanation

An audience member highlights the importance of robust security practices and governance in successful AI implementation. This point underscores the need for organizations to have proper safeguards and oversight in place when adopting AI technologies.


Major Discussion Point

Enterprise AI Readiness


There’s a need to balance the push from AI vendors with organizational readiness

Explanation

An audience member raises the point about balancing the aggressive marketing from AI vendors with an organization’s actual readiness to adopt AI. This suggests that organizations should carefully assess their capabilities and needs before rushing into AI adoption.


Major Discussion Point

Challenges and Considerations for AI Adoption


Data sharing for AI has both business and social implications

Explanation

An audience member questions the categorization of data sharing as a social initiative, pointing out that it has significant business implications as well. This highlights the dual nature of data sharing in AI, affecting both social and economic spheres.


Evidence

The audience member mentions examples of data sharing in manufacturing, energy, and circular economy sectors.


Major Discussion Point

Challenges and Considerations for AI Adoption


Agreements

Agreement Points

AI has evolved significantly and is becoming more accessible

speakers

Alaa Zaher


arguments

AI has progressed from traditional machine learning to generative AI


Generative AI like ChatGPT has created a revolutionary milestone in AI capabilities


AI is becoming ubiquitous and accessible at the consumer/individual level


summary

There is a consensus that AI has evolved from traditional machine learning to more advanced generative AI, creating a revolutionary milestone in capabilities and becoming more accessible to individuals and consumers.


Data management remains crucial for AI implementation

speakers

Alaa Zaher


arguments

Traditional machine learning required structured, centralized data


Generative AI can work with unstructured data from various sources


Data management and governance are still necessary for effective AI use


Organizations need to focus on data semantics and fine-tuning for AI


summary

While AI has evolved to work with unstructured data, there is agreement that proper data management, governance, semantics, and fine-tuning remain crucial for effective AI implementation.


Similar Viewpoints

Organizations need to adapt to a new AI paradigm by implementing strong security practices, governance, and risk management approaches like the ‘technology sandwich’ model.

speakers

Alaa Zaher


Audience


arguments

Organizations need to prepare for a new AI paradigm with decentralized applications


Companies should develop a ‘technology sandwich’ approach to manage AI risks


Successful AI implementation requires strong security practices and governance


Unexpected Consensus

Balancing AI vendor push with organizational readiness

speakers

Alaa Zaher


Audience


arguments

There’s a trade-off between using third-party AI services and developing in-house capabilities


There’s a need to balance the push from AI vendors with organizational readiness


explanation

Both the speaker and audience unexpectedly agreed on the need for organizations to carefully balance the aggressive marketing from AI vendors with their actual readiness and capabilities for AI adoption. This consensus highlights the importance of thoughtful and measured AI implementation strategies.


Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the significant evolution and increasing accessibility of AI, the continued importance of data management in AI implementation, and the need for organizations to adapt to a new AI paradigm with proper security and governance measures.


Consensus level

There is a moderate level of consensus among the speakers, primarily focused on the technical aspects and organizational challenges of AI adoption. This consensus implies a shared understanding of the current state and future direction of AI in enterprises, which could lead to more focused discussions on implementation strategies and risk management in AI adoption.


Differences

Different Viewpoints

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of subtle disagreement or different emphasis were on the implications of data sharing and the specific focus areas for AI governance and security.


difference_level

The level of disagreement was minimal, with most differences being in emphasis rather than fundamental disagreement. This suggests a general consensus on the importance and challenges of AI implementation, with slight variations in focus areas based on individual perspectives and experiences.


Partial Agreements

Partial Agreements

Both Alaa Zaher and the audience member agree on the importance of governance and security practices in AI implementation. However, Zaher focuses more on data management aspects, while the audience member emphasizes overall security practices.

speakers

Alaa Zaher


Audience


arguments

Alaa Zaher emphasizes that despite advancements in AI’s ability to work with unstructured data, organizations still need robust data management and governance practices. These practices are crucial for ensuring the responsible and effective use of AI.


An audience member highlights the importance of robust security practices and governance in successful AI implementation. This point underscores the need for organizations to have proper safeguards and oversight in place when adopting AI technologies.


Similar Viewpoints

Organizations need to adapt to a new AI paradigm by implementing strong security practices, governance, and risk management approaches like the ‘technology sandwich’ model.

speakers

Alaa Zaher


Audience


arguments

Organizations need to prepare for a new AI paradigm with decentralized applications


Companies should develop a ‘technology sandwich’ approach to manage AI risks


Successful AI implementation requires strong security practices and governance


Takeaways

Key Takeaways

AI has evolved from traditional machine learning to more advanced generative AI capabilities


Generative AI is becoming ubiquitous and accessible at the individual/consumer level


74% of CEOs believe generative AI will have a profound impact on their industry


Organizations need to prepare for a new AI paradigm with decentralized data and applications


Data management and governance remain crucial for effective AI implementation


Companies should develop a ‘technology sandwich’ approach to manage AI risks and implementation


There’s a trade-off between using third-party AI services and developing in-house capabilities


Resolutions and Action Items

Organizations should focus on data semantics and fine-tuning for AI implementation


Companies need to install strong security practices and governance for AI adoption


Enterprises should take a measured approach to AI adoption if their industry is not being disrupted


Unresolved Issues

The full extent of generative AI’s impact on various industries


Best practices for balancing the push from AI vendors with organizational readiness


Optimal strategies for cost management when deploying AI solutions


The role and implications of data sharing in AI development across different sectors


Suggested Compromises

Organizations can leverage open-source AI models to host internally while balancing the need for specialized skills and infrastructure investment


Companies can adopt a steady pace for AI implementation instead of rushing to match the accelerated pace of tech vendors


Thought Provoking Comments

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

speaker

Alaa Zaher (quoting Arthur C. Clarke)


reason

This quote sets the stage for discussing AI as a revolutionary technology that seems magical to many people. It frames the subsequent discussion of AI capabilities in an intriguing way.


impact

It led to examples of AI capabilities that seem magical, like ChatGPT’s ability to summarize stories or generate poetry in different languages. This framed AI as something extraordinary and captured the audience’s attention.


No data, no AI, sounds like a song from Bob Marley, right?

speaker

Alaa Zaher


reason

This catchy phrase emphasizes the critical importance of data for AI in a memorable way. It distills a complex concept into a simple, relatable idea.


impact

It transitioned the discussion into the importance of data for AI systems, leading to an explanation of different data types and sources needed for various AI applications.


AI is becoming everyone’s business. It’s becoming accessible to everyone.

speaker

Alaa Zaher


reason

This statement highlights a key shift in AI adoption and accessibility, moving from specialized applications to widespread use.


impact

It shifted the conversation to discuss how individuals and organizations are using AI tools in their daily work, emphasizing the democratization of AI technology.


Every two and a half days a new foundation model is created.

speaker

Alaa Zaher


reason

This statistic vividly illustrates the rapid pace of AI development and the intense competition in the field.


impact

It underscored the urgency for organizations to consider their AI readiness and strategy, leading to a discussion about CEO perceptions of AI’s impact on their industries.


Remember when we talked about, who are you going to let into your messy room?

speaker

Alaa Zaher


reason

This metaphor effectively communicates the risks associated with giving AI systems access to unstructured organizational data.


impact

It led to a discussion about the importance of data management, access rights, and security considerations when implementing AI systems in organizations.


Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by guiding it through several important aspects of AI adoption and implementation. They moved from the initial ‘wow factor’ of AI capabilities to practical considerations of data requirements, accessibility, rapid development, and security concerns. The speaker used relatable metaphors and striking statistics to make complex concepts more digestible, which likely helped maintain audience engagement throughout the presentation. The comments also facilitated a progression from general AI concepts to specific organizational challenges and strategies, providing a comprehensive overview of the AI landscape for enterprises.


Follow-up Questions

What are the successful stories of organizations applying the technology sandwich concept?

speaker

Audience member (Amal)


explanation

This question seeks to understand real-world implementations and experiences with the newly introduced technology sandwich concept, which could provide valuable insights for other organizations.


What should big AI labs like Google DeepMind and OpenAI do in line with the technology sandwich concept to make safer AI?

speaker

Audience member


explanation

This question explores how major AI developers can contribute to safer AI development and implementation, which is crucial for the responsible advancement of AI technology.


Is it expected that enterprises will develop their own generative AI models to protect their data, or will the big tech companies dominate?

speaker

Audience member (Mohamed)


explanation

This question addresses the future direction of generative AI development in enterprises, which has significant implications for data security and the AI market landscape.


Why is data sharing categorized as a social initiative rather than a business initiative in the data analytics and AI landscape?

speaker

Audience member (Martina Legal-Malakova)


explanation

This question challenges the categorization of data sharing, highlighting the need to clarify the business aspects of data sharing in various sectors.


Disclaimer: This is not an official record of the session. The DiploAI system automatically generates these resources from the audiovisual recording. Resources are presented in their original format, as provided by the AI (e.g. including any spelling mistakes). The accuracy of these resources cannot be guaranteed.

Day 0 Event #58 IPv6 MS Collaboration: A Path to Digital Inclusion in ME

Day 0 Event #58 IPv6 MS Collaboration: A Path to Digital Inclusion in ME

Session at a Glance

Summary

This discussion focused on the impact of multi-stakeholder collaboration on IPv6 deployment, particularly in the Middle East region. Participants from regulatory bodies, technical communities, and international organizations shared their experiences and insights.


The conversation highlighted successful IPv6 deployment strategies in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, where collaboration between regulators, service providers, and technical experts led to significant progress. Both countries emphasized the importance of awareness-raising, capacity building, and giving stakeholders time to transition smoothly.


Speakers stressed that regulation alone was not the best approach. Instead, fostering collaboration, understanding technical needs, and aligning with business refresh cycles proved more effective. The ITU representative noted a shift in interest from governments to operators in recent years, driven by changing business models and increased digitization needs.


The discussion touched on challenges faced by countries lagging in IPv6 adoption, often due to a lack of understanding of its importance or poorly implemented strategies. Speakers emphasized the need for a collaborative approach involving all stakeholders to drive successful IPv6 deployment.


A key point raised was the distinction between regulating the Internet itself and regulating applications that run on it. Participants cautioned against conflating Internet infrastructure issues with platform-specific problems.


The conversation concluded by highlighting the importance of leadership in driving innovation and competitive advantage in the digital space, with governments often taking the lead in the Middle East region. The need for continued multi-stakeholder collaboration was emphasized as crucial for addressing future technological challenges and opportunities.


Keypoints

Major discussion points:


– The importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in driving IPv6 adoption


– Successful IPv6 deployment strategies in Saudi Arabia and UAE


– Challenges in getting stakeholders to adopt IPv6 and overcoming skepticism


– The role of government leadership vs. regulation in promoting IPv6


– Distinguishing between internet infrastructure issues and application/platform issues


Overall purpose:


The goal of this discussion was to highlight how collaboration between governments, regulators, the technical community and private sector can drive IPv6 deployment, using successful examples from the Middle East region. The speakers aimed to share best practices and lessons learned to encourage further IPv6 adoption.


Tone:


The overall tone was positive and collaborative. Speakers were enthusiastic about sharing their experiences and successes. There was a sense of pride in the region’s accomplishments with IPv6. The tone became slightly more serious when discussing challenges and the need for leadership, but remained constructive throughout. There was an emphasis on working together and avoiding a heavy-handed regulatory approach.


Speakers

– CHAFIC CHAYA: Moderator


– MUSAAB ALAMMAR: Director of Internet Technologies Development Department, CST, Saudi Arabia


– ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI: Director of Policy and Programs Department, Telecommunication and Digital Government Regulatory Authority (TIDRA), UAE


– HISHAM IBRAHIM: Chief Community Officer, RIPE NCC


– ADEL DARWICH: Director of ITU Arab Regional Office


Additional speakers:


– KHALED FATTAL: Internet governance expert


Full session report

IPv6 Deployment and Multi-stakeholder Collaboration in the Middle East


This summary is based on a panel discussion at an Internet Governance Forum (IGF) event, focusing on the impact of multi-stakeholder collaboration on IPv6 deployment in the Middle East region. Participants from regulatory bodies, technical communities, and international organisations shared their experiences and insights, highlighting successful strategies and addressing challenges in IPv6 adoption.


Key Achievements and Strategies


The conversation showcased notable successes in IPv6 deployment, particularly in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Saudi Arabia achieved a 65% IPv6 adoption rate through a comprehensive national strategy. Musaab Alammar, representing Saudi Arabia, emphasised their “secret recipe” of establishing an IPv6 task force that brought together operators and experts nationwide. This approach facilitated periodic discussions on the importance and challenges of IPv6, provided a safe environment for experimentation, and allowed stakeholders the necessary time to upgrade their equipment without premature reinvestment.


Alammar also highlighted their efforts on the enterprise side, creating a manual for IPv6 implementation. Additionally, he mentioned the Qiyas program, which measures the readiness of governmental entities for digital transformation, including IPv6 adoption.


The UAE increased its IPv6 adoption from 2% to 30% in one year (2019 to 2020), and then to around 55% later. Abdulrahman Almarzooqi, representing the UAE, highlighted their preference for collaboration over regulation. He noted that initially, there were internal discussions about implementing regulations to mandate IPv6 adoption. However, Almarzooqi opposed regulatory instruments, favouring a more collaborative approach that proved successful.


Both countries emphasised the importance of awareness-raising, capacity building, and allowing stakeholders time to transition smoothly. This gradual, planned approach, which considered equipment refresh cycles, was deemed more effective than strict mandates for IPv6 implementation.


Challenges and Solutions


Despite these successes, speakers acknowledged several challenges in IPv6 adoption. A key issue is that IPv6 is not directly revenue-generating for operators, which can lead to hesitation in adoption. Musaab Alammar noted that gradual equipment upgrades were necessary to support IPv6, highlighting the need for a measured approach to implementation.


Adel Darwich, representing the ITU, observed a shift in interest from governments to operators in recent years. This change is driven by evolving business models and increased digitisation needs. Darwich emphasised the importance of capacity building and awareness-raising to overcome these challenges. He also highlighted the ITU’s role in supporting IPv6 adoption, including their work with RIPE NCC on capacity building and their support for light-touch regulation.


The discussion also touched on the scepticism surrounding IPv6 adoption. Hisham Ibrahim pointed out that the anticipated crisis of IPv4 exhaustion in the 1990s never materialised, which has led to complacency in some quarters. However, he reframed this as a positive outcome, emphasising that IPv6 remains crucial for future innovation and connectivity. Ibrahim also stressed the importance of allowing for permissionless innovation in IPv6 adoption.


Khaled Fattal highlighted the need for leadership to drive adoption, especially when there isn’t a clear business case. He emphasised the importance of innovation and thinking outside the box to create competitive advantages for countries.


Regulation and Internet Governance


A significant portion of the discussion centred on the role of regulation and governance in IPv6 adoption and broader internet issues. Speakers stressed that regulation alone was not the best approach to encouraging IPv6 adoption. Instead, fostering collaboration, understanding technical needs, and aligning with business refresh cycles proved more effective.


Hisham Ibrahim raised a crucial point about the distinction between regulating the Internet itself and regulating applications that run on it. He used the example of his son playing Fortnite to illustrate the difference between internet infrastructure issues and platform-specific problems. Ibrahim cautioned against conflating these issues, noting that many governance discussions focus on “fixing the internet” when they are actually addressing platform issues. This observation highlighted the need for a nuanced understanding of internet technology layers when considering policy and regulation.


The Role of Leadership and Collaboration


The conversation concluded by emphasising the importance of leadership in driving innovation and competitive advantage in the digital space. In the Middle East region, governments often take the lead in this regard. Abdulrahman Almarzooqi noted that the UAE government is leading in mobile application development. However, speakers also stressed the need for continued multi-stakeholder collaboration as crucial for addressing future technological challenges and opportunities.


Adel Darwich highlighted the ITU’s role in supporting capacity building and policy development for IPv6. This support extends beyond individual countries, aiming to bridge the digital divide and connect the 2.6 billion people worldwide who remain unconnected. He also mentioned the establishment of an IPv6 ITU Center in Sudan to support regional efforts.


Unresolved Issues and Future Directions


While the discussion showcased significant progress, several unresolved issues emerged. These include how to accelerate IPv6 adoption in countries lagging behind in the region, creating compelling business cases for IPv6 adoption in certain contexts, and striking the right balance between regulation and collaboration in technology adoption.


The speakers suggested potential compromises, such as using ‘soft regulation’ and collaborative approaches rather than strict mandates for IPv6 adoption. They also advocated for allowing gradual equipment upgrades to support IPv6 rather than forcing immediate overhauls.


Looking forward, the discussion highlighted the need for continued efforts to increase IPv6 adoption above 70% in leading countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Additionally, there is a pressing need to support other countries in the region to catch up with IPv6 deployment, ensuring a more uniform digital landscape across the Middle East.


In conclusion, the discussion underscored the critical role of multi-stakeholder collaboration in driving IPv6 adoption. By sharing experiences and best practices, the speakers provided valuable insights into successful deployment strategies, challenges, and the importance of leadership in technological advancement. As the region continues to progress in its digital transformation, the lessons learned from these experiences will be crucial in shaping future approaches to internet infrastructure development and governance.


Session Transcript

CHAFIC CHAYA: It’s an honour to welcome you in this session, Day Zero session about the impact of multi-stakeholder collaboration on IPv6 deployment. This Day Zero session is co-organised by RIPE NCC and Communication, Space and Technology Commission in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. So welcome and here today we will highlight how collaboration, trust and shared vision and goals between the governments, regulators, technical community and private sector can drive a real impact in IPv6 deployment. As you know the Middle East region is not strange or not far from the innovation. Through this collaboration and through this partnership we achieved a remarkable progress in IPv6. And IPv6 is not only an upgrade for the technology, as you know it’s a vital and critical tool for the future of the internet. IPv6 ensures scalability, ensures connectivity and helps the ITU efforts in bridging the 2.7 unconnected till now to be connected. Our multi-stakeholder approach with governments and regulators from across the region, CST in Saudi, TIDRA in UAE, TRAs in Bahrain, Oman, CITRA in Kuwait, collaboration with inter-governmental and regional organisations like ITU, SAMENA, ARISPA, ESCWA. So all these efforts really fostering our achievements and our efforts in the IPv6 deployment. Once again, I welcome you for this session. I welcome our online audience. My colleague, Vahan, will help as online moderator. And a big thank you, thanks for my colleague, Ulka, who will be the reporter for this session. So without further ado, let me introduce my colleagues and friends. I have with me today, Mr. Abdelrahman Al-Marzouki, director of ITU Arab regional office. I have with me today, Mr. Misab Al-Ammar, director of Internet Technologies Development Department, CST, Saudi Arabia. Mr. Abdelrahman Al-Marzouki, director of Policy and Program Department, TIDRA, United Arab Emirates. Mr. Hisham Rahim, Chief Community Officer, RIPE NCC. And I have with me today, Mr. Hisham Rahim, chief community officer, RIPE NCC, and we have here with us Mr. Hisham Rahim from RIPE NCC, who will give us a nice overview on the IPv6 status in the region. Hisham, the floor is yours.


HISHAM IBRAHIM: Hisham Rahim, Chief Community Officer, RIPE NCC. Hisham Rahim, Chief Community Officer, RIPE NCC. Hisham Rahim, Chief Community Officer, RIPE NCC. Hi, everyone. Pleasure to be here with you this afternoon. I’ve been at RIPE NCC for about a year and a half, I think over a decade, so it was well overdue. I’m very happy to be here in this session talking about something that’s very dear to the RIR systems, the organisations that distribute IP addresses, but also to mine, which is IPv6. So, I’m very happy to be here and to be connected through open standards that ensure interoperability. registration services that ensure uniqueness, and global structures that develop these protocols, standards, and frameworks for accountability. The underpinning technology that connects these thousands of devices, these thousands of networks. If you were in the session this morning, my colleague Ulka was on a panel that they were talking about how there are 70,000 different networks around the world that interconnect. The underlying, the underpinning technology is IP. So behind every connected device there needs to be an address that allows it to connect to the rest of the world. Now again, very quick historical view, the technology that was used since the beginning of the Internet was something called IP version 4, which allowed for a finite number of addresses to connect. Now it became very clear in the early 90s that we will not have enough IPv4 addresses to continue to grow the Internet, which is why IPv6, the successor protocol, was developed. Now Trawik wants me to talk about the success in the region, I think this session will mostly cover that, but I also want to address something early on. That there has been skepticism about the importance of IPv6, simply because the expected run out of IPv4, the crisis that people anticipated in the 90s, never really happened. And that’s a good thing, not necessarily a bad thing. The Internet continued to grow and evolve, people continue to find ways to introduce transition mechanisms that allowed v4 and v6 to continue to exist, other technologies. So we didn’t really hit any crisis points, which leads some skeptics to say, well, is IPv6 really needed? And the answer today is still, yes it is. And for one key purpose, which ties back to why the Internet exists in the first place, which is permissionless innovation, allowing more people to come up with new ideas and putting it on the internet. Just like we’ve seen in the past few decades where the web came on top of the internet, social media came on top of that, and now whatever new technologies and hypes we’re talking about in these meetings, blockchain, AI and other stuff. Now to Shafiq’s question and summing up quickly, in the region here we have seen the numbers growing up to the right, which also indicates a healthy IPv6 deployment. We’re seeing in many countries, and you’re going to hear examples from my colleagues about what they’ve been doing in their countries that have really driven up not just the number of resources of IPv6 resources in the country, but also how they’re being used, how they penetrate all the way to the end user, how the numbers from the content providers are going up, how they are securing these resources through RPKI, and they are actually putting them on the routing tables and de-aggregating them, meaning that they’re doing better routing. So in a very quick nutshell, the region here, the Middle East, is doing really well when it comes to IPv6, and we have a couple of countries that are actually leading the world, which we’re going to be talking about in a second. Shafiq, back to you.


CHAFIC CHAYA: Thank you, Hisham. Thank you so much. So this was the overview from the technical community. Today with us, to celebrate this successful multi-stakeholder approach, we have two shining examples from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. My question to Musab from CST in Saudi, how CST did manage to put all these players together and fostering this multi-stakeholder efforts in deploying IPv6 in the kingdom, now you are rating fourth globally and first regionally.


MUSAAB ALAMMAR: Hello everyone. Are you able to hear me? Okay, good. Thank you so much for giving us this question. It’s an opportunity to show what has been done so far by CST in the Kingdom. Our efforts started a long time ago. I believe it started since 2008. We started the idea of the collaboration that we need all of the stakeholders know the importance of the IPv6 and the risk that the IPv4 will have very soon because of the depletion. So, due to the fact, we started at that time as a national strategy with an objective of making sure that the IPv6, sorry, the IPv4 depletion will be not a risk for us, for the business community. Going through making sure that we have a smooth transition and awareness and capacity building. So, at that time, we had kind of a strategy of three focuses. One on the service providers and the second one on the enterprise, which represents the supply, let’s say. And lastly, the end users. So, having multiple focuses on those three main stakeholders gave us the leverage to be today one of the top countries in terms of adopting IPv6. And these stages, of course, we had support from the academia, the technical experts such as RIPE NCC and others to have, let’s say, more than 20 training programs and more than 500 participants to make sure that we have a community that knows the importance of IPv6 adoption and the real value of it in the near future for the digital transformation.


CHAFIC CHAYA: Thank you, Mustafa. Thank you so much. And I will not say a secret that your close collaboration as regulator with us, as RIPE NCC, was the main driver for this successful IPv6 deployment in Saudi Arabia. Thank you once again. We have another example. Our friend and colleague, Abdelrahman, here with us. So, you heard Meshab about the experience in Saudi Arabia. What was your experience as TIDRA in UAE? And how it differs from the experience from Saudi Arabia?


ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI: Peace be upon you, everyone. Pleased to be here. My name is Abdelrahman Marzouki. I’m a Director of Policy and Programs Department within the Telecommunication and Digital Government Regulatory Authority in the UAE. IPv6 has been with me since I joined TIDRA in 2006. That was one of the first projects that I had. So, since 2006, we’re still working on IPv6. So, it’s very, very dear to my heart. I remember the first time I had a training about IPv6 in 2006. And everybody was saying that we have to move from IPv4 to IPv6. Depletion is coming sometime in the future. Of course, it happened. I mean, the depletion on the regional Internet registries, I think sometime in 2013. So, a few years later. And everybody was saying we have to move on. And then when reality is, the telecom operators who ultimately distribute IP addresses to users, basically say, where is the business case for it, what do I’m going to sell you know we don’t sell IP IPv6 we don’t we don’t sell IPv4 we sell you know connectivity we sell hosting services and now then later became cloud services but we don’t sell IP addresses so and but the engineers basically say well we need because our IPv6 v4 is not enough then the engineers are you know they think about solutions and they say well we can do nothing basically to reuse private IP addresses so we don’t need as much public IP addresses and that kept going on for many many years in the UAE we managed to get IPv6 from 2% in 2019 to 30% in 2020 within one year 18 months that jump happened because we realized enough is enough we have to change we have to you know we are talking about it we’re planning we’re testing we’re doing all of that for maybe over a decade but then there has to be a point where we shift and change and make it a reality and thankfully TDRA with the collaboration of all the stakeholders in a multi stakeholder approach we invited everybody from telecom operators to device manufacturers to network LIRs network operators with the support of RIPE NCC as well in 2019 we put a plan and we put certain targets but actually the benefits the benefits of moving from IPv4 to IPv6 less complexity in terms of networks, more efficiency, routing, security, all the benefits of and we had to get rid of all these NATing devices so that also a cost that could be saved and then in 2020 we managed to get around 30 percent IPv6 and now we reached around above 50 percent in regionally I think Saudi Arabia is leading the region and we learned from our brothers from Saudi Arabia they’re leading in the IPv6 and I think the steps that we took probably are identical to so your question was how different it is it’s not different it’s exactly the same we need to have a direction we have to have everybody in one table and then you know be serious about it then it will happen and thankfully today Saudi Arabia is over 60 I think 65 percent of IPv6 traffic and UAE is around 55 percent with the support of RIPE of course with the training with awareness I think we managed very well alhamdulillah.


CHAFIC CHAYA: Thank you Abdurrahman I will not tell you another secret because there is no secret now in this meeting room but when Abdurrahman talked about the jumping from 2 to 30 percent and now to 55 percent and the Saudi Arabia now 65 percent now we are working with both of them to see what is the bottleneck not to move above 70 percent so hopefully next year we meet we’ll see that both countries are more than 70 percent IPv6 and once again thank you for your cooperation so this was at the national level so let’s see how the multi-stakeholder works at the regional level we have with us here colleagues and friend Adel, the director of the Arab regional office at the ITU in Cairo. So Adel, based on what you heard from the two regulators and based on our successful collaboration in some countries doing some national IPv6 strategies, what you can tell us about your experience working in a multi-stakeholder approach with regulators, technical community, academic, private sector and other groups?


ADEL DARWICH: Thank you very much Shafiq, first of all allow me to thank RIPE NCC and our host Saudi Arabia for having this wonderful event of IGF here in the city of Riyadh in this fabulous arena if I may say. Talking about multi-stake collaboration you mentioned 2.7 it’s now 2.6 so we’re getting closer to connecting the unconnected. I believe multi-stakeholderism has been an advocate of our Secretary General Doreen Bogdan-Martin for quite a while now. At ITU we’ve been working together on setting standards in the standardization bureau, we’ve been working together on developing at the national levels jointly with the regional offices in the development bureau. We’ve seen that this effort and we’re proud to say that we have two very excellent examples in the region however the rest of the region is catching up. With the outcome of smart cities, IOTs in the marketplace more and more IPv6 need is required in the technical arena as well. What we’ve seen that the interest that was mainly from governments in the past decade has now shifted to the operators. We’ve seen more and more operators coming to the table discussing on that platform seeing how can they learn, how can they get more capacity building initiatives and that’s where ourselves and RIPE NCC have been working closely on that as well. We’ve launched a few training institutions as well, and courses around the region. This has been very successful. And we foresee that the region is going to lead globally the IPv6, if I may say, race in the coming few years. Thank you. Back to you, Shefi.


CHAFIC CHAYA: Thank you, Adel. Thank you. A third secret, that we are working with ITU on two or three IPv6 strategies for some countries that they are still lagging behind. And I looked towards Hisham. While we saw that there are some countries, especially in the Gulf region, they are progressing, and they are doing very successful in IPv6, why other countries in the region are still lagging behind? What reasons behind this, let’s say, not catching up with other countries?


HISHAM IBRAHIM: Thanks for the question, Shafiq. So I think there’s two really important things here. The first one was mentioned already in the successful engagements, which is getting everybody around the table, making sure that everybody understands the ultimate goal that we’re trying to achieve. It didn’t come down as a top-down, you have to do this, you have to implement by this time. It actually was trying to get everybody to buy in and understand, working together. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. There is no one organization or entity that can just get IPv6 deployed in a country. It really has to be a collaborative effort, which is why we’re having this session at an IGF, very appropriate. But the second one is, there was deep understanding from the countries that were mentioned and others that are doing IPv6 of what they want to achieve. They don’t just want to continue to run the internet. They don’t want to continue to run services. They want to be able to provide platforms to support, again, innovation. what comes next, future technologies, and not be limited by a technology that we already knew from the 90s is already dying out. And that mentality is really key. Now, because they understood this, they actually were able to sit down and work with the community on coming up with KPIs that made sense, coming up with action plans that made sense, and acting on them, and reacting if there was something not working. So I believe Abdurrahman mentioned like the vendors, if there is a vendor that they had an issue with, then bringing them over and understanding what the issue was. If there was an issue with a perception that IPv6 is more difficult or more costly, then explaining how this actually is not the case and doing the training and stuff. However, we have seen other examples that weren’t as successful in the region. That they would, all of a sudden, you would find overnight a national IPv6 roadmap being developed. And in X number of years, we’re going to have traffic of X number of things that is usually developed by external consultants without talking with the community, without having the understanding of the different dynamics that are in the country. And they’re just making impossible promises, which has also led some people to be skeptic. Because these deadlines, these flag days come and go, and nothing really changes. And the internet continues to run. So people then assume, well, it’s not really that big a deal. And I believe those approaches have hurt more than they have helped. Whereas, working together, understanding what we’re trying to do, allowing for that permissionless innovation, was really the key of the success all along.


CHAFIC CHAYA: Thank you, Hisham. Through the last few years, working with regulators, and especially with the CST and TIDRA, we noticed that the concept changed from regulation to collaboration. And this is really a big shift. So, Misab, can you tell us what challenges you tackled during gathering the whole stakeholders around one table? Because we know the operators, the ISPs, they have their own secrets. They don’t want to talk or discuss things between competitors. So, how did you manage to get all these players together around the table?


MUSAAB ALAMMAR: Thank you so much. First of all, as you all know and as mentioned by my colleague here, Dr. Rahman, that IPv6 is not revenue generating. So, operators and ISPs, they are not expecting to get money back from this, at least from, let’s say, direct revenue. So, it was a real challenge at the beginning. And on top of that, at 2008, as I mentioned earlier, that some ISPs and operators, they still have an equipment and devices in their networks not yet supporting the IPv6. So, our secret recipe is having like an IPv6 task force at the beginning, gathering all the operators and the experts all over the nation, having a periodic discussion about the importance and the challenges, providing them like a lab to do their experiments to make sure that they are doing something safe, not harming their network, and giving them the time needed to shift and change all of their equipment without reinvesting again on a network equipment that can still last for more years. So, this is what we have done to have a smooth, let’s say, transition from v4 to v6. And we didn’t have any issues, because we gave them the time, we raised the awareness, we did a lot of capacity building with partnerships, with experts all over the world. And thankfully, it was as smooth as you can see in the trend. So we did that very smoothly. For those countries who will start today, it will be challenging for them. There will be a cost of changing this equipment and putting a configuration. And even the devices in the network, some devices, phone devices, it requires a long time for testing. And these devices, it has to be certified for IPv6, then it will be enabled with IPv6 in that specific country. So I think this is how it should be. A point I would like to add is we didn’t work only on the test provider side. We worked on the enterprise side. We secured or we created a manual for them to understand or to do a full plan, including a technical aspect in that, let’s say, guideline. And through that, they will be able to make a good plan to provide their internet services supporting IPv6. And one of the things that I would like to celebrate with you today, we had just, they had just finished the DGA, the digital government, the authority. They just finished something called Qiyas. The Qiyas program is just to measure the readiness of the entities, the governmental entities for the digital transformation. With a collaboration with them, with DGA in specific, we had some kind of criteria that those entities, those governmental entities who enabled IPv6, they will gain higher score in terms of the readiness for the digital transformation. So we are not only focusing on the service provider. We’re also focusing on the supply, helping them to provide the needed services on IPv6 as well.


CHAFIC CHAYA: Thank you, Massab. It’s really interesting, you know, the steps and your activities that you take during these years. Once again, I will go to Tidra because, you know, even though your experiences have a lot of similarities, but different steps and different, let’s say, plans and projects. Because I know that, I don’t know if you remember, Abdurrahman, we talked about why we don’t regulate IPv6. You said, no, we’re not regulated. So, what is the strategy of Tidra? Why you didn’t go in this direction? And how you encouraged and, you know, give this opportunity for the operators to work with you and the soft regulation, let’s say, to achieve this successful result?


ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI: Thank you, Dr. Shafiq, for this question. So, there was a discussion actually, internally, whether we should come up with a regulation or a policy to govern and mandate IPv6. And honestly, at the time, I was opposing any regulatory instrument toward that. In my opinion, the IPv6 is well understood by people who are in the technology and the technical aspects. Maybe it’s not well understood by business people. If we came up with a regulation, then that would go to regulatory departments, commercial departments, and they will start thinking about how to be defensive about it and perhaps drag it and delay it as much as possible. That’s their natural attitude toward regulation. say, let’s try to slow it down. Maybe this will create burden on us, cost on us, and things like that. We said, that’s not the right approach. Let’s talk to the technical people, to the engineering people. They understand this very well. And we talk to them. And we tell them, what do you need to empower you if you want to do changes? Of course, the engineers, they would think about, let’s draw a plan. Let’s try to do it as smooth as possible. There is a refresh cycle for all the systems. If you talk to anyone from engineering, they know what I’m talking about, refresh cycles. They know that this device has to live for five years, seven years. Then there will be a time where it has to be changed. What they’ve done is basically, early on when we were talking about IPv6, they put a plan in place that all devices that they will procure has to be, by default, compatible with IPv6. This is done years ahead. But when it comes to the action, the actual action where it will be deployed, and they will try to make it all IPv6, then, of course, they’ll have to do tests. They have to do all of these things. And when there is a device that needs to be changed, they’ll wait for the refresh cycle, and they will change that device so that it’s IPv6 compatible. So we came to them, and we told them, OK, what’s a reasonable time frame for you if you want to start providing IPv6? They said, well, for us, one of the operators said, we’re ready. We’ll start. We’ll start with a certain segment of our customers, with a certain segment of the network, and they will build an experience and then migrate slowly. slowly up until the entire network is IPv6 and then of course it will be dual stack meaning that IPv4 and IPv6 both of them will work it depends on the customer if everything is compatible with IPv6 he will he will get an IPv6 address and then the traffic will be IPv6 all the way natively from the source to the destination so they said the other operator said we need some time we have some core functions within the network still not fully IPv6 ready we need around a year to do it that’s fine a year is a reasonable time when we think about the decades of when IPv6 existed so we waited for a year and they’ve done their fresh and they started pushing IPv6 so that’s in a in a in a nutshell why we thought collaboration as you mentioned dr. Shafiq is a better approach when we talk about moving from IPv4 to IPv6


CHAFIC CHAYA: thank you yes and I totally agree with you other back to ITU we listen to the experts from the capacity building and policy perspective we know that these two activities capacity building and and standardization as you mentioned is at the heart of the ITU work and activity so how ITU once again your office in the Middle East region how you you can ensure that all the Arab countries in the region can catch up with this IPv6 adoption as a critical tool for development and and bridging the digital gap


ADEL DARWICH: Thank you very much, Shafiq. First of all, if you’ll allow me maybe to comment on what Abdulrahman mentioned, and I totally agree sometimes regulation is not the route to go, but we’ve also seen over the past few years that the business model and the business needs of telecom companies have changed. This has forced the community to now start focusing on other services, especially post-COVID, where now telecom industry has become a pillar for digitization of every other sector. So the need has grown dramatically and the focus and the business mindset has changed as well. Now, as ITU, of course, we can’t do it by ourselves. We’re just one player in the field, if I may say, again going back to multi-stakeholderism. What’s key for us is we support when it comes to capacity building. So that’s one thing we do jointly with RIPE NCC. We’ve worked with governments, whether it’s ministries or regulators, to set up strategies and policies. Light-touch regulation, we always encourage to allow for innovation. That’s very important for us. At the same time, we have established a center a few years back in Sudan, which is the IPv6 ITU Center. We’ve trained a few instructors from that center as well, high quality level of training as well. And they have been like ambassadors of IPv6 promotion, if you like, within the region. Now, we’ve done this not only in the Arab region, but globally as well. We promote IPv6 usage, especially within the work that is done in Study Group 20 as well in the ITU-T sector, which is related to smart cities and IOTs. But mainly that has been our focus for the past few years. Now, as I mentioned earlier on, because the business model has changed, in recent couple of years, we’ve seen requests coming in from operators without even the government. We’ve seen that operators now want to take the lead on moving to IPv6. Which again, that serves our joint purpose or aim in this field as well. Thank you.


CHAFIC CHAYA: Thank you, Adel. Before we take the questions from the floor, and if we have any online questions or feedback, Vahan. So, for Hisham, I will go back to the recent article you wrote about the Internet and what’s the Internet. Is what we are doing is regulating the Internet or we need to regulate the application who run over the Internet? Can you just share your thoughts why we should not regulate the Internet?


HISHAM IBRAHIM: Happy to answer the question. So, the word Internet is used on a daily base because it touches a lot of what we do. However, it doesn’t always mean the same thing to the same people, right? When somebody technical like myself talks about the Internet, we’re talking about that network of networks that are interconnected, that allow packets to go from point A to point B, regardless of what is built on top of it. Whether those packets are web traffic, whether they’re another application, that stuff that’s built on top of the Internet. Whereas, it became the word Internet because it became a big part of our lives. It became a shorthand for everything that is built on top of that network. Now, some of the things that are built on top of that network have issues that need to be dealt with. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the Internet has an issue. And a prime example of this is something that I usually say. I have a son that likes to play Fortnite. And he’s not even 10 years old yet, but he knows when the network is lagging, because he comes to the Internet. to me and says, it’s lagging, I cannot play, I cannot play. So he’s driving up the measurements and the demands like any good customer would. But then he comes and says, the internet is not working. Now, it’s very difficult to lecture a nine year old and say, actually the internet is working, the problem is with your application. Because that’s really the thing, he cannot connect to a server. It’s not like the internet around the world is not working. But it’s become such a shorthand that people are used to, if you cannot connect to your favorite app on your phone, the internet has an issue. If a service that you’re using has privacy issues or trust and safety issues, then we need to fix the internet. Whereas the internet works and functions. So really, it’s becoming to a point that it’s dangerous, especially when you see the amount of meetings and discussions in governance forums that are talking about fixing the internet, while indeed what they’re talking about is platform issues. So misinformation is not an internet issue, it’s a platform issue. Privacy issues, again, not the internet. Issues related to, like I was saying, trust and safety. There’s a lot of them that fall under the word internet. And the equivalent that I can give is saying, you need to fix the internet because your Windows machine that you’re using is not allowing you to connect. Being able to distinguish where the problem is and dealing with it in the right appropriate forums and talking with the right language about it is key, or else you end up trying to regulate a future technology by changing fundamentals that made the internet what it is in the first place. And that kills innovation.


CHAFIC CHAYA: Thank you, Hisham. Thanks so much for this. And I think this is a misconception that every day we see this during. our daily life. So I will open the floor for some questions and I believe Khaled you raised your hand. I will give you the floor, please.


KHALED FATTAL: Thank you. Can you hear me? Yep. Khaled Fattal. Many of you may know me. I’ve been involved, you know, we’re talking about internet governance. I was there when Kofi Annan convened the experts in 2004 and I was there. So that engagement led to the creation of IGF. The reason I’m bringing this to your attention here is the experiences that I heard from UAE and from Saudi about IPv6 moving from IPv4 to IPv6 and the reasons why it took such a long time is something I’m going to draw to for the benefit of the community. In addition to the examples that you mentioned earlier on as to why the uptake was not there and then all of a sudden now it jumped from 2% to 30% or something like this in UAE. This is where the community needs leadership because I think it was UAE example when you talked about needing to make the case, correct? Or was it Saudi? I can’t remember. Somebody was saying that the decision-makers, the telecom operators or whatever, were to make the case why we should go to IPv6. In certain areas the case cannot be made, it needs leadership and I cannot underscore this enough because today and I attend conferences all over the world from cyber to AI to whatever and for the last couple of years everything is about AI. I have news for you Kentucky Fried Chicken is doing AI now. You’re laughing. I’m joking, but the truth here is everybody’s jumping on the bandwagon, but nobody’s asking What can we do that is unique now? The uniqueness could be how you your country could develop a competitive advantage in that space How can it be the innovator not just the trendsetter because everybody’s following so my point here is I? Thank Shafiq for asking me to come here to listen in because you created this thought in my mind How can we learn from the examples that not everything can be made a Case for it requires leadership, and that comes from the government it comes from the Regulator, and I can share something else with you one of the partners clients. I can’t say who who we work with Had in in in a European country owns now more than 80% of the 5g towers Why I share this with you here is you think what are they doing with 5g towers? They’ve they figured a different business model So if you’re innovating, and if you’re thinking outside of the box, and you’re thinking how can I create a competitive advantage for my country? There are many ways to create competitive advantages, and it starts with leadership So I hope this compels the local actors to consider how they can take leadership roles Thank you, Shafiq. I’m sorry for taking too much time


CHAFIC CHAYA: Well said really well said Khaled, and I will take two words from his contribution to ask Your colleagues here. He talked about the leadership. Yes, we know that in in Europe private sector leads in This region and it’s not something negative at all government’s lead Without the collaboration With these guys without the cooperation with regulators and once again This is not because the government’s want to lead because they want to control everything no They want to lead because they have the authority they have the How we say it the best venue to get people around the same table and they have the expertise to deal with this. Alone as RIPE NCC we couldn’t get all the operators and ISPs. So this is one thing and the second thing is 5G and this is I will leave this the last question for Hisham because 5G Khaled is a hunger technology for IPv6. So I will leave two minutes per each speaker to give his thoughts and like closing remarks we still have 10 minutes and then we close. I will start with ITU.


ADEL DARWICH: Thank you very much Shafiq. I would say leadership should be at the multi-stakeholder level because if you have one entity pushing you have cost implications. So leadership should be like you said it has to be the whole of the community. It’s the operators, it’s the policy makers, it’s the regulators. They all have to agree that whatever they’re doing whether it’s IPv6 or anything else in the industry has to be to the benefit of the whole. So that’s very key and I also believe we need to continue collaborating with the different stakeholders and as Khaled mentioned the business model is not just 5G. The business model all together has changed a lot. We’re not talking the same technology and the same services as we did 10 years ago. It’s very different today. With Google Glasses coming into the play today and I heard that it’s become a you know reality people are using it today. With all these devices imagine you’re gonna have like 10-20 devices on you in the coming five years. So all these devices are going to be talking through the public network. There’s going to be needs for that. Are the telecom operators and the environment innovative enough to accompany all these services? So I think it’s a multi-stakeholderism. Everybody needs to come together and we need to look at the future.


CHAFIC CHAYA: Thank you. Thank you Adel. Hisham or I will leave Hisham to the end because he will take more than three minutes I know. Abdelrahman please go ahead. Or Musab, both of one of you.


ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI: Khaled Fattah, well said. Leadership I think is is a key and of course you need leadership but you need also the stakeholders to co-own the problem with you as well so that they are because at the end of the day they are the one who will actually make the difference and take the actions. For us I think yes it needs a bit of convincing. We played the argument of telecom is not telecom anymore. They are digital. There is a lot on stake. You have IOTs, you have cloud computing, AI, you have all these emerging technologies. They’re all need robust and strong infrastructure. You need to develop your infrastructure to cope for all these changes. I think that’s a mindset shift that need to happen when when we when you talk about ISPs or telcos. They are not just telcos. They need to move to be digital companies that that they have to have a bigger role and of course they they need a stronger and more advanced networks. One more comment I have when when Dr. Shafiq talked about leadership in the in our region is is usually from the public sector and the government and I had this couple of times People talk to me, because I’m also from the digital government, they tell me I wish, sometimes I hear these comments, I wish some of our companies build good user experience and applications, digital applications like the government of the UAE. I’ve heard this a couple of times, and we’ve seen this. His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid, when he comes on stage in 2013, he came up and said, I want all the government to be mobile. All the government authorities in the UAE have actually built mobile applications well ahead of the rest of the private sector in our country.


C

CHAFIC CHAYA

Speech speed

131 words per minute

Speech length

1403 words

Speech time

642 seconds

Multi-stakeholder collaboration key to success

Explanation

Chafic Chaya emphasizes the importance of collaboration between various stakeholders in successfully deploying IPv6. This approach involves governments, regulators, technical communities, and the private sector working together towards a shared goal.


Evidence

Successful IPv6 deployment in Saudi Arabia and UAE through collaboration


Major Discussion Point

IPv6 Deployment Progress and Strategies


Agreed with

MUSAAB ALAMMAR


ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI


ADEL DARWICH


Agreed on

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is key to successful IPv6 deployment


M

MUSAAB ALAMMAR

Speech speed

132 words per minute

Speech length

760 words

Speech time

343 seconds

Saudi Arabia achieved 65% IPv6 adoption through national strategy

Explanation

Musaab Alammar describes how Saudi Arabia implemented a national strategy to achieve high IPv6 adoption rates. The strategy involved collaboration with various stakeholders and a focus on both service providers and enterprises.


Evidence

Saudi Arabia’s IPv6 adoption rate of 65%


Major Discussion Point

IPv6 Deployment Progress and Strategies


Agreed with

CHAFIC CHAYA


ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI


ADEL DARWICH


Agreed on

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is key to successful IPv6 deployment


Differed with

ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI


Differed on

Approach to IPv6 adoption


IPv6 not directly revenue-generating for operators

Explanation

Musaab Alammar points out that IPv6 implementation does not directly generate revenue for operators and ISPs. This lack of immediate financial benefit posed a challenge in convincing stakeholders to adopt IPv6.


Major Discussion Point

Challenges and Solutions for IPv6 Adoption


Agreed with

ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI


ADEL DARWICH


Agreed on

Challenges in IPv6 adoption


Gradual equipment upgrades needed to support IPv6

Explanation

Musaab Alammar explains that a major challenge in IPv6 adoption was the need for gradual equipment upgrades. Many ISPs and operators had existing equipment that did not support IPv6, requiring a phased approach to implementation.


Evidence

Creation of an IPv6 task force and provision of a lab for experiments


Major Discussion Point

Challenges and Solutions for IPv6 Adoption


Agreed with

ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI


ADEL DARWICH


Agreed on

Challenges in IPv6 adoption


A

ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI

Speech speed

124 words per minute

Speech length

1456 words

Speech time

701 seconds

UAE increased from 2% to 55% IPv6 adoption in 18 months

Explanation

Abdulrahman Almarzooqi describes the rapid increase in IPv6 adoption in the UAE. This significant jump was achieved through a collaborative approach and setting realistic targets with stakeholders.


Evidence

UAE’s IPv6 adoption increase from 2% to 55% in 18 months


Major Discussion Point

IPv6 Deployment Progress and Strategies


Agreed with

CHAFIC CHAYA


MUSAAB ALAMMAR


ADEL DARWICH


Agreed on

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is key to successful IPv6 deployment


Collaboration preferred over regulation for IPv6 adoption

Explanation

Abdulrahman Almarzooqi explains that TIDRA chose collaboration over regulation to promote IPv6 adoption. This approach involved working closely with technical teams and understanding their needs and constraints.


Evidence

Successful IPv6 deployment in UAE without regulatory mandates


Major Discussion Point

IPv6 Deployment Progress and Strategies


Differed with

MUSAAB ALAMMAR


Differed on

Approach to IPv6 adoption


Government leadership important in Middle East region

Explanation

Abdulrahman Almarzooqi highlights the importance of government leadership in driving digital transformation in the Middle East. He notes that government entities in the UAE have been at the forefront of developing mobile applications and digital services.


Evidence

UAE government’s initiative to make all government services mobile in 2013


Major Discussion Point

The Nature of the Internet and Regulation


H

HISHAM IBRAHIM

Speech speed

160 words per minute

Speech length

1584 words

Speech time

590 seconds

Internet is network infrastructure, distinct from applications

Explanation

Hisham Ibrahim emphasizes the distinction between the Internet as a network infrastructure and the applications that run on it. He argues that many issues attributed to the Internet are actually problems with specific applications or platforms.


Evidence

Example of a child complaining about Internet not working when it’s an application issue


Major Discussion Point

The Nature of the Internet and Regulation


Regulating applications vs regulating internet infrastructure

Explanation

Hisham Ibrahim argues that attempts to regulate the Internet often conflate infrastructure issues with application-level problems. He warns that this confusion can lead to misguided regulations that may harm innovation.


Evidence

Examples of misinformation and privacy issues being platform problems, not Internet infrastructure problems


Major Discussion Point

The Nature of the Internet and Regulation


A

ADEL DARWICH

Speech speed

163 words per minute

Speech length

843 words

Speech time

310 seconds

ITU supports capacity building and policy development for IPv6

Explanation

Adel Darwich describes ITU’s role in supporting IPv6 adoption through capacity building and policy development. ITU works with various stakeholders to promote IPv6 usage and provide training.


Evidence

Establishment of an IPv6 ITU Center in Sudan for training


Major Discussion Point

IPv6 Deployment Progress and Strategies


Agreed with

CHAFIC CHAYA


MUSAAB ALAMMAR


ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI


Agreed on

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is key to successful IPv6 deployment


Capacity building and awareness raising critical

Explanation

Adel Darwich emphasizes the importance of capacity building and awareness raising in promoting IPv6 adoption. ITU collaborates with other organizations to provide training and support for IPv6 implementation.


Evidence

Joint training programs with RIPE NCC


Major Discussion Point

Challenges and Solutions for IPv6 Adoption


Business models changing, increasing demand for IPv6

Explanation

Adel Darwich notes that changing business models in the telecom industry are driving increased demand for IPv6. The shift towards digitization across sectors has made IPv6 more critical for operators.


Evidence

Post-COVID increase in telecom industry’s role in digitization of other sectors


Major Discussion Point

Challenges and Solutions for IPv6 Adoption


Agreed with

MUSAAB ALAMMAR


ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI


Agreed on

Challenges in IPv6 adoption


Multi-stakeholder leadership needed for internet governance

Explanation

Adel Darwich argues that leadership in internet governance should involve multiple stakeholders. He emphasizes the need for collaboration between operators, policy makers, and regulators to achieve common goals.


Major Discussion Point

The Nature of the Internet and Regulation


K

KHALED FATTAL

Speech speed

152 words per minute

Speech length

479 words

Speech time

187 seconds

Leadership needed to drive adoption without clear business case

Explanation

Khaled Fattal emphasizes the importance of leadership in driving IPv6 adoption, especially when there isn’t a clear business case. He argues that in some areas, leadership is necessary to push for important technological changes even when immediate benefits are not apparent.


Evidence

Example of UAE’s rapid increase in IPv6 adoption


Major Discussion Point

Challenges and Solutions for IPv6 Adoption


Agreements

Agreement Points

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is key to successful IPv6 deployment

speakers

CHAFIC CHAYA


MUSAAB ALAMMAR


ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI


ADEL DARWICH


arguments

Multi-stakeholder collaboration key to success


Saudi Arabia achieved 65% IPv6 adoption through national strategy


UAE increased from 2% to 55% IPv6 adoption in 18 months


ITU supports capacity building and policy development for IPv6


summary

All speakers emphasized the importance of collaboration between various stakeholders, including governments, regulators, technical communities, and the private sector, in successfully deploying IPv6.


Challenges in IPv6 adoption

speakers

MUSAAB ALAMMAR


ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI


ADEL DARWICH


arguments

IPv6 not directly revenue-generating for operators


Gradual equipment upgrades needed to support IPv6


Business models changing, increasing demand for IPv6


summary

Speakers acknowledged the challenges in IPv6 adoption, including the lack of immediate financial benefits for operators and the need for gradual equipment upgrades. However, they also noted that changing business models are increasing the demand for IPv6.


Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of collaboration and multi-stakeholder leadership over strict regulation in promoting IPv6 adoption and internet governance.

speakers

ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI


ADEL DARWICH


arguments

Collaboration preferred over regulation for IPv6 adoption


Multi-stakeholder leadership needed for internet governance


Unexpected Consensus

Government leadership in digital transformation

speakers

ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI


KHALED FATTAL


arguments

Government leadership important in Middle East region


Leadership needed to drive adoption without clear business case


explanation

Both speakers highlighted the importance of government leadership in driving digital transformation and IPv6 adoption, especially when there isn’t a clear business case. This consensus is unexpected as it challenges the common perception that the private sector usually leads in technological advancements.


Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, the challenges and strategies for IPv6 adoption, and the role of leadership in driving technological changes.


Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers on the key issues surrounding IPv6 deployment and internet governance. This consensus implies a shared understanding of the challenges and potential solutions, which could facilitate more effective implementation of IPv6 and related policies in the region.


Differences

Different Viewpoints

Approach to IPv6 adoption

speakers

MUSAAB ALAMMAR


ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI


arguments

Saudi Arabia achieved 65% IPv6 adoption through national strategy


Collaboration preferred over regulation for IPv6 adoption


summary

While both countries achieved high IPv6 adoption rates, Saudi Arabia implemented a national strategy, whereas UAE preferred collaboration over regulation.


Unexpected Differences

Role of government leadership

speakers

ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI


ADEL DARWICH


arguments

Government leadership important in Middle East region


Multi-stakeholder leadership needed for internet governance


explanation

While both speakers emphasized the importance of leadership, there was an unexpected difference in their views on the source of leadership. Almarzooqi highlighted the importance of government leadership, while Darwich advocated for multi-stakeholder leadership.


Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement centered around the approach to IPv6 adoption, the role of government versus multi-stakeholder leadership, and the balance between regulation and collaboration.


difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers was relatively low, with most differences being in approach rather than fundamental goals. This suggests a general consensus on the importance of IPv6 adoption, but varied strategies based on local contexts and experiences. These differences in approach could lead to valuable exchanges of best practices and potentially more effective strategies for global IPv6 adoption.


Partial Agreements

Partial Agreements

All speakers agreed on the importance of IPv6 adoption, but differed in their approaches to addressing the lack of immediate financial benefits for operators. Saudi Arabia used a national strategy, UAE focused on collaboration, and ITU emphasized changing business models.

speakers

MUSAAB ALAMMAR


ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI


ADEL DARWICH


arguments

IPv6 not directly revenue-generating for operators


Collaboration preferred over regulation for IPv6 adoption


Business models changing, increasing demand for IPv6


Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of collaboration and multi-stakeholder leadership over strict regulation in promoting IPv6 adoption and internet governance.

speakers

ABDULRAHMAN ALMARZOOQI


ADEL DARWICH


arguments

Collaboration preferred over regulation for IPv6 adoption


Multi-stakeholder leadership needed for internet governance


Takeaways

Key Takeaways

Multi-stakeholder collaboration was crucial for successful IPv6 deployment in countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE


Government leadership and regulatory support played an important role in driving IPv6 adoption in the Middle East region


Gradual, planned transitions and capacity building were more effective than mandates for IPv6 implementation


The business case for IPv6 is not always clear, requiring leadership to drive adoption


There is a need to distinguish between regulating internet infrastructure and regulating applications/services built on top of it


Resolutions and Action Items

Continue collaboration between regulators, technical community, and private sector to further increase IPv6 adoption


Work on increasing IPv6 adoption above 70% in Saudi Arabia and UAE


ITU to continue supporting capacity building and policy development for IPv6 in other countries


Unresolved Issues

How to accelerate IPv6 adoption in countries lagging behind in the region


How to create compelling business cases for IPv6 adoption in some contexts


Balancing regulation vs. collaboration approaches for technology adoption


Suggested Compromises

Using ‘soft regulation’ and collaborative approaches rather than strict mandates for IPv6 adoption


Allowing gradual equipment upgrades to support IPv6 rather than forcing immediate overhauls


Thought Provoking Comments

IPv6 ensures scalability, ensures connectivity and helps the ITU efforts in bridging the 2.7 unconnected till now to be connected.

speaker

Chafic Chaya


reason

This comment frames IPv6 not just as a technical upgrade, but as a critical tool for expanding internet access globally. It connects the technical discussion to broader development goals.


impact

It set the tone for discussing IPv6 in terms of its societal impact rather than just technical details. This framing was echoed by other speakers throughout the discussion.


There has been skepticism about the importance of IPv6, simply because the expected run out of IPv4, the crisis that people anticipated in the 90s, never really happened. And that’s a good thing, not necessarily a bad thing.

speaker

Hisham Ibrahim


reason

This comment addresses a common misconception about IPv6 and reframes the lack of crisis as a positive outcome rather than a reason for complacency.


impact

It shifted the discussion from crisis-driven urgency to a more nuanced view of IPv6 as an enabler of future innovation. This perspective was reinforced by later comments about the need for IPv6 in emerging technologies.


Our secret recipe is having like an IPv6 task force at the beginning, gathering all the operators and the experts all over the nation, having a periodic discussion about the importance and the challenges, providing them like a lab to do their experiments to make sure that they are doing something safe, not harming their network, and giving them the time needed to shift and change all of their equipment without reinvesting again on a network equipment that can still last for more years.

speaker

Musaab Alammar


reason

This comment provides concrete, practical insights into how to successfully implement IPv6 at a national level. It emphasizes collaboration and gradual transition rather than top-down mandates.


impact

It sparked a more detailed discussion of implementation strategies, with other speakers sharing their own experiences and approaches. This shifted the conversation from theoretical benefits to practical execution.


There was a discussion actually, internally, whether we should come up with a regulation or a policy to govern and mandate IPv6. And honestly, at the time, I was opposing any regulatory instrument toward that.

speaker

Abdulrahman Almarzooqi


reason

This comment challenges the assumption that regulation is always the best approach for technological adoption. It introduces the idea that collaboration can be more effective than mandates.


impact

It led to a deeper discussion about the role of regulators in technological transitions, with other speakers echoing the importance of collaboration over regulation. This represented a shift in thinking about how to drive IPv6 adoption.


So really, it’s becoming to a point that it’s dangerous, especially when you see the amount of meetings and discussions in governance forums that are talking about fixing the internet, while indeed what they’re talking about is platform issues.

speaker

Hisham Ibrahim


reason

This comment highlights a crucial distinction between internet infrastructure and applications built on top of it. It warns against conflating these issues in policy discussions.


impact

It broadened the discussion beyond IPv6 to touch on larger issues of internet governance and regulation. This comment prompted reflection on the proper scope and targets of internet-related policies.


Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from a technical focus on IPv6 to a broader conversation about implementation strategies, the role of different stakeholders, and the relationship between internet infrastructure and applications. The speakers collectively built a narrative that emphasized collaboration, gradual transition, and the importance of distinguishing between different layers of internet technology when considering policy and regulation. This nuanced approach provided a more comprehensive view of the challenges and opportunities surrounding IPv6 adoption.


Follow-up Questions

What are the bottlenecks preventing IPv6 adoption from moving above 70% in Saudi Arabia and UAE?

speaker

Chafic Chaya


explanation

Understanding these bottlenecks is crucial for achieving even higher IPv6 adoption rates in leading countries.


How can other countries in the region catch up with the successful IPv6 deployment seen in Gulf countries?

speaker

Chafic Chaya


explanation

Identifying strategies for lagging countries to accelerate their IPv6 adoption is important for regional progress.


How can the business model for IPv6 adoption be improved to incentivize telecom operators and ISPs?

speaker

Abdulrahman Almarzooqi


explanation

Addressing the lack of direct revenue from IPv6 is crucial for encouraging wider adoption among service providers.


What strategies can be employed to ensure smooth transitions from IPv4 to IPv6 for countries just starting the process?

speaker

Musaab Alammar


explanation

Developing effective transition strategies is important for countries that are behind in IPv6 adoption.


How can the ITU ensure that all Arab countries in the region catch up with IPv6 adoption?

speaker

Chafic Chaya


explanation

Identifying ways to support lagging countries in the region is crucial for bridging the digital gap.


How can countries develop unique competitive advantages in the IPv6 and emerging technology space?

speaker

Khaled Fattal


explanation

Exploring ways for countries to innovate and lead in technology adoption is important for economic development.


How can the telecom industry adapt to support the increasing number of connected devices and emerging technologies like AI and AR?

speaker

Adel Darwich


explanation

Understanding how to prepare network infrastructure for future technologies is crucial for long-term planning.


Disclaimer: This is not an official record of the session. The DiploAI system automatically generates these resources from the audiovisual recording. Resources are presented in their original format, as provided by the AI (e.g. including any spelling mistakes). The accuracy of these resources cannot be guaranteed.

Day 0 Event #172 Major challenges and gaps in intelligent society governance

Day 0 Event #172 Major challenges and gaps in intelligent society governance

Session at a Glance

Summary

This discussion focused on the development and governance of intelligent societies, exploring various aspects of AI and its impact on global development. The speakers addressed China’s objectives in building an intelligent society, emphasizing the importance of human-centered approaches and ethical considerations. They highlighted the need for international cooperation in addressing challenges such as energy consumption and environmental impacts of AI development.


The discussion explored the paradigm shift in AI governance, noting the transition from material technological subjects to human-like technological subjects, and the importance of flexible, open governance frameworks. Speakers emphasized the role of standardization in addressing opportunities and challenges in building intelligent social culture and civilization.


The potential of AI in addressing global issues like climate change and achieving sustainable development goals was discussed, with a focus on leveraging AI for social progress while maintaining human values and rights. The importance of interdisciplinary approaches and global cooperation in AI governance was stressed, with speakers calling for diverse, multidisciplinary panels to guide AI development.


Speakers also addressed the need for transparency in AI decision-making, the reshaping of knowledge production and social structures by generative AI, and the importance of aligning AI with human values. The discussion highlighted the transformative potential of AI across various sectors, including healthcare, education, and public services, while also acknowledging the need for responsible development and governance.


Overall, the discussion underscored the complex interplay between technological advancement, social impact, and governance challenges in the development of intelligent societies, emphasizing the need for collaborative, human-centered approaches to harness the benefits of AI while mitigating potential risks.


Keypoints

Major discussion points:


– China’s national plans and actions for building an intelligent society


– International governance challenges for AI, especially related to energy use and environmental impacts


– Philosophical and societal implications of generative AI and cognitive computing systems


– Governance transformation and standardization needed for the intelligent society


– Ensuring AI development is human-centered and supports sustainable development goals


Overall purpose:


The purpose of this discussion was to explore various perspectives on the development of intelligent societies powered by AI, examining both the opportunities and challenges from technological, governance, philosophical and global development standpoints. The speakers aimed to provide insights on how to responsibly advance AI while addressing key issues like environmental impacts, ethics, and human values.


Tone:


The overall tone was academic and forward-looking. Speakers presented research findings and policy recommendations in a formal, analytical manner. There was a sense of cautious optimism about AI’s potential balanced with calls for responsible governance and development. The tone remained consistent throughout, with each speaker building on previous points while adding their own area of expertise to the discussion.


Speakers

– Yuming Wei: Professor at Tsinghua University, moderator of the session


– Gong Ke: Former president of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations, executive director of Chinese Institute of New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Strategies, former president of Nankai University


– Kevin C. Desuoza: Professor of Business, Technology, and Strategy at the School of Business, Queensland University of Technology


– Ru Peng: Professor at the School of Public Policy and Management, Tsinghua University


– Sam Daws: Senior advisor at the Oxford Martin AI Governance Initiative, Oxford University


– Min Jianing: Professor at Harbin Institute of Technology and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Public Administration


– Poncelet Ileleji: CEO of Jack Cook Labs, Banjul, Gambia


Additional speakers:


– Suf Gongke: Former president of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations, executive director of Chinese Institute of New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Strategies, former president of Nankai University (likely the same person as Gong Ke, with a slight name variation)


Full session report

The Development and Governance of Intelligent Societies: A Comprehensive Overview


This discussion, moderated by Professor Yuming Wei of Tsinghua University, brought together experts from various fields to explore the multifaceted aspects of developing and governing intelligent societies powered by artificial intelligence (AI). The session featured a mix of in-person and online presentations, addressing a wide range of topics from national strategies to global governance challenges.


China’s National Strategy for an Intelligent Society


Gong Ke, former president of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations and executive director of the Chinese Institute of New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Strategies, outlined China’s comprehensive national plan for AI development. He introduced the “1-2-3-4 planning” framework:


1. One overarching goal: building an intelligent society


2. Two driving forces: technological innovation and institutional innovation


3. Three stages of development: 2020, 2025, and 2030 milestones


4. Four key areas: social services, social governance, infrastructure, and public safety


This approach demonstrates China’s commitment to leveraging AI for societal advancement while addressing potential challenges.


Global Governance and International Collaboration


Sam Daws from Oxford University emphasized the critical importance of global governance and international collaboration in addressing AI challenges. He highlighted several key points:


1. The need for interoperable approaches to sustainable AI development


2. Opportunities for collaboration leading up to COP30 in 2025


3. The role of the UN Technology Envoy in facilitating international cooperation


4. The importance of addressing AI’s environmental impact, including high energy and water consumption


Daws introduced the concept of the Jevons Paradox to explain why AI energy use continues to rise despite efficiency gains, suggesting that increased efficiency may lead to increased overall consumption.


Societal Impact and Ethical Considerations


Min Jianing, Professor at Harbin Institute of Technology, presented 10 epidemiological questions on generative AI, exploring how large-language models are transforming knowledge production, decision-making processes, and social structures. His presentation covered:


1. The intrinsic mechanisms of evolution in knowledge production triggered by AI models


2. Potential reshaping of human society and relations of production


3. The impact of AI on human nature and existing beliefs


4. The possibility of value upgrades through openness and neutral learning


Kevin C. Desuoza from Queensland University of Technology discussed cognitive computing systems and their role in public value creation. He highlighted how AI is transforming approaches to societal challenges, citing examples of technology companies shifting focus from healthcare to “healthiness.” Despite technical difficulties with slide presentation, Desuoza’s insights broadened the conversation to consider how AI might transform entire paradigms of thinking about social issues.


Governance Transformation and Standardisation


Ru Peng, Professor at Tsinghua University, stressed the importance of standardisation as a tool for AI governance. She argued that standardisation is not merely a technical process but a multifaceted approach with strategic, social, and people-oriented dimensions. Peng called for the development of key standards in areas such as:


1. Social application for generative AI technology


2. Smart healthcare


3. Smart justice


4. Smart grassroots governance


She also mentioned China’s 92 national intelligent social governance experimental bases, highlighting the country’s practical approach to exploring AI governance models.


Sustainable Development and Human-Centered AI


Poncelet Ileleji from Jack Cook Labs in Gambia emphasized AI’s potential role in achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals. He stressed the importance of a human-centered approach to AI development, referencing the UN AI advisory board recommendations. Ileleji’s presentation highlighted the need for AI applications that address global challenges while maintaining focus on human values and ethics.


Unresolved Issues and Future Directions


The discussion highlighted several unresolved issues and areas for future research and policy development:


1. Specific mechanisms for global interoperable approaches to sustainable AI development


2. Balancing national interests and global collaboration in AI governance


3. Concrete steps to align AI development with human values and ethics across different cultural contexts


4. Methods to effectively measure and mitigate the energy and environmental impacts of AI systems


Conclusion


This comprehensive discussion underscored the complex interplay between technological advancement, social impact, and governance challenges in the development of intelligent societies. The speakers emphasized the need for collaborative, human-centered approaches to harness the benefits of AI while mitigating potential risks. As AI continues to reshape various sectors, including healthcare, education, and public services, the importance of responsible development and governance becomes increasingly apparent.


The moderator, Professor Yuming Wei, concluded by noting the complementary nature of the speakers’ topics, highlighting how the diverse perspectives contributed to a holistic understanding of intelligent societies’ development and governance. Despite occasional technical difficulties, the session provided valuable insights into the multifaceted nature of AI development and governance, emphasizing the need for continued dialogue, research, and international cooperation to address the challenges and opportunities presented by intelligent societies.


Session Transcript

Yuming Wei: Okay, good afternoon distinguished guests, esteemed colleagues and friends, ladies and gentlemen. It’s my great honor to welcome all of you to this session. I am Wei Yu Lin from Tsinghua University. On behalf of the organizing committee, I would like to express my deep respect and gratitude to all of you for joining us today and contributing to this important discussion. Today we are gathered at a pivotal moment in history. The rapid development of artificial intelligence is driving huge transformation towards intelligent society, bolstering new academic frontiers, technological breakthroughs, and innovative models. This transformation brings enormous opportunities for development across all sectors, however it also introduces a range of complex governance challenges, including ethical concerns, social inequity, privacy, and security risks. This session aims to address these pressing issues from a global perspective, analyzing the latest trends, major challenges, and the future opportunities in the development of intelligent society. Through the lens of government and international collaboration, we will explore experimental and adaptive approaches needed to navigate the governance transition of intelligent society. We are privileged to have an exceptional panel of speakers, each of whom bring unique expertise and global perspective to this discussion. Now allow me to introduce them. Suf Gongke, former president of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations, executive director of Chinese Institute of New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Strategies, and former president of Nankai University. Mr. Sam Zhou, senior advisor at the Oxford Martin AI Governance Initiative, Oxford University. University, and Director of Multilateral AI. Prof. Min Jianing, Professor at Harbin Institute of Technology and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Public Administration. Prof. Kevin D’Souza, Professor of Business, Technology, and Strategy at the School of Business, Queensland University of Technology. Prof. Ru Peng, Professor at the School of Public Policy and Management, Tsinghua University. And Mr. Pencilit Eladji, CEO of Jack Cook Labs, Banjul, Gambia, in Africa. To begin our session, it is my distinct pleasure to introduce our first speaker, Professor Peng Geng-ke, who will deliver his keynote address titled, China’s Objectives and Actions in Building an Intelligent Society. Please join me in giving a warm round of applause to welcome Prof. Geng-ke to the stage. Thank you.


Gong Ke: Thank you so much for the introduction. And I will take this opportunity to introduce you briefly about the Chinese National Plan for Building an Intelligent Society. And you may already know that the Chinese government has released a top-tier plan for the new generation of artificial intelligence development from 2017 to 2030. It’s a long-term, high-level plan. And this plan is dubbed in China as a 1-2-3-4 planning. So one means to set up one national open and collaborative AI technological innovation system, one nationwide system. Two means to master the two attributes of artificial intelligence. One is its technical feature. Another one is the social feature of artificial intelligence. Three means three-in-one promotion. That means to advance the technical R&D, production manufacturing, and industrial nurturing in a three-in-one manner. The four means four aspects to be supported by AI development that are STI development, science technology innovation development, economic growth, social progress, and national security. So within this framework, the plan identifies six pivotal tasks with building an intelligent society, being a prominent one alongside with fostering technological innovation systems, nurturing an intelligent economy, and enhancing digital infrastructure. So the goals for building an intelligent society is that, in one word, it’s to build a safe and convenient intelligent society. And the plan outlines some objectives, some objectives. First is to accelerate the penetration of AI to elevate the equality of life and create an omnipresent intelligent environment, significantly augmenting the efficiency of social services and social management. The second is delegating simplistic, repetitive, and hazardous tasks to AI, thereby fostering human creativity and generating high-quality, comfortable employment opportunities. The third objective is to diversify and enrich on-demand intelligent services to maximize accessibility to high-quality social services and convenient lifestyle. The fourth objective is elevating the standards of intelligent social governance, rendering societal operations safer and more efficient. So under these goals and objectives, there are some tasks for building an intelligent society highlighted in the plan. The first is developing convenient and efficient intelligent services. That means prioritizing AI innovations to address urgent societal needs, such as education, especially pre-university education, health care, and elder care, to provide tailored, super-rare quality services. The second task is to advance intelligent social governance, leveraging AI to tackle administrative, judicial, municipal, and environmental governance challenges, thereby modernizing the social management of China. The third task is to enhance public safety through AI, promoting a profound application of AI in public safety, fostering the construction of an intelligent monitoring, early warning, and control system for public security. The fourth task is promoting trust and interaction in society to utilize AI to bolster social interactions and nurture trusted communication between the civic. To implement these tasks, China has established a policy framework for building an intelligent society. Based on the national plan, the Chinese government has issued various policies in the past years providing intricate pathways for intelligent society construction, which includes, first, science and technology innovation policies. supporting research endeavors and encouraging enterprises R&D investment and to establishment of a major national R&D project with joint public and private investment and we also have industrial development policies to cultivating industrial integration and innovation platforms guided by the document which is titled opinions on accelerating scenario innovation for promote high-quality AI applications which is issued by the Ministry of Industrial and Information Industry and we also have human resource development policies to fortifying talent cultivation frameworks and intensifying talent recruitment endeavors and now the AI courses is already adopted in the fundamental education and higher education systems in China and we have data and infrastructure policies enabling data sharing and the constructing intelligent infrastructure of course also privacy protection we have adopted a new law in China two years ago for protect the private information and then safety and the ethical norm policies establishing AI safety regulation and social impact evaluation system infused with ethical guidelines released by the Chinese government three years ago and finally regional development policies that is to encourage regional collaborations and localized development initiatives so with these policy frameworks China has kept I think notable progresses in building in intelligent society for example developing application scenarios in social services in health care China the artificially intelligent imaging screening technology has been dramatically improved early diagnostic diagnosis diagnosis or of critical units such as cancer in education intelligent systems has optimized the resource allocation fostering equity and equality so people can use AI aids AI assistance learning and teaching system in China widely in governance intelligent systems applied to pandemic control and public services having significantly enhanced efficiency in the campaign with pandemic and call it pandemic and we also achieved the progress in building intelligent public services system the widespread adoption of AI in transportation finance and environmental sectors have given rise to the convenient and efficient public service system so if you know the city Hangzhou is a very beautiful city near to Shanghai however there’s a big lake in the center of this city so that the transportation public transportation in this city is a very very difficult five years ago this city ranked number number three or number four the most suggestion traffic suggestion city in China with the help of AI system they reduce the ranking from number four to number 57 congestion city in China now so we have also enhanced the regulation and governance mechanism to ensure the safety use of AI and also China promoting green and intelligent synergy to leveraging AI to reduce the carbon print of social services and also production so in summary China’s endeavors in constructing a intelligent society are steadily transitioning from blueprint to reality so the blueprint is a national plan this transition not only mirrors technological advancement but also underscores a pathway to refining social governance and augmenting human well-being so in the future personally I believe China should further emphasize constructing an intelligent society centered on people rather than technology efforts should empower individuals with technology ensuring a dedicated balance between technological innovation and ethical operation ultimately the objective is to forge an inclusive equitable sustainable and harmonious society for all by use by leveraging the potential of artificial intelligence so that’s my brief introduction of China’s goals and actions in building a intelligent society thank you so much


Yuming Wei: thank you professor for your excellent presentation which provide a comprehensive overview of Chinese objectives plans and actions in building an intelligent society. And now let us welcome Mr. Sam Jules, who will deliver his speech on the topic of international governance of AI and the environment.


Sam Daws: Thank you very much. It’s a great pleasure to be here today with you all. I’ve only got 10 minutes, so I’m going to try and race through this quite promptly. First, what’s the positive contribution AI can make to climate solutions? Well, here’s just a few. New materials research in solar technologies, battery research, biodegradable alternatives to plastics, atmospheric modeling and climate modeling through digital twins. My colleague, Professor Philip Steer at Oxford University has a leading intelligent project on this. And AI will be vital to achieve the new UN climate COP energy efficiency goals across all industries. Well, what’s the problem? Well, AI energy and water consumptions are high and growing. This has global impact as a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, AI accounts for one to 2% of global energy use, but it’s set potentially to increase significantly in the future. We need a new Japan worth of electricity every year because of AI, but also because of air conditioning and electric vehicles. And the water use of data centers uses more water than four times that of Denmark every year. Other factors that could increase AI’s energy use. There’s been an emphasis to date on the energy cost of testing and training large language models. But in the future, there’ll be greater emissions from inference, from multimodal search, and particularly important will be to track the energy use of semi-autonomous AI agents. And generative AI will shift not just from scraping the internet, but also relying on real-time IoT data of human behavior and natural processes involving greater data. So what are the solutions? Well, the UN environmental program in Nairobi, their recommendations are a good start. First, focus on the whole life cycle of AI, from the mining of critical materials all the way through to the deployment of AI models. Second, standardize the way we measure AI emissions. This work’s been taken forward by the ITU, the ISO, the IEC, IEEE, and others, including at the recent New Delhi Standard Summit. Next, incentivize transparency from industry on their energy use and emissions. Incentivize efficiency in hardware design, make software more efficient, such as the work of the Green Software Initiative. And data sobriety, more accurate, well-structured data, reducing duplication, only use the data necessary for the task. And lastly, powering new data centers only using renewable energy and reuse components at end of life. But can we leave energy optimization of data centers and chip design to industry alone? Well, perhaps, but that might change. I say perhaps because industry has achieved remarkable progress. Data center energy consumption only increased by 6% between 2010 and 2020, but computer workloads increased by 550%. NVIDIA achieved 100-fold increase in performance per watt from Kepler in 2012 to Hopper in 2023. Google achieved similar efficiencies through their TPUs. But despite these efficiencies, AI energy use and emissions overall continue to rise. So AI is therefore subject to the Jevons Paradox, named after an English economist who, back in 1865, observed that increased efficiency of coal use actually led to increased consumption of coal across a wide range of industries, and AI is following a similar path. So what are the prospects for a global interoperable approach on sustainable AI? Well, to have that, we need to navigate these geopolitical challenges. One, the greater US-China trade and national security competition. We’ve seen export controls, rare-earth export bans, and so on. Secondly, the new US administration is moving away from green regulation. Thirdly, sovereign AI trends may make it harder to shift testing, training, and influence to other countries. And fourthly, the new BRICS-AI alliance, announced this last week by President Putin, may lead to a bifurcation of policy approaches with the West. I want to end with what are the opportunities in 2025? Well, I think it’s vital we… use forward that includes China as well as the West. So we have the UN Universal Tracts that come out of the two UN General Assembly resolutions, Responsible AI, proposed by the US, co-sponsored by China, and AI Capacity Building, proposed by China, co-sponsored by the US. Great initiatives, we can have further cooperation. Then the UN Tracts that are emerging from the Global Digital Compact and the HLAB on AI, Science Convening, Policy Dialogue, Standards, Capacity Building, all can be used to advance sustainable AI. UNESCO’s Ethical Principles, ITU’s AI for Good Summit, and multi-stakeholder forums such as IGF. Then there’s national leadership. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s leadership of the Digital Cooperation Organisation. They’re interested in an ethical framework for AI. Perhaps that could be a bridge involving China and the West. Malaysia’s chairing of ASEAN in 2025. They’ve got an interest in Responsible AI to double ASEAN’s digital economy. Singapore’s had leadership on greener data centres in humid tropical climates, in software, in integrating sustainability into its AI Verify and Model GNI frameworks. The EU and UK work on reducing digital emissions. The International Energy Agency’s report next spring on AI for Energy. France’s AI Action Summit, GPEI, the UK’s International Energy Security Summit, and Republic of Korea’s hosting of APEC economic leaders. These are all mini-lateral opportunities to further standardise approaches to measuring the energy cost of AI, but they can’t replace global initiatives that involve both China and the West. The last initiative, a really important one, is COP30 in Belém, Brazil. I wonder, can we have a higher ambition coalition on this issue of middle and smaller powers moving towards COP30? Possible national champions include Kenya, Singapore, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, Brazil, and France. That’s the end of my time. Thank you very much.


Yuming Wei: Thanks for Mr Strauss’ inspiteful speech. The energy and environment challenges in AI development are indeed global issues that require collaborative efforts from all countries around the world to address. Now, let’s welcome… who will be delivered on an online presentation from Beijing sub-forum. His speech is titled, 10 Epidemiological Questions on Generating Artificial Intelligence. Okay, Beijing, is there a voice clearly? Okay, let’s welcome. Hello. This is Feng Huizhang.


Min Jianing: This is from Beijing. Today, I’m going to talk about 10 Epidemiological Questions on Generating Artificial Intelligence. The rise of generative artificial intelligence triggered an unprecedented epidemiological revolution. This revolution is profoundly influencing human knowledge production, cognitive patterns, and social structures. To better grasp the full picture of this revolution and explore the future landscape of human-machine symbiosis, we must raise critical questions from an epidemiological dimension. So that’s why I want to read the 10 questions to cover various aspects of generative AI development, from a technological innovation to philosophical reflection, from social impact to value reshaping, systematically examining, and deeply exploring. These questions will provide us with important insights and action guides for understanding and responding to this revolution. Through researching the 10 questions, we can not only better grasp the development context and the trends of generative AI, but also more prudently consider the relationship between artificial intelligence and human society, contributing wisdom and strengths to achieving human-machine symbiosis and build a better future. So let’s take a look at the knowledge production and reshaping human nature, the revolution triggered by the generative AI and also the 10 questions. The question number one, what are the intrinsic mechanisms of evolution in knowledge production triggered by generative large-length model? Fundamentally, It is transforming the knowledge production mode, fundamentally changing our understanding of knowledge, truth, and cognition, shaking the epistemological presumptions of a subject, object, the autonomy and supremacy of reasons that have been established since the Enlightenment. 2. Does the emergence of generative large-language models signify the end of anthropocentrism, or does it make a new starting point for reshaping human nature? If intelligence is no longer the exclusive domain of humans, and creativity can also be simulated and surpassed by machines, then the status of a human as the spirit of all things will face unprecedented challenges. 3. Will the human-machine collaboration form a new paradigm for the knowledge exploration? When AI is not only a tool for human cognition, but also becomes a subject and even a partner in knowledge production, the relationship between humans and machines will inevitably undergo a profound restructuring. 4. How will generative large-language models subvert the traditional scientific research paradigm and open up new frontiers for knowledge discovery? The interaction between machine and human sciences to form amplified thinking will promote cross-disciplinary and integrated research humanized to disruptive innovations, and the Nobel Prize of Medicine and Physics have already shown that. And then I will talk about the social restructuring decision-making innovation, the transformation driven by generative AI, especially the decision-making innovation. So that is relevant with the question number five. Can generative large-language models help humans break through the limitations of funded rationality and achieve innovations in decision-making? With the help of the machine’s ability to extract insights from massive amounts of information, individuals will have the opportunity to transcend their own cognitive limitations and obtain more comprehensive and objective decision-making basis. About question number six, it will be relevant with the question of how will generative large-language models reshape the structure of human society and the relations of production. And the decision-making transformation is leading to the foundation of a traditional social division of labor because the non-differentiation of knowledge and skill acquisition triggered by large language model is based on the decisions. And then for question number seven, question number eight, how can we break down the disciplinary barriers and construct a fluid knowledge graph without disciplinary boundary? So that is exactly what question number seven is asking. Can generative large-language models break down disciplinary barriers and construct a fluid knowledge graph without disciplinary boundaries? The disciplinary classification system of individual error is built on the basis of a specialization and professionalization of knowledge production. And behind it lies the imprint of reductionism and mechanism. And question number eight, how will large language models revolutionize social science research and create a new paradigm with greater explanatory power, predictive power, and guiding power? With the help of large models, social sciences expect to establish an integrated research paradigm of data-driven human-machine collaboration and multi-scale linkage. So that is very interactive to the traditional way. The two last questions about redefinition of intelligence values, the philosophical reflections triggered by the generative AI. So for question number nine, how will the intelligence and creativity demonstrated by generative large language models redefine the human cognition? Because there is amazing creativity demonstrated by the large models based on the knowledge graph formed by training on massive corpora, blurs the boundaries between the imitation and innovation, quantitative and qualitative change. And question number 10, it is relevant to how the artificial intelligence is benchmarking towards the human intelligence. What are the connotations and extensions of aligning artificial intelligence with human values? What exactly it is aligning to? The question is not very clear yet. When the artificial intelligence system presents its difficult questions from unique perspectives, humans will be forced to re-examine existing beliefs and achieve value upgrades through openness, neutral learning, and evolution. So the human value system is also ever evolving. So that is the core of whether we should align with the peripheral part. Then, in summary, generative AI intelligence is pushing humanity towards a brand new era. In this era, the speed of knowledge iteration and updating will be greatly accelerated, and human-machine collaboration will promote the flourishing of science. Machine intelligence will help perfect social governance. The human-machine interaction will enhance human insight. When the artificial intelligence becomes the norm, the singularity will no longer be out of reach. In this new era, humanity will bid farewell to a civilization centered on individual intelligence and usher in a new era characterized by collective intelligence. Everyone will have their own personalized AI assistant, achieving the self-transcendence through the human-machine symbiosis. Facing this epistemological revolution led by generative AI, we should embrace the technology transformation with an open, prudent, and responsible attitude. And that’s why I put forward the 10 questions. Thank you.


Yuming Wei: Okay, thank you, Professor Mi Jianing, for sharing your thought-provoking perspective. I believe everyone has now gained a deeper understanding of the impact that generative AI will have on the cognitive system. Next, I welcome Professor Kevin D’Souza, who will deliver his speech titled Governing Cognitive Computer Systems for Public Value.


Kevin C. Desuoza: It’s okay, while the slides are being loaded. So it’s a pleasure to be here and address all of you. I would like to express my gratitude to the organizers of the event. Just two quick points. While I will present the presentation, I have a large group that helps me on a number of these projects. And so this is not just my work, it’s the work of my research group. the credit should go to them and these are just my views and they don’t officially reflect any group that we collaborate with. I guess we may not have slides. … … … … … … … … … … … … … Okay, and so one of the things that I thought that I would focus on is to broaden the discussion around AI. As you see in this image, AI is just a small piece of this larger revolution that’s underway right now on what we call cognitive computing systems. If you look at everything else around here you will notice three things. Number one, AI is probably the most developed field among the collection here. So if you look at things like neuropsychology, this is an emerging field. this is where we still have a lot of blue ocean. Whereas AI has been around for decades. The reason why I’m showing you this image is number one, it’s very important to put AI in the larger context if we want to talk about building transformative societies. AI will have a role to play, but it’s not the major role that it will play. It will work with a large assemblage of other innovations and other developments. Now, if you see everything on this image, you will notice one other thing. We are working at high speed when it comes to technical innovations in all of these areas. Yet, our governance and our frameworks to actually regulate and do responsible innovation have large amounts of inertia. And so, what I will do in the remaining few minutes is to highlight a few key points that hopefully will stimulate some further reflection on your part. So, if you can go to the next slide. Perfect. So, if you look at the other view of cognitive computing systems, you will see an image that looks like this. When we look at what really drives public value, we are trying to navigate these two issues of managing, governing actual behavior with cognitive computing systems and trying to understand what are individuals’ behavioral intentions. So, if you look at behavioral intentions, you will see things like risk. You will see things like privacy. When you look at actual intentions, you will see things like trust. You will see things like social presence. These are the areas where, again, work is underway. However, a lot of this work is. fairly disconnected from work going on that I showed you previously. Okay, so if you want to go to the next slide. So in the interest of time, I will not go through each of this. I will just highlight one thing at the end. So if you look at transparency, and it’s an issue that’s plaguing a lot of governments, our research has found that transparency is a very nuanced concept. There is transparency in terms of how government achieves a given outcome. There’s transparency in how we use technologies. And then there’s transparency in how government uses AI technologies. These three have different implications when it comes to explainable AI and our social licenses when it comes to innovating. Because I know we have two other speakers, I’ll go to the next slide. So one of the other areas, if we really want to build a truly global and AI or cognitive computing system driven society, we have to undertake fundamental work in terms of how interdependent our information platforms are, how interdependent our digital algorithms are. Because as recent examples have shown, if we have a single point of failure and it cascades around the ecosystem, we have actually increased the fragility of our societies. We haven’t increased it. Next slide. So the other issue that we have to do if we really want to uncover how do we get public value out of this stuff, is we have to begin tracking where is the money going. We have a long standing project where we’ve been looking at where governments around the world have been allocating their resources when it comes to advancement of AI. And so if you go to the next slide. And with these three, I’ll just highlight one thing. point each. Right now, a lot of the attention is on AI and large language models. To me, the technology is already out of the gate. It’s very hard to regulate. It’s very hard to govern when technology reaches a given scale. But we do have an opportunity when it comes to things like quantum computing. We need to get ahead of the curve rather than try to do it like we’ve been doing with previous generations of technology. The reason I bring up the Indonesia example is we have a lot of countries around the world that have forgotten the classical hierarchy of needs. Many countries around the world are deploying large language models for the higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs when they haven’t yet protected their databases. They haven’t yet prevented cyber attacks. So it’s this constant battle. And then lastly, one of the points we make in this report that’s coming out is, in order to truly reap the value of cognitive computing systems, we need to rethink how we design problems. So a very simple example. We are still trying to solve for health care in most countries, whereas the leading technology companies are solving for healthiness. They have completely flipped how they look at investments in health care. They are no more trying to solve for health care. They are trying to build healthier individuals. But for governments to be able to do that, they have to restructure government departments. They have to restructure ecosystems. And if we don’t do any of that, I believe we will never truly realize the value of these cognitive computing tools to make our societies more robust and innovative. Thank you.


Yuming Wei: Thanks for Professor Gisosa’s enlightening presentation. Your analysis of the public value of cognitive computer systems has provided us a new perspective for understanding AI and build stronger human-machine trust. Now let us welcome Professor Ru Peng from School of Public Policy and Management, Tsinghua University, who will deliver an online presentation from the Beijing Sub-Forum. Today’s topic is Governors’ Transformation and Standardization Development of the Intelligent Society. Please.


Ru Peng: Ladies and gentlemen, friends from Riyadh and Beijing, both online and offline, good afternoon. At present, the human society is moving towards an intelligent society, and a new generation of information technology represented by artificial intelligence is bringing significant and far-reaching impact to global economic growth, social development, and people’s lives. Chinese AI has formed a development trend of in-depth technological research and development, huge industrial scale, and diverse application scenarios. It can provide practical experience, leading demonstrations, and application feedback from the frontline for the development and governance of the global intelligent society, and provide exploratory and cutting-edge contributions. In order to use long-term cross-disciplinary and multidisciplinary empirical methods to record, describe, and predict the ongoing or upcoming changes in the intelligent society, under the leadership of Professor Su Jun, the Dean of the Institute for Intelligent Social Governance at Tsinghua University, I launched the initiative of conducting artificial intelligence social experiments and exploring the path of intelligent social governance in 2019 in collaboration with domestic and foreign experts and scholars, and promoted relevant appointments to build 92 national intelligent social governance experimental bases in 22 provinces across the country. To our knowledge, this is the largest social experiment on AI technology. and its governance on a global scale. After five years of practice, the experimental governance has achieved many important results and is continuously providing ideas, theories, and the technical standards and norms for building an intelligent society with human touch. For example, the city of Erdos in northern China has built the Duoduo Ping digital community service platform by using small QR codes to cover livelihood service and commercial operations enhancing the enthusiasm of the public to participate in community affairs in Erdos. The Hong Kong system and large-scale mining AI-based models have ensured the safety, greenness, and efficacy of coal production, promoting the intelligent transformation of the regional energy sector. For example, in the field of digital governance, China Mobile has provided an intelligent customer service experience and over 100,000 online Q&A services to 31 million people through the government affairs large model with a positive review rate of 98.7%, creating the most attentive intelligent government assistant. Based on the vivid practice on the vast land of China, we observed that the technical characteristics of AI are triggering a paradigm shift in its governance model. The humanoid nature, self-learning, adaptability, human-computer interaction, and the wide-ranging social impact of generative AI technology has led to a triple change in our AI governance. Number one, the transformation of our governance object from a material technological subject to a human-like technological subject and from static and stable technology to a dynamic and self-evolving technology. This requires us to pay close attention to issues such as the values, responsibility mechanism, and copyright mechanism of the big model and must adopt a flexible, open, and agile governance framework. Secondly, the governance interface has shifted from only dealing with the relationship between technical elements to take into account of the human-machine interaction. This calls for strengthened governance of issues such as information co-cons, cognitive bias, emotional manipulation, and addiction. Thirdly, the scope of governance has shifted from solely focusing on the process of technology co-innovation to emphasizing the micro-system of technology society policy involving multiple aspects such as ethics, social risks, and social impacts. This requires us to pay attention to the social applicability of technology and promote responsible development of AI. In facing with this shift in governance paradigms, we believe that standardization is the first move to address the opportunities and challenges of the times and build intelligent social culture and civilization. Standardization is not only a political tool with technical attributes but also strategic, leading, social, and people-oriented. In recent years, the clear trend of standardization internationally has been shifting from technical standards to governance standards, from standard refinement to standard prioritization. The main issues of standardization in AI have also expanded from traditional topics such as algorithms, data, and network security to comprehensive issues such as privacy, ethics, risk, management system, and social impact. In recent years, China has actively promoted the standardization of intelligent social governance. The relevant departments are studying and formulating the guidelines for standardization of intelligent social governance to build a standard system framework for intelligent social governance. In addition, the National Standardization Working Group on the Social Application and Evaluation of Intelligent Technology, SASWG35, which is headed by Tsinghua University as a secretariat, and I served as secretary general, has also conducted some useful explorations and has promoted the formal establishment of five national standards including social impact, generative AI, technology application, artificial intelligence, and social experiment. In the near future, we will continue to promote development of the key standards in areas such as social application for generative AI technology, smart healthcare, smart justice, and smart grassroots governance. Ladies and gentlemen, the future has arrived, the time is waiting for no one. We need to use standardized means to promote the healthy development of the intelligence technology, advance good governance of the intelligence society and serve the happy life of the people. We must adopt a prudent, positive and optimistic attitude to jointly address the risks and challenges brought by the intelligence technology. Let’s join hands and promote the development and governance of the intelligence society through the new paradigm of experimental governance, ensuring all countries and regions can benefit from the waves of the intelligence society and build a people-centered, humanistic intelligence society. Thank you.


Yuming Wei: Thank you, Professor Lupong, for your in-depth analysis of governance transformation and centralized path for intelligence society governance. Now let us welcome the final speaker, Mr. Pencilit Ilericic. As a highly experienced computer scientist, he will share his insights on leveraging information and communication technology as a tool for sustainable development. Because of the flight delay, Mr. Ilericic will speak online.


Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much. Mr. Ilericic, can you hear me? Yes, can you hear me? Can you hear me? Okay. Good morning. Good afternoon. Thank you all. It’s a great pleasure to be in this session. I just want to say that all the previous speakers that have spoken have basically addressed most of the issues that our collab loves to address. And I would like to start by saying the basic principles of how we use information computation technology, I’m talking mainly on artificial intelligence. It has to be human centered. And when it’s human centered, we are also dealing with issues that relate to trust and the respect of human values. Immediately we put that at the center of anything we do with artificial intelligence, be it with the various data models we collect or with the governance structure, then we have a good basis of discourse. And in talking about this, I would like us to go back to the final document of the government for AI for humanity, which was released in September, 2024 and by the UN AI advisory board. You should remember that this UN AI advisory board that was set up by the UN secretary general, Antonio Gutierrez in 2023, they are there on a volunteer basis independently. So their views do not reflect whatever organization or entity they refer to. And I want us to take, I would like to read from recommendation one, which I think is the basis of this session today. And one of the key recommendations from that document, which is recommendation one, was an international scientific panel of AI. And it was recommended that this panel has to be diverse and has to be multidisciplinary in terms of experts in various fields. And that is what this session has done. You know, we have had issues with quantum technology. We have had issues with using AI to mitigate climatic change, which is a big issue in the world today. But key things we should look at if we look very well at that recommendation one, we have to have annual reports in terms of surveying AI-related capabilities and opportunities and risk where there’s uncertainties. And this has to remain the core trust of what we do in terms of does it serve and respect human values? Is it really not encroaching on human rights? We also have to look at producing quarterly thematic research as that UN body says that will help AI, especially with achieving SDGs. Speaking as someone who comes from the Global South, we all know that in six years’ time, we’re going to be looking at the United Nations Substantive Development Goals. And if we use AI in whatever we do to try to achieve no to poverty or health or agriculture or climatic change, by emphasizing on the UN Substantive Development Goals 17, which deals with partnerships and cooperation, we’ll be able to achieve all we talked about here today. So I would like, colleagues, for us to reflect on the human-centric side of AI in what we do, especially with our young people, who are the ones going to be using this technology in everything they do. And they are the biggest social changes. Our governments have to understand this. Our companies have to understand this. And we have to start making sure that evidential-based research of the positive impacts of AI can make in the world we live in today. Thank you very much.


Yuming Wei: Thanks for Mr. Eladji for your wonderful speech. I find that although the speakers did not coordinate in advance, I note that their topics are highly complementary. President Gong He outlined China’s objectives and actions in building an intelligent society, while Professor Ru Peng further explored the governor’s dimension in this context. Professor Mi Jiayin examined the experimental challenges posed by generative AI, while Professor Kevin D’Souza proposed a governor’s approach with goal-oriented focusing for the AI cognitive systems. Mr. Sam Jules highlighted the importance of global governance in addressing energy and environmental problems in AI development, and Mr. Pancelet Eladji showcased the other side of AI’s role in promoting sustainable development. Due to time constraints, we are unable to proceed with further discussion and interaction. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all six speakers today for sharing their brilliant and thought-provoking perspectives. Ladies and gentlemen, the further is already here. Let us embrace the intelligent society together. Thank you all, and we are looking forward to seeing you the next year. Thank you. Thank you.


G

Gong Ke

Speech speed

78 words per minute

Speech length

1057 words

Speech time

811 seconds

China’s national plan and objectives for AI development

Explanation

Gong Ke outlined China’s comprehensive plan for AI development from 2017 to 2030. The plan focuses on building an intelligent society, fostering technological innovation, nurturing an intelligent economy, and enhancing digital infrastructure.


Evidence

The plan is described as a ‘1-2-3-4’ planning, involving one national open and collaborative AI technological innovation system, mastering two attributes of AI (technical and social), three-in-one promotion of R&D, manufacturing, and industry nurturing, and four aspects supported by AI development.


Major Discussion Point

Building an Intelligent Society


Agreed with

Sam Daws


Ru Peng


Poncelet Ileleji


Agreed on

Need for global collaboration in AI governance


Differed with

Sam Daws


Ru Peng


Differed on

Approach to AI governance


S

Sam Daws

Speech speed

130 words per minute

Speech length

944 words

Speech time

433 seconds

International collaboration on sustainable AI development

Explanation

Sam Daws emphasized the need for global cooperation in addressing the environmental and energy challenges of AI development. He highlighted various international initiatives and opportunities for collaboration in 2025.


Evidence

Mentioned initiatives include the UN Universal Tracts, UNESCO’s Ethical Principles, ITU’s AI for Good Summit, and various national leadership opportunities such as Saudi Arabia’s leadership of the Digital Cooperation Organisation.


Major Discussion Point

Global Governance of AI


Agreed with

Gong Ke


Ru Peng


Poncelet Ileleji


Agreed on

Need for global collaboration in AI governance


Differed with

Gong Ke


Ru Peng


Differed on

Approach to AI governance


AI’s potential contributions to climate solutions

Explanation

Sam Daws discussed the positive contributions AI can make to addressing climate change. He highlighted several areas where AI can be applied to develop climate solutions.


Evidence

Examples include new materials research in solar technologies, battery research, biodegradable alternatives to plastics, atmospheric modeling, and climate modeling through digital twins.


Major Discussion Point

Environmental and Energy Challenges of AI


High energy and water consumption of AI systems

Explanation

Sam Daws pointed out the significant energy and water consumption of AI systems, which contributes to global greenhouse gas emissions. He highlighted the growing concern about the environmental impact of AI.


Evidence

Currently, AI accounts for 1-2% of global energy use, and data centers use more water than four times that of Denmark every year.


Major Discussion Point

Environmental and Energy Challenges of AI


Need for energy optimization and efficiency in AI

Explanation

Sam Daws emphasized the importance of improving energy efficiency in AI systems. He discussed various solutions and initiatives to address the energy consumption issue in AI development.


Evidence

Recommendations include standardizing the measurement of AI emissions, incentivizing transparency from industry on energy use, making software more efficient, and powering new data centers only using renewable energy.


Major Discussion Point

Environmental and Energy Challenges of AI


M

Min Jianing

Speech speed

110 words per minute

Speech length

1002 words

Speech time

542 seconds

AI’s influence on knowledge production and human nature

Explanation

Min Jianing discussed how generative AI is transforming knowledge production and challenging our understanding of human nature. He raised questions about the impact of AI on anthropocentrism and the reshaping of human nature.


Evidence

He presented 10 epidemiological questions on generative AI, including questions about the intrinsic mechanisms of evolution in knowledge production and the potential end of anthropocentrism.


Major Discussion Point

Societal Impact of AI


Agreed with

Poncelet Ileleji


Kevin C. Desuoza


Agreed on

Human-centered approach to AI development


Reshaping social structures and decision-making processes

Explanation

Min Jianing explored how generative AI models could reshape social structures and decision-making processes. He discussed the potential for AI to break through limitations of human rationality and create new paradigms for knowledge exploration.


Evidence

He posed questions about how generative AI models might help humans overcome limitations of bounded rationality and achieve innovations in decision-making.


Major Discussion Point

Societal Impact of AI


K

Kevin C. Desuoza

Speech speed

118 words per minute

Speech length

1058 words

Speech time

534 seconds

Cognitive computing systems and public value

Explanation

Kevin C. Desuoza discussed the importance of understanding cognitive computing systems in a broader context beyond just AI. He emphasized the need to focus on public value and the governance of these systems.


Evidence

He presented a framework showing the relationship between behavioral intentions, actual behavior, and various factors like risk, privacy, trust, and social presence in cognitive computing systems.


Major Discussion Point

Global Governance of AI


Agreed with

Poncelet Ileleji


Min Jianing


Agreed on

Human-centered approach to AI development


R

Ru Peng

Speech speed

146 words per minute

Speech length

914 words

Speech time

374 seconds

Governance transformation and standardization for intelligent society

Explanation

Ru Peng discussed the need for governance transformation and standardization in the development of an intelligent society. He emphasized the importance of standardization as a tool for addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by AI.


Evidence

He mentioned the establishment of 92 national intelligent social governance experimental bases in 22 provinces across China, and the development of national standards for social impact, generative AI, and artificial intelligence social experiments.


Major Discussion Point

Building an Intelligent Society


Agreed with

Sam Daws


Gong Ke


Poncelet Ileleji


Agreed on

Need for global collaboration in AI governance


Differed with

Gong Ke


Sam Daws


Differed on

Approach to AI governance


Standardization as a tool for AI governance

Explanation

Ru Peng highlighted the importance of standardization in AI governance. He discussed how standardization is shifting from technical standards to governance standards and expanding to cover comprehensive issues.


Evidence

He mentioned China’s efforts in promoting standardization of intelligent social governance, including the formulation of guidelines and the establishment of a national standardization working group.


Major Discussion Point

Global Governance of AI


P

Poncelet Ileleji

Speech speed

131 words per minute

Speech length

584 words

Speech time

266 seconds

Human-centered approach to AI development

Explanation

Poncelet Ileleji emphasized the importance of a human-centered approach to AI development. He stressed that AI should respect human values and be built on trust.


Evidence

He referenced the final document of the government for AI for humanity released in September 2024 by the UN AI advisory board.


Major Discussion Point

Building an Intelligent Society


Agreed with

Kevin C. Desuoza


Min Jianing


Agreed on

Human-centered approach to AI development


AI’s role in achieving UN Sustainable Development Goals

Explanation

Poncelet Ileleji discussed the potential of AI in achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals. He emphasized the importance of using AI to address global challenges and promote sustainable development.


Evidence

He mentioned the need to focus on using AI to achieve goals such as poverty reduction, health improvement, and climate change mitigation.


Major Discussion Point

Global Governance of AI


Agreed with

Sam Daws


Gong Ke


Ru Peng


Agreed on

Need for global collaboration in AI governance


Ethical considerations and human values alignment in AI

Explanation

Poncelet Ileleji stressed the importance of aligning AI development with human values and ethical considerations. He emphasized the need for AI to respect human rights and not encroach on individual freedoms.


Evidence

He referenced the recommendations from the UN AI advisory board, which call for annual reports surveying AI-related capabilities, opportunities, and risks.


Major Discussion Point

Societal Impact of AI


Agreements

Agreement Points

Need for global collaboration in AI governance

speakers

Sam Daws


Gong Ke


Ru Peng


Poncelet Ileleji


arguments

International collaboration on sustainable AI development


China’s national plan and objectives for AI development


Governance transformation and standardization for intelligent society


AI’s role in achieving UN Sustainable Development Goals


summary

Multiple speakers emphasized the importance of international cooperation and standardization in AI governance to address global challenges and promote sustainable development.


Human-centered approach to AI development

speakers

Poncelet Ileleji


Kevin C. Desuoza


Min Jianing


arguments

Human-centered approach to AI development


Cognitive computing systems and public value


AI’s influence on knowledge production and human nature


summary

Speakers agreed on the importance of putting human values and ethics at the center of AI development, considering its impact on society and human nature.


Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers addressed the need for sustainable AI development, with Sam Daws focusing on environmental challenges and Gong Ke mentioning China’s plan for sustainable AI growth.

speakers

Sam Daws


Gong Ke


arguments

High energy and water consumption of AI systems


China’s national plan and objectives for AI development


Both speakers emphasized the importance of governance frameworks and standardization in AI development to ensure public value and address societal challenges.

speakers

Ru Peng


Kevin C. Desuoza


arguments

Standardization as a tool for AI governance


Cognitive computing systems and public value


Unexpected Consensus

Interdisciplinary approach to AI development and governance

speakers

Min Jianing


Kevin C. Desuoza


Ru Peng


arguments

AI’s influence on knowledge production and human nature


Cognitive computing systems and public value


Governance transformation and standardization for intelligent society


explanation

Despite coming from different backgrounds, these speakers all emphasized the need for an interdisciplinary approach to AI development and governance, considering technological, social, and ethical aspects.


Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agreed on the importance of global collaboration, human-centered approaches, and interdisciplinary perspectives in AI development and governance. There was also consensus on the need for standardization and addressing environmental challenges.


Consensus level

The level of consensus among the speakers was relatively high, with complementary perspectives on key issues. This suggests a growing recognition of the complex, multifaceted nature of AI governance and the need for collaborative, holistic approaches to address global challenges and opportunities in AI development.


Differences

Different Viewpoints

Approach to AI governance

speakers

Gong Ke


Sam Daws


Ru Peng


arguments

China’s national plan and objectives for AI development


International collaboration on sustainable AI development


Governance transformation and standardization for intelligent society


summary

While Gong Ke focused on China’s national plan for AI development, Sam Daws emphasized the need for international collaboration, and Ru Peng stressed the importance of standardization in AI governance. This indicates different approaches to AI governance at national, international, and standardization levels.


Unexpected Differences

Focus on energy consumption of AI

speakers

Sam Daws


Other speakers


arguments

High energy and water consumption of AI systems


Need for energy optimization and efficiency in AI


explanation

Sam Daws was the only speaker to extensively discuss the environmental impact and energy consumption of AI systems. This focus on the ecological aspects of AI development was unexpected given the broader discussion on AI governance and societal impact.


Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement centered around the approach to AI governance, the focus of AI applications, and the consideration of AI’s environmental impact.


difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers was moderate. While there were different emphases and approaches, there was a general consensus on the importance of responsible AI development and its potential to address global challenges. These differences in perspective can be seen as complementary rather than conflicting, potentially enriching the overall discussion on AI governance and development.


Partial Agreements

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agreed on AI’s potential to address global challenges, but Sam Daws focused specifically on climate solutions, while Poncelet Ileleji emphasized a broader range of Sustainable Development Goals.

speakers

Sam Daws


Poncelet Ileleji


arguments

AI’s potential contributions to climate solutions


AI’s role in achieving UN Sustainable Development Goals


Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers addressed the need for sustainable AI development, with Sam Daws focusing on environmental challenges and Gong Ke mentioning China’s plan for sustainable AI growth.

speakers

Sam Daws


Gong Ke


arguments

High energy and water consumption of AI systems


China’s national plan and objectives for AI development


Both speakers emphasized the importance of governance frameworks and standardization in AI development to ensure public value and address societal challenges.

speakers

Ru Peng


Kevin C. Desuoza


arguments

Standardization as a tool for AI governance


Cognitive computing systems and public value


Takeaways

Key Takeaways

China has a comprehensive national plan for AI development focused on building an intelligent society, with objectives like improving social services, governance, and public safety


Global governance and international collaboration are crucial for addressing challenges like energy consumption and environmental impact of AI development


AI and cognitive computing systems are reshaping knowledge production, decision-making processes, and social structures, requiring new governance approaches


Standardization is seen as an important tool for governing AI development and its societal impacts


There is a need for human-centered, ethical approaches to AI that align with human values and contribute to sustainable development goals


Resolutions and Action Items

Promote standardization efforts for AI governance, particularly in China


Explore opportunities for international collaboration on sustainable AI development, especially leading up to COP30


Continue research and experimentation on AI social impacts through initiatives like China’s 92 national intelligent social governance experimental bases


Unresolved Issues

Specific mechanisms for global interoperable approaches to sustainable AI development


How to balance national interests and global collaboration in AI governance


Concrete steps to align AI development with human values and ethics across different cultural contexts


Methods to effectively measure and mitigate the energy and environmental impacts of AI systems


Suggested Compromises

Leveraging existing UN frameworks and multi-stakeholder forums to bridge differences between China, the West, and other regions on AI governance


Balancing the pursuit of AI advancement with responsible development practices that consider social impacts and sustainability


Thought Provoking Comments

AI is therefore subject to the Jevons Paradox, named after an English economist who, back in 1865, observed that increased efficiency of coal use actually led to increased consumption of coal across a wide range of industries, and AI is following a similar path.

speaker

Sam Daws


reason

This comment introduces a counterintuitive economic principle to explain why AI energy use continues to rise despite efficiency gains. It challenges the assumption that technological efficiency automatically leads to reduced resource consumption.


impact

This insight shifted the discussion towards the need for more comprehensive approaches to managing AI’s environmental impact beyond just improving efficiency. It added complexity to the conversation about sustainable AI development.


When the artificial intelligence system presents its difficult questions from unique perspectives, humans will be forced to re-examine existing beliefs and achieve value upgrades through openness, neutral learning, and evolution.

speaker

Min Jianing


reason

This comment presents AI not just as a tool, but as an entity capable of challenging human thinking and values. It suggests a more symbiotic relationship between humans and AI in intellectual and ethical development.


impact

This perspective expanded the discussion beyond technical and governance issues to consider the philosophical and ethical implications of AI development. It prompted deeper reflection on the nature of human-AI interaction and co-evolution.


We are still trying to solve for health care in most countries, whereas the leading technology companies are solving for healthiness. They have completely flipped how they look at investments in health care.

speaker

Kevin C. Desuoza


reason

This comment highlights a fundamental shift in problem-framing that AI enables. It demonstrates how AI can lead to reimagining entire sectors and approaches to societal challenges.


impact

This insight broadened the conversation to consider how AI might transform not just processes, but entire paradigms of thinking about social issues. It encouraged participants to think more creatively about AI’s potential impacts across various domains.


Standardization is not only a political tool with technical attributes but also strategic, leading, social, and people-oriented.

speaker

Ru Peng


reason

This comment reframes standardization from a purely technical process to a multifaceted approach for shaping societal development. It emphasizes the broader implications of how we set standards for AI.


impact

This perspective shifted the discussion towards considering standardization as a key lever for responsible AI development and governance. It highlighted the importance of interdisciplinary approaches in AI policy-making.


Overall Assessment

These key comments collectively broadened the scope of the discussion from technical and governance issues to include economic, philosophical, ethical, and societal dimensions of AI development. They challenged participants to think more holistically about the implications of AI, considering both its potential benefits and risks across various domains. The comments also emphasized the need for interdisciplinary approaches and creative problem-solving in addressing the challenges posed by AI. Overall, these insights deepened the complexity of the conversation and encouraged a more nuanced understanding of how AI might shape future societies.


Follow-up Questions

How can we standardize the way we measure AI emissions?

speaker

Sam Daws


explanation

Standardizing AI emissions measurement is crucial for accurately assessing and managing the environmental impact of AI technologies.


How can we incentivize transparency from industry on their energy use and emissions?

speaker

Sam Daws


explanation

Industry transparency is essential for understanding and addressing the true environmental costs of AI development and deployment.


Can we have a higher ambition coalition of middle and smaller powers moving towards COP30 to address AI sustainability issues?

speaker

Sam Daws


explanation

A coalition of nations could drive progress on sustainable AI development and implementation at a global level.


What are the intrinsic mechanisms of evolution in knowledge production triggered by generative large-language models?

speaker

Min Jianing


explanation

Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for grasping the fundamental changes in how knowledge is created and disseminated in the age of AI.


How will generative large-language models reshape the structure of human society and the relations of production?

speaker

Min Jianing


explanation

This question addresses the potential societal and economic impacts of AI, which are critical for preparing for future changes.


How can we break down disciplinary barriers and construct a fluid knowledge graph without disciplinary boundaries using generative large-language models?

speaker

Min Jianing


explanation

This research area could lead to more integrated and holistic approaches to knowledge and problem-solving across various fields.


How will large language models revolutionize social science research and create a new paradigm with greater explanatory power, predictive power, and guiding power?

speaker

Min Jianing


explanation

This question explores the potential for AI to transform research methodologies and enhance our understanding of social phenomena.


What are the connotations and extensions of aligning artificial intelligence with human values?

speaker

Min Jianing


explanation

This question is crucial for ensuring that AI development remains ethical and beneficial to humanity.


How can we rethink problem design to truly reap the value of cognitive computing systems?

speaker

Kevin C. Desuoza


explanation

Redesigning how we approach problems could unlock the full potential of AI and cognitive computing in solving complex issues.


How can we develop key standards in areas such as social application for generative AI technology, smart healthcare, smart justice, and smart grassroots governance?

speaker

Ru Peng


explanation

Developing these standards is crucial for ensuring responsible and effective implementation of AI across various sectors of society.


Disclaimer: This is not an official record of the session. The DiploAI system automatically generates these resources from the audiovisual recording. Resources are presented in their original format, as provided by the AI (e.g. including any spelling mistakes). The accuracy of these resources cannot be guaranteed.

Day 0 Event #184 From Compliance to Excellence in Digital Governments

Day 0 Event #184 From Compliance to Excellence in Digital Governments

Session at a Glance

Summary

This discussion focused on digital government excellence and the key factors for improving digital services in the public sector. Dr. Axel Domeyer, a partner at McKinsey, presented a framework for assessing digital government maturity that goes beyond basic compliance to include excellence and impact. He emphasized the importance of having a central digital government agency to drive improvements across the ecosystem of government entities. The discussion highlighted three key elements: compliance with basic standards, excellence in implementing best practices, and measuring impact through key performance indicators (KPIs).

Domeyer presented case studies from the UK, Singapore, and Saudi Arabia to illustrate different approaches to digital government excellence. The UK was noted for its comprehensive functional standard for digital and data, while Singapore was praised for its systematic approach to setting and achieving KPIs. Saudi Arabia was highlighted for its rapid improvement in digital services rankings.

The importance of user satisfaction as a key metric was stressed, along with the need to publish outcomes of digital investments. Challenges in implementing digital excellence were discussed, including the complexity of government ecosystems and the balance between in-house capabilities and external vendors. The discussion touched on the future of KPIs in digital government, emphasizing the need to focus on outcomes rather than specific technologies.

Participants raised questions about the differences between public and private sector digital services, the role of business process management, and the balance between government involvement and private sector innovation in digital development. The discussion concluded with insights on the optimal balance of in-house and outsourced IT capabilities in government entities.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Moving beyond basic compliance to digital excellence and impact in government

– Components of digital government excellence: strategy, processes/operations, technology, organizational resources

– Importance of measuring and publishing KPIs for digital government impact

– Case studies of digital government initiatives in the UK, Singapore, and Saudi Arabia

– Balancing in-house capabilities vs. external vendors for government IT/digital functions

Overall purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how governments can go beyond basic compliance with digital standards to achieve excellence and measurable impact in their digital transformation efforts. The speaker presented frameworks and case studies to illustrate best practices in this area.

Tone:

The overall tone was informative and professional, with the speaker presenting concepts and examples in an authoritative manner. During the Q&A portion, the tone became more conversational and collaborative as the speaker engaged with audience questions and provided more off-the-cuff insights based on his experience. Throughout, there was an underlying tone of optimism about the potential for governments to improve their digital capabilities and services.

Speakers

– Noura Alsanie: Director of Digital Excellence and Sustainability at DGA (Digital Government Agency)

– Axel Domeyer: Partner at McKinsey and Company, specializes in helping clients with complex technology transformations across government entities

– Audience: Various audience members asking questions (roles/expertise not specified)

Additional speakers:

– Zoran Jordanoski: From UNU-EGOV (role/expertise not specified)

Full session report

Digital Government Excellence: Moving Beyond Compliance

This comprehensive discussion, featuring Dr. Axel Domeyer, an expert in complex technology transformations across government entities, explored the key factors for improving digital services in the public sector. The dialogue centered on how governments can progress beyond basic compliance with digital standards to achieve excellence and measurable impact in their digital transformation efforts.

Framework for Digital Government Excellence

Domeyer presented a framework for assessing digital government maturity that encompasses three key elements:

1. Compliance with basic standards

2. Excellence in implementing best practices

3. Measuring impact through key performance indicators (KPIs)

This framework aims to provide a more holistic approach to digital governance, moving beyond mere adherence to standards. Domeyer emphasized that digital government excellence comprises four main components: strategy, processes/operations, technology, and organizational resources.

The Role of Central Digital Government Agencies

A significant point of discussion was the importance of having a central digital government agency to drive improvements across the ecosystem of government entities. Domeyer noted that while these agencies can design, build, and operate common digital solutions, their primary function is to influence the broader ecosystem. This perspective challenges the common perception of central agencies as direct implementers, reframing their role as ecosystem influencers.

Case Studies in Digital Government Excellence

To illustrate different approaches to digital government excellence, Domeyer presented case studies from the UK, Singapore, and Saudi Arabia:

1. The UK was noted for its comprehensive Digital and Data Functional Standard, which covers eight key areas including user needs, data, technology, and security. This standard serves as a best practice example for other nations.

2. Singapore was praised for its systematic approach to setting and achieving KPIs, with 15 specific metrics guiding their digital governance efforts. Singapore’s GovTech, a statutory board that can operate like a private company, was highlighted as a model for in-house capability building.

3. Saudi Arabia was highlighted for its rapid improvement in digital services rankings, now placed fourth in the digital services index. This progress was attributed to a performance improvement mindset and overachieving their Vision 2030 digital government goals.

These case studies demonstrated varying strategies for achieving digital excellence in government services.

Challenges and KPIs in Implementing Digital Excellence

The discussion addressed several challenges in implementing digital excellence and the importance of well-defined KPIs:

1. Public sector services generally lag behind private sector offerings in quality across most countries.

2. Some nations, like Germany, lack centralized technology platforms, which can hinder coordinated digital transformation efforts.

3. Measuring user satisfaction accurately presents difficulties, despite its importance as a key metric.

4. Balancing in-house capabilities with external vendor expertise remains a complex issue for many government entities.

Key points on KPIs included:

1. User satisfaction and cost-effectiveness were identified as crucial metrics.

2. The need for proactive service delivery metrics was emphasized.

3. Challenges in standardizing KPIs across agencies were acknowledged.

4. A focus on outcome-based KPIs rather than technology adoption metrics was recommended.

Domeyer suggested that fundamental KPIs like user satisfaction and cost-effectiveness are likely to remain important over time, rather than metrics tied to specific technologies.

Building Digital Capabilities in Government

The discussion touched on strategies for building digital capabilities within government:

1. Basic digital literacy for all government employees was deemed essential for digital excellence.

2. A balance between internal expertise and external support was discussed, with industry averages showing a 50-50 split between in-house capabilities and outsourced IT services.

3. The importance of business process management in achieving digital excellence was highlighted by an audience member, introducing a more technology-focused perspective.

4. Domeyer emphasized the need for a product management mindset in government service delivery.

Audience Questions and Future Considerations

The discussion concluded with audience questions, raising several points for future consideration:

1. How to effectively measure and standardize user satisfaction metrics across different government agencies.

2. The optimal balance between government involvement and private sector participation in digital governance.

3. Strategies to address the quality gap between public and private sector digital services.

4. Identifying specific technical capabilities that should be prioritized for in-house development in government agencies.

5. The potential impact of emerging technologies like AI on future KPIs for digital government.

In response, Domeyer stressed the importance of having a strong central digital government governance mechanism and the need for a balanced approach in public-private partnerships for digital services.

Conclusion

The discussion provided a comprehensive exploration of digital government excellence, highlighting the need for a balanced approach that considers compliance, excellence, and impact. Key takeaways include the importance of central digital agencies as ecosystem influencers, the value of well-defined KPIs, and the need for a product management mindset in government service delivery. While challenges remain, the dialogue offered valuable insights into strategies for improving public sector digital services and measuring their effectiveness.

Session Transcript

Nora Saneh: Are you trying to test it? Okay, it’s good, right? Yeah. I think there’s different channels. Yeah, test, test. Can you hear me? No? Yeah. Test, test. No, no. Maybe they switched it off. Okay. What? Can you hear me, guys? Can you hear me? Testing. No? It’s working? Okay. Where did it go? Okay, thank you. Perfect. Okay, thank you. I think so. Right. I think we may be at. Yep. Yep. Salaam alaikum. Can you hear me, everyone? Salaam alaikum. Can you hear me, everyone? Salaam alaikum. Good evening and welcome everyone to this workshop and welcome to Riyadh. I’m honored to have you here or welcome you here at the 2024 IELTS forum. and for those who are attending online, we’re glad to have you attending as well. My name is Nora Saneh, I’m the Director of Digital Excellence and Sustainability at DGA. Today, I’m honored to welcome Dr. Axel Doniel, he’s a partner at McKinsey and Company, and to introduce Dr. Axel, he’s specialized in helping clients ensure the value of complex and long-term technology transformation across multiple government entities. This includes the implementation of best practices in different dimensions or different domains, for example, architectural design, software development, program management, and stakeholder management. And speaking of best practices, Dr. Axel is with us today to discuss and explain what is beyond compliance for government entities, and how can we uptake, help government entities to take them from compliance to excellence. So, join me in welcoming Dr. Axel, the floor is yours.

Axel Domeyer: Thank you very much, Nora, and thank you very much, Digital Government Agency, for having me at this distinguished event. Maybe a quick, small addition to my background. So, I’ve been working with governments around the world, in Germany, which is where I’m coming from, but also in the rest of Europe, very much in the Middle East, and in basically all other continents, for about the last 12 years to support digital transformation. And the type of client that I actually enjoy working the most with are central digital government agencies. So similar to the DGA in Saudi Arabia. And I’ve worked with a couple of those around the world. So such entities, central digital government agencies, they often face the expectation to fix digital government, right? To kind of like finally get it done. And I think it’s important to realize that yes, they can do quite a bit, right? So they can design and build and operate some common digital solutions for the country, which they often do. But at the end of the day, what they really do is they influence the ecosystem, right? So the ecosystem of ministries, of agencies that constitute the government, and they can’t force the ecosystem to become more digitally mature to perform better, but they need to find ways to influence this positively. There’s essentially three mechanisms how that can be done, right? So number one is you can set policies, right? And you can say, you know, like, look, you have to comply with these policies, number one. Number two is capability building, right? So you can teach people in the ministries and the agencies how to implement best practices, how to do the right thing. And then number three, and this is what I want to talk about today, is to put forward an instrument to assess the digital performance, the digital maturity of the ecosystem of individual entities and to basically point out constructive ways of improving, right? So that’s the instrument I want to focus on today. And what I want to argue is that it’s a good idea here to have a compliant approach, yes. So… Do entities comply with digital government standards? But then to also add several, so two further elements, right? So number one is excellence, right? So have a more detailed view of what actually constitutes the best practice in managing digital in a government entity and help agencies to achieve this best practice. And then I would also argue that as a third element, you will require an impact approach as well, right? So it’s not just enough to say this is how you should do it, but you should also track if you’re actually delivering results. And so these are the three elements that I believe you should have, compliance, excellence, and impact. So let’s start with compliance, right? And I think Saudi Arabia is actually a great example of having a very mature approach to tracking and managing the compliance with digital government standards and policies, right? That’s called the QIA statistic. The governor of DGA actually went welcoming the crowd at IGF today. He shared the latest number of Saudi Arabia in 2024, but 87% compliance of all entities with digital government standards. So it’s gone up significantly since 2021. I think that’s good news, right? And clearly it’s very helpful to track if the agency or the entities are complying with the basics, right? So for instance, do you have a cloud computing unit in your agency? You should, right? So let’s take that box and let’s make sure that everybody takes that box. As you can see, I mean, as we are now approaching kind of like a hundred percent, right? On the basics, right? Not quite, right? But getting there. I think it’s important to also have more, let’s say additional and sophisticated tools to see how you can go beyond the basics, right? This is where I believe the excellence approach comes in. And before I talk about excellence, right? So let’s get some facts about this topic, about this problem, strange, right? So that we kind of get context here, right? So fact number one, digital government ecosystem systems are actually very complex, right? So typically you have like anywhere between 150 and 200 individual entities in the government, which is a whole lot more complex than when you’re running a private sector organization, right? Which, you know, like my friends in the private sector in digital McKinsey, they’re always kind of astonished at like how complex it is to run digital transformation in the government, given how complex it actually is, right? So you typically have like about 10 sectors and a hundred plus government agencies. So that’s why a lot of governments have now implemented a central digital government agency like DGA and Saudi Arabia, right? Which is probably the only way to handle this complexity effectively. So that’s fact number one. Fact number two, is we’re kind of getting, so 10 years ago, right, when I started in the field, yeah, I mean, it was kind of new, right, to government and like most of, I mean, there were a lot of paper-based things happening in the clients I’ve been working with. It’s no longer the case, right? So I think digital government has reached a certain degree of maturity now, right? So that it’s not enough to kind of like focus on the basics, right? So… Almost more than 50% of all countries in the world have fully operationalized digital public infrastructure frameworks. The majority of OECD countries is actually already be leveraging AI. So if you really want to go beyond the basics, then you need yeah, you need kind of like individual entities to do what best practice requires, right? And you need to support them in doing so, right? So just checking the boxes on the basics, it’s not going to be enough. This looks like right in our example here, right? So we said compliance, have a cloud computing unit, right? Excellence in this particular context would mean, so for instance, you could say you need the cloud transformation and adoption plan, right? So there’s a detailed migration plan, there’s cloud adoption monitoring in place. So you basically define kind of like a few things here, right? That go beyond just kind of like the basic thing of having a cloud unit in place, right? And you can add many more things here, right? So you could say you need like a financial cloud financial management or in ops capability, right? Which enables you to actually deliver the financial savings that you typically hope to realize, right? When you start a cloud program. So that’s what excellence looks like on this particular example, right? But then again, it’s not just okay or enough to look at how you’re doing things, right? Like if you’re doing it with the right style and you’re looking good, so to speak, best practice like while you do it. I mean, you really want to make sure that you actually track if you also deliver the goods, right? So in this particular example, right? Like if we stick with the cloud example, you would want to track, are you actually delivering cost savings? Are you reducing time to market, right? For innovations, digital innovations that you’re pushing. Live the day, like this digital governor, central digital government agency, you want to support ecosystem to become more mature, to perform better. These are the three ingredients that will be helpful, right? So basic compliance, excellence, that checks kind of like a more sophisticated view of what the best practice behaviors are for the entity. And then you also track the actual outcomes of investing in digital, right? So are you getting return on investment? Right, so in order to, you know, like also involve the audience here a bit, and, you know, I hope this is going to be a dialogue when we get to the Q&A, but let me ask you this question, right? So in your country, and I see there’s a variety of countries represented here. In your country, what do you think, what is the public administration emphasizing in terms of fostering the overall digital government ecosystem? Is it more compliance? Is it more excellent? Is it more impact? And please go to the survey, and then we’re going to see a few results on the screen in a moment. All right. So this is quite interesting, right? So it confirms a bit the hypothesis, right, that I had when writing this talk, that in most places, compliance is kind of where you start, right? I mean, it’s the most basic of the three ingredients. I mean, you should have it. But it’s also, let’s say, kind of like the, I mean, it gets you so far, right? So it gets you to a certain point. But at the end of the day, it’s not kind of like the most sophisticated element. But it is kind of like where most countries are today, right? So let’s take a moment to decompose, to unpack digital government excellence a little bit, right? So what could be included in your country with your central digital government agency had to develop an assessment rubric? Is your, are the entities, the ministries in your government, are they performing well on digital government excellence? What would be the dimensions, right, that you could include? And in my view, there’s essentially four dimensions here, right? Strategy, right? So most foundational component. And here you can ask questions such as, is the strategy bold enough, right? So are you actually setting ambitious targets? Does it link in a meaningful sense to the business strategy of the entity, right? Or just kind of like a cookie cutter digital strategy that could, you know, like as well be true for a chocolate factory, right? So does it link to the business strategy of your entity? Is there a clear business case? in the strategy for the investments that you’re making, right? So are you really putting forward, that’s the ROI that we expect from implementing the strategy? And also does it look beyond the ecosystem, right? So beyond the, into the ecosystem, I mean, right? So beyond the entity into the ecosystem, towards the partners, so that could be other government entities and also suppliers, right, in the private sector. Second element is processes and operations. So this will cover questions about, you know, do you have the right governance framework in place, right? So do you have the right roles? Do you have the right processes defined? Do you use agile ways of working? Funding cycle actually support agile ways of working. And that’s one of the challenges I often see in government entities, right? That yes, we want to do agile, but the way we actually govern ourselves in particular how we govern funding, it doesn’t actually support agile ways of working, right? So in your assessment rubric, that could be a question you could ask. Third category is technology, right? So that would include questions about your architecture. Do you have a modern kind of platform architecture that clearly distinguishes between things that everybody should use in the same way and products, right, that you build on top of the architecture? So are you following what are architecture paradigms here? Are you using cloud in the right way? Do you follow cybersecurity standards? So that would be the technology component. And lastly, we have organizational resources, right? So the most important question in that category is, do you have the right capabilities in-house, right? And do you work with outside vendors in an effective way, right? So that in sum, right, between your… your in-house capabilities and your external capabilities, you have all the right capabilities in place for you to deliver on your strategy. This is just kind of like, it’s one cut, right? Or like one way of categorizing this. I mean, there’s many, many other ways, right? And other governments have done, or different governments have done this in different ways. But this could give you kind of like a basic overview, right, of like what you could potentially include here. Of your assessment framework in place, right? The next question becomes, how do you actually use it? Right, so is it a scoring framework, right? Where you go out to each entity and you score each entity each year, everybody gets a score, the score is published on the websites, and then it becomes a little bit like, you know, like going to school, right, and taking an exam. And I mean, let’s say there’s a certain risk that entity is kind of like over state, right? So their digital performance, right? Because they don’t want to look bad, right? So those are my point of view. And some of the governments I’ve worked with that have such an assessment framework in place, they would rather use it, not as kind of like a schooling device, but as a coaching device, right? Where you have an assessment framework in place that entities can use to self-evaluate, right? To see how they are doing against kind of concrete things that they could be doing better. And then the central digital government agency would kind of coach them on, concite them, so to speak, right? On how to improve on these dimensions, right? But you don’t necessarily get published, right? And you say, oh, you know, like this year, and you know, my experience, not particularly constructive, right? If you’re a digital government agent and you want kind of a good working relationship with the entity. is much better to use that as a coaching device. Impact on the other hand, that’s a different story, right? So on impact, I’m like firmly convinced that you should have a set of KPIs that you’re measuring and then you publish it, right? So if you say, I wanna save 500 million US dollars or whatever currency you are in through using digital, then you should measure if you actually get there, right? And this is something that you should kind of inform the public about in order to make this kind of a firm commitment that is then much more likely to be followed through with. All right, next audience question. I talked a little bit about KPIs for digital government impact, right? So let’s see what you guys have KPIs, right? That you think are kind of constructive to measure and publish kind of nationally in order to track the progress of digital transformation in government. Yes, I think these are a few good ones. And my sense is you probably only get one word to type. So it’s a little bit hard to formulate an actual KPI. But I like these concepts, right? So satisfaction in my view, I mean, that’s the ultimate KPI. So this digital government is all about making life easier for citizens and making it easier to run a business so the economy can grow. And how do you see if you achieve these targets? I mean, you ask people and businesses how they are doing, and I think this is for me like the major KPI that everybody should. Interestingly it’s actually one of the, I mean, there are some governments that actually do this, right? But overall, let’s say the enthusiasm to publish kind of like these national KPIs on how are you actually doing on service delivery is somewhat limited in most places, right? So and I think the places that do best, right? So I mean, Saudi, for instance, it’s made a huge jump in the digital services index on the EDGI. And I think one of the reasons why they’ve made this big jump is because they actually publish the outcomes of their digital government investments, and they hold kind of the ecosystem accountable to actually deliver, right? So in my view, that’s really key. So satisfaction is great, experience is related to this, usage, right? Like another kind of like very important KPI. So in Germany, where I come from, we have a lot of digital government solutions online. I would say the digital adoption, the usage rate is not particularly high, right? And if this was actually published on a regular basis for every service that’s online, my sense is we would probably be doing a little bit better, right? So this is also a great one to publish. But yeah, thank you. Thank you so much for your contributions. I see you guys are kind of like thinking about this very much along the same lines that I was thinking, and thanks for the engagement. So now let’s, let’s take, you know, I’ve given you a little bit of like theory and like a framework. So now let’s, let’s look at some real case studies, right? To show that this is not just something that I, I came up with, right? Like as a theory I want to propose, but this is something that’s actually happening, right? And if we look at excellence, I want to say that the, like one of the countries or the case examples that I like the best is the United Kingdom, right? Which in 2020 published a digital and data functional standard, which is actually not. So this is not, there’s not a scoring framework, right? So this is very much what I described kind of like as a coaching and teaching device, which basically sets forth a number of best practices that digital government or that government entities can follow in the space of digital and data. It’s actually part of a wider web of functional standards in the government, right? So there’s one for HR, there’s one for finance, there’s one for project delivery, there’s one for property management. So the UK government basically has such a standard for basically all the functions that are common across the government, right? So things that are not unique to a particular agency, but that are common across entities. And what they cover in the standard are, so not four areas, but eight areas, right? So they look and they very clearly prescribe. So these are the roles, right? That you should have in your entity, right? You should have a chief digital officer. You should have a chief data officer. You should have some person that’s accountable. all of digital within the wider government ecosystem, right? So, one neck to choke, so to speak, right? For digital performance. So, that’s the governance section. There’s also something in there about the processes, is, you know, like how, what I find interesting in the UK is that they’re very focused on assuring the value of projects and of investments they make. So, they have in the governance section of the standard, they have some very clear guidelines on how do you do this, right? Should do this, right? Some parts of it are mandatory, by the way, right? So, they would have language in there where it says you must do this, right? It’s not optional. And then there’s a lot of language in there where it says, depending on your situation in the entity, you should consider a particular way, right? So, in that sense, it’s very much not like a sloppy like a sloppy check device. The other things that are included in there are service management, right? Which is very much about like, how should you deliver the services in the government, right? So, how do you make them user-friendly? Like, what’s the setup that you should have in place to manage a service? There’s technology management, which covers architecture and IT operations management. Some standards included in there, right? So, for specific technical topics, the digital and data standard would reference some of the detailed standards, right? So, such as the cloud policy and standard, right? Or the cyber security standard. So, in this way, you know, like if you are an IT or digital officer in an entity, really know exactly what to do, right? So, in this way, I think the central digital and data office, right? So, this is the central digital and data agency in the UK. What they seek to accomplish here is to like, really, IT, the digital and data profession in the UK government in a kind of like standardized way. So that everybody rises kind of to the same level for people to kind of like interact with each other, right? So they’re all speaking, so it’s that we should be following some forwards that we should have, right? So I’m the chief digital officer and you are chief digital officer, you know, like we know what each other’s kind of responsibility is, right? And in that way, it becomes much easier to collaborate across the government in a professional way, right? So that’s how they think about this. As far as I can see, this is probably the most apprehensive effort, right? To drive the government excellence that I’m aware of, which is currently in place. I mean, I haven’t studied all 180 countries, so there might be, and I’m, you know, looking forward to the Q&A as well, like what you think about kind of your countries or other countries that are relevant here. But I think the UK is, in my view, that’s kind of like most mature in terms of driving an excellence perspective. The second example I want to highlight is Singapore, right? And I think Singapore is a great example for how to act in a very systematic way, right? So their digital government strategy, which is called the digital government print, I think the cycle just finished, right? So they came up with it in 2018. It was finished kind of to be implemented until 2023. And I suppose they’re working on the next cycle now, but in that blueprint, they put forward 15 KPIs, right? So about 120 KPIs, 15 KPIs. And then they got very serious about making sure they deliver all these KPIs, right? So 70% satisfaction with resident and business services, resident and business services, right? 100% online payment, right? So no entity allowed to not have an- online payment for service, every civil servant, at least basic digital literacy, the way that’s actually been checked, right? So like people actually go through the training and the certification to make sure that this is the case. I did some more technical things, right? Which are, would be equally important. So example of this 90 to 100% of data fields, which are included in government IT systems, machine readable and accessible by an API, right? So if I think about the governments I know, incredibly ambitious goal, right? So I would say the European governments I work with would probably be much lower than this, right? But Singapore kind of set this target and by and large, they got there, right? So they didn’t hit every KPI in 2023, but by and large, they got there. And over the five years, they saw some very significant improvements on many of these dimensions. And they published this, right? And they held themselves accountable to it and stayed honest, so to speak, on the strategy they wanted to deliver. And then, yeah, let me close with Saudi Arabia, our host today. Thank you very much for having all of us. So we’ve talked about kiosks, right? And like your very systematic approach to ensuring compliance, right? Which I think is very inspiring and mature. I also think, so in terms of KPIs, I actually know, I have no other clients in my line of work where the people I work with are more enthusiastic about KPIs, right? So Saudi Arabia, for me, is the land of KPIs. And as I said, I think this is the reason why you guys have made these amazing strides, right? Over the past few years, right? And you are now number four, right? So world class in the digital services index on the EDGI. So on impact, you’re also doing very well. And I understand you guys are working on how to address this in the future, right? So in my perspective, we can probably, you know, like with all of these ingredients in place, we can probably see more progress, right, in digital government. So we’re excited about, you know, what Saudi Arabia is going to do in the next couple of years in digital government, keep inspiring us. And thanks very much for having me, having us today at IGF. Thank you.

Nora Saneh: Simple questions, but allow me to ask first, you have covered several dimensions across the government entity. So what do you think would be the main key areas, critical areas that entities need to focus on and what would be the challenges from Saudi Arabia?

Axel Domeyer: So I think the four areas I talked about are probably a good starting point, right? So strategy, organizational resources, technology management, and operations, more services and operations. I think on these, what you have to think, I mean, the main challenge here is like, how granular do you get, right? So when you set up an assessment framework for individual entities, I mean, there’s a lot of things that people can be doing in the right way or on the wrong way. But you can’t, I mean, the UK digital and data standard, it has 40 pages, right? And when you read it, it actually still feels like sometimes a little bit high level. And then they refer to kind of like individual substandards, right, such as the cloud standard and the cyber standard. So I think the main challenge here is to kind of like hit the right level of abstraction, right? So it’s, you know, it’s still digestible, right? It’s that you’re working with. If you hit them with kind of like a 500 page manual and you kind of like try to regulate kind of like every single thing they’re supposed to be doing, I mean, like people are not going to enjoy this, right? I mean, the independent professionals, I mean, they know how to run their IT and their digital function. So you need to kind of like find a level of abstraction that’s kind of informative enough, right? So that people actually learn something out of it, but you’re not kind of like, let’s say, like overdoing it, yeah? So that I would say is kind of the main challenge when you address this.

Audience: Okay, sorry. Should we say that compliance should be always related to the regulatory framework? That is, if we judge compliance, somehow we should find ideas and in all indices in the legal aspects and so that regulatory framework really are the framework that we measure. Yeah. I think that’s a nice way of thinking about it, right? Because you,

Axel Domeyer: I mean, there are some things where you don’t want to coach people to do it. You want to make people do it, right? And if they don’t, then you have a problem, right? So, but I mean, this again, shouldn’t be like a catalog of like 500 pages where you say, you know, like to the last detail, this is what the regulation requires. You want to give some people, you want to give people some freedom to run their digital function in a way, you know, like that’s suitable to their organization. But then there are some things you want to put down in a regulation, right? So for instance, I mean, cybersecurity, I think is one of those areas where you want to be very precise. descriptive, right, about how people should approach it, and you don’t want to give too much space for interpretation, right? What exactly should be done? And then in my view, it should be a regulation. And everybody, I mean, you don’t, I mean, you should have a hundred percent compliance, right? I mean, you’re not going for 80 or 90 percent, you’re going for a hundred percent on those. Everything else, right, where it’s more of a, you know, like this would be good. This would be professional. That would be nice if you had this. I would put this into the excellence category. Oh, a lot of questions.

Audience: Okay. Okay, I have the mic, so. Yeah. Thank you. Okay, thank you. My name is Zoran Jordanoski from the UNUIGAF. We’ve been dealing with all these online services for approximately more than 20 years. And my first key question is, we have online services provided by the private sector and the public sector. And the public sector services are not, in general, even 50 to 60 percent of the quality of the private sector services. So my first question is, what is the piece that miss in the public sector services? And let’s break the dilemma. I won’t accept the argument that the government lack money or maybe modernization in public administration. Because we know that even some of the high income countries, I will take the example of Germany, can afford the latest new technology, can afford to modernize the public administration. And yet in Berlin, to register a newborn will take you two weeks just to register into the registry. So what is the piece that is missing for public services to have the same quality of the private sector services? And my second one, here it comes, what do you think is the role of the soft regulation? regulations, like you mentioned the standards. If you read one of the rules of the UK service standard is understand your user’s needs. Do you think that the government understand what user wants and what user needs?

Axel Domeyer: Great. So it’s kind of the $30 billion question in Germany, right? So 13 billion is how much we spend on public sector IT with huge amount of money. And I think it’s a very legitimate question to ask what are we actually buying, right? And you gave a good example of why we would want to be skeptical about what we’re buying, right? With these $30 billion roundabout. So the answer to that question is of course, not simple, right? Given there’s many reasons, right? Like why this isn’t working as well as we would hope to. And by the way, this is not like an uncommon phenomenon, right? So we studied a few years back, we studied, I wanna say like around 10 countries around the world and all world regions. It was not a single country where the public sector did better than the private sector in terms of service quality, right? So this was a common finding everywhere. I think there might be, so I recently read something about a digital government ranking here in the Middle East, right? Where it was actually quite close, closely related, right? So private sector and public sector were doing about equally well, right? So I think in general, it’s possible, right? To reach that state. How do you get them? I mean, if you ask me with regard to Germany, the main challenge I would say we have is on the technological platform side because we don’t have one, right? So we have a very complex digital government ecosystem with hundreds of agencies, you know, like the States like Berlin, municipalities, everyone’s working kind of on that. own technology. So the 30 billion euros that we’re spending for each individual service and each individual entity, it actually isn’t that much money, right? Just when you add all of it up, it becomes a lot. But as a result of the subcritical spend and the low maturity at the level of individual entities, the outcomes are what they are, right? So I think that’s one of the main reasons I would highlight, right? So you need some form of technology platform governance at the national level. Once you have that, I think the next important thing is to think about how everyone in the ecosystem can work according kind of like to best practices, develop their services, manage their services, maintain their data, and so on and so forth, in kind of like a best practice way. And I think that’s where a digital government maturity assessment or excellence framework comes in quite handy, right? But it’s kind of like the second most important thing, right? Important, but second most important in my view. Do we know the needs of the users in government? I would say on average, probably less so than the private sector, because if the private sector doesn’t do it, they go out of business. It’s a slightly stronger incentive to look after the user. But I don’t think there’s kind of like a structural obstacle to doing this, right? And there’s many government services around the world, which are fantastic, right? And I mean, they really speak to the needs of their users. So I don’t think it’s like structurally impossible, right? But I think empirically speaking, you’re right, that it’s not the case as much as we would like it to be.

Audience: I’d like to ask about the future of KPI in government, you know, with the fast pace of technology at a really rapid speed. And until now, I think they’re a little bit stagnant, or, you know, sort of the digital maturity was pegged against 100% services, end-to-end, digitized, right? UX, UI, platformization. What is your sense? What are the next batch of, let’s say, KPIs for digital government, given that AI is there? I mean, it’s a big buzzword, but I mean, what are we really talking about in the future of government, digital government?

Axel Domeyer: Yeah, that’s a great question. I think in some sense, I mean, like the good things in life, right, they kind of like stay stable over time, right? I mean, they don’t change that much. So I would expect the ones that we have right now continue to be important, right? So user satisfaction, cost, right, of investing in digital and what do you get out of it. So I think these will remain important KPIs. I think there’s a certain temptation for governments to kind of measure the adoption of specific technologies, right? So like a while ago, it was, you know, like how many blockchain projects do we have in government, right? Which I happen to think about, I mean, this is not like a super important KPI, right? So I wouldn’t go for measuring the adoption kind of individual technologies. What I would always try to do is to measure kind of like some actual outcome that like the ultimate recipients, right? So people, businesses, government entities themselves like actually care about, right? So one thing that I’ve seen becoming kind of more prominent is kind of the question of like, how many services have we moved to kind of like a completely proactive mode of delivery, right? Where you have kind of like zero touch delivery. You just get the service when you’re entitled to it, right? I think that’s a great KPI, right? And then of course, if you want to kind of like make sure that you stay innovative, I mean, you can measure things as like, you know, like how many projects are we doing in AI? Like how many people have been kind of skilled, right? In AI, I think these are kind of temporary things, right? That for a certain period of time might be useful to measure but then for the, like the real KPIs, right? That you put kind of like at the heart of your strategy, I would say kind of like the evergreens are a good start. then like maybe every five to 10 years, you get kind of like a new one. Yes. So I think one of the most important things that are affected by digital advancements or technological advancements in government entities and organizations are business processes. So what’s the role of business processes, processes, management, and digital excellence? I think it’s actually huge. So in business process management, it’s kind of like, it’s not the most exciting kind of like innovative term. And it has been around for a long time. I don’t think so. The public sector entities I have worked with, this is an area where typically they can improve, right? And how can they improve? They often have a process map, but it’s not really focused on what outcomes are these processes delivering for the constituents, right? For residents, for businesses, for other government entities, right? So I think the best entities that I’ve seen, what they have is they have a business strategy, right? Where they say, this is what we actually want and need to deliver. And it goes beyond, we need to implore that apply to us, right? I mean, that’s not a strategy. I mean, that’s a, I mean, like you should be doing it. Yes. But beyond this, you should have a view, right? Like what are you actually delivering right for the community? And then you link kind of your processes to these outcomes, right? And you say, you know, like this process. So I work a lot with labor agencies, right? So the process of matching job seekers with job opportunities, right? So this is a process or a product, right? And you can kind of like break down how it works and you should be doing this, right? And then you should measure how well this process is actually delivering. delivering on these KPIs and you should kind of codify what the process looks like today because a lot of the entities I have seen, they kind of know how they do it, right? But then, you know, like in this location, they do it like this way and another way, they do it another way, right? So the next level is to like really standardize how you’re doing it and then to kind of like continually improve it, right? To have kind of like what I would call a product management mindset, right? Like in private sector, you would say product management, not process management. But to really, I mean, service delivery in public entities is usually process driven, right? So like you start somewhere, you know, there’s transaction that’s initiated by the citizen, for instance, then it goes somewhere in the agency and then goes back to the citizen. There’s a little bit of back and forth. There’s some checking against the rules, right, that apply. There’s often very clear rules that apply to a service or a process. And you should very, you should be very well aware of like how you should model, right? Like what you’re actually doing. And then you should always be on the lookout for ways to improving this, right? So systematic business process management understood in the right way, right? It’s a strategic exercise, not as kind of like, you know, like a way to employ a very large number of consultants. You know, I can take this a little bit self-critically about our industry. Business process management as a strategic exercise is I think key, right? And should be part of a digital government excellence standard.

Audience: Okay. Thank you for your sharing. It’s very valuable and helpful for us. I have a question here. As I saw from the example of the Kingdom of UK, you said, not the Kingdom of UK, Kingdom of Saudi, Saudi Arabic. So the ranking of EGDI is first-ranking. I think it is a very good ranking. very good result. So my question here is, so for the other countries who want to improve the ranking here, what’s the main area they should do? That’s the first question. Second one is for, I saw there is some of the data is for the user experience and for the satisfactory. So I think it’s very difficult to measure for such a KPI. So do you have some good example of practice, how the governance they can measure the user experience and the satisfactory? This is what I want to ask. Sure. So, I mean, Saudi is amazing, right? And I don’t know if

Axel Domeyer: you can replicate kind of like going up 67 ranks and kind of like one, two year cycle on the digital services index. So, I mean, this might be kind of like a historical singularity in a way. Right. So what did they do and like, what can other countries do to kind of get to a similar level? I mean, it will depend a little bit on where you are as an individual country, right? I mean, some countries, I mean, Germany, for instance, is really lacking, I think on the technology platform side, right? Which is what I mentioned in response to an earlier question. Other countries might have different issues, right? But I think what the Saudis did really well over the last couple of years was kind of like this performance improvement mindset, right? So they set themselves a target as part of the Vision 2030. We want to be in a certain place by 2030, right? And I think in digital government, they overachieved, right? And they didn’t just set themselves the target. I mean, they measured it in many, many different dimensions, including kind of like the tough ones, right? Including user satisfaction, including the effectiveness of the money that’s actually being spent, including digital adoption, right? Where a lot of the clients that I have worked with, a little bit similar to what you just said, like, oh, isn’t that hard, right? To measure it. And, you know, like, isn’t it like in this agency, it’s like different from that agency and how can we have a single national KPI? And how do we get these agencies to kind of like report the KPI, you know, like in the first place and, you know, like, let’s not overdo it, right? With a performance mindset. I think Sony is a good, I mean, Sony is not a small country, right? I mean, it’s like almost 40 million people, you know, like a very complex and large government. And they kind of like didn’t follow these precepts, right? Of, you know, like, oh, it’s like hard and let’s not do it. It’s like the ministries won’t go along and so on, right? So I think once you have a strong kind of central digital government governance mechanism in place, then you can follow through on this, right? And you can say, you know, like, look, measuring satisfaction is not that hard, right? I mean, like every company does it, right? I mean, most companies, almost every company does it and many government entities do it, right? And there’s established methods of doing it. I mean, some use NPS, some use CSED and, you know, you just need to kind of align which one are you using and then you need to make the entities do it, right? I mean, that’s kind of like usually the hard part where, you know, the tricky thing that I have observed in like the clients or the contacts that I have worked with is that, yes, you have somebody who is centrally responsible for driving digital government maturity, but they don’t actually have kind of the competences, the powers to, you know, like make those decisions and make kind of all of the entities to contribute in a certain way, right? So I would say, I mean, in line with the, so last year there was an amazing report, I think it was called the digital leaders report. And I think one of the key findings of that report was like all the countries that actually do like reasonably well on digital government have a central. digital agency in place and they gave, and they give the central digital agency enough power to kind of move the ecosystem, right. Instead of, you know, like just running around and, you know, like telling people kind of obvious things, right. So I think like the, the things that I’ve been talking about today, I mean, they’re not particularly complicated or sophisticated, right. They’re kind of obvious. The challenge is to actually implement it in like a complex government ecosystem. Hello.

Audience: Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. So in your presentation, you mentioned capabilities is an important factor to support. What are some of the digital or technical capabilities that we should focus on to propel excellence and to building it in-house?

Axel Domeyer: Right, right. So I think the approach that Singapore has with, you know, kind of like everybody should have basic literacy. I think that’s very important, right. Everybody should have it in particular people in leadership positions, right. So, so having kind of like a solid curriculum of, you know, like understanding the basics, you know, like how do you, how do you do an IT project, you know, like why is it useful to kind of like do certain things in the cloud and, you know, like others not. So a certain level of digital literacy, I think everybody should have. I think the more tricky question is about how much kind of technical, real technical capability do you build in-house versus how much do you rely on outside vendors, right. And I mean, there’s people who say, you know, like, look, like governments are like too dependent on system integrators and, you know, like outside vendors. And I mean, that’s probably true, but you also shouldn’t kind of like go overboard, right. In terms of trying to do everything in-house, because nobody does that, right. I mean, like even the most successful. I mean, like they work with vendors, right? I think the typical share of like external and internal spend is somewhere between, so on average it’s 50-50, right? And I would say kind of like some have 60-40 and others have 40-60. But there’s always like a very, you know, like big share of like outside capabilities that you’re accessing. That’s logical, right? I mean, like you’re not in the, I mean, like government entities and like also most businesses are not in the business of, you know, like having like the most up-to-date digital capabilities on everything. Like they’re in the business of their business, right? So they should access kind of external vendors to a certain degree. But I also think that, I mean, like every company or every organization is a digital company organization today, right? So there is a certain degree of in-house capability that’s helpful to have. And I think, again, I mean, Singapore is for me kind of like they’re the KPI champions and they are the capability champions, right? So what I really like about, another thing that I really like about Singapore is Gaftec Singapore, right? Which is their kind of IT delivery arm in the government. And Gaftec Singapore has actually been set up, I think they call it a statutory board, which means it’s not a public sector agency, right? So they’re not bound by kind of like the same restrictions as a typical public sector entity, but they can essentially operate like a private company. And they operate like a digital company, right? So like Google or Accenture or what have you, right? So they would hire kind of like the same level of talent. They pay them the same amount of money, but they also manage them in the same way, right? Like how a Google would manage kind of like their star architect, right? So if you deliver your projects, right, great, right? I mean, you could continue your job. If you don’t, right, maybe time for you to look for a position somewhere else, right? So Gaftec Singapore is a very interesting, it’s a public sector. in-house capability organization, but it’s run like a private sector organization that performs much, much better than all the other IT delivery organizations I know of. So having that level of capability is really crucial. But getting there the traditional way. Let me put it that way. All right. I’m getting some signs that I need to kind of like wrap up from the back. I don’t know. Maybe you can do one more question. Yeah.

Audience: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for sharing. And you only, we got to have some idea about the economy. So you know that I’m from China and we know that economy is just a two category. One is market economy, and another one is common economy. And for currently, you also mentioned about digital governance. We also know that there was a balance about technology development and also economy. If the government involved too much, maybe the technical development will be slowing. So my question is, what did you think about what kind of the KPI of the digital combined and why? Sorry, can you repeat the question? I’m not sure I quite caught this. Yeah. My question is, what did you think about the KPI of the digital governance to side to management? Because as we think there was a two category market economy, commodity economy. Yeah. So what’s kind of the right balance between kind of the government and the private sector? Yes. Yeah. It’s kind of a complicated question, right? I mean, my sense is

Axel Domeyer: that what most government entities do like in their core mission, I mean, they’re running a fairly simple business, right? I mean, they’re getting some highly structured and regulated services to the end user. And I don’t think you need to kind of, I mean, it’s not like you’re building a spaceships, right? So my sense is as long as you have kind of like a reasonable level of in-house architecture capability, you have like some software engineers, right? You can kind of like build this and direct kind of the private sector contractors that you work with. Then you’re in good shape, right? So you don’t need to go like a hundred percent, right? Like in-house capability. But you also shouldn’t go kind of like 5% in-house capability and 95% outsourced capability, which is stick, right? But it’s something that I’ve seen in many places, right? So kind of like a very kind of lopsided balance between government and private sector in terms of delivering IT, right? For public sector entities. But my, you know, like in terms of, you know, like if you really want to get a number, I think 50-50 is actually quite good, right? Because I mean, that’s kind of like the industry average, right? If you look at kind of like Gartner IT spend data, that’s kind of like where you typically end up with, right? Across kind of like all industries, 50% is kind of like your own people and like investments that you make directly. And the rest is kind of like working with whoever is your preferred private sector IT provider. So I think government is not kind of like structurally different from this, right? I mean, they’re not kind of like, they don’t need to be kind of like super innovative, like Google, right? And they’re also not like in a place where you could say, oh, you actually don’t need anyone in house, right? So I would say, you know, just go for the industry average, which would be like roundabout 50-50. Great, great discussion and thanks for having me. Thank you. I think I might still be on, right? Did you help me get unplugged? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Nora Saneh: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A

Axel Domeyer

Speech speed

164 words per minute

Speech length

7858 words

Speech time

2872 seconds

Three key elements: compliance, excellence, and impact

Explanation

Axel Domeyer proposes a framework for digital government excellence consisting of three key elements: compliance, excellence, and impact. He argues that these elements are crucial for improving digital government performance and maturity.

Evidence

Examples of compliance (QIA statistic in Saudi Arabia), excellence (UK’s Digital and Data Functional Standard), and impact (Singapore’s KPIs) are provided.

Major Discussion Point

Digital Government Excellence Framework

Differed with

Audience

Differed on

Approach to digital government excellence

UK’s Digital and Data Functional Standard as best practice example

Explanation

Axel Domeyer presents the UK’s Digital and Data Functional Standard as a best practice example for digital government excellence. He highlights its comprehensive approach covering various aspects of digital governance.

Evidence

The standard covers eight areas including roles, processes, service management, and technology management.

Major Discussion Point

Digital Government Excellence Framework

Singapore’s systematic approach with 15 KPIs

Explanation

Axel Domeyer praises Singapore’s systematic approach to digital government strategy, which includes 15 key performance indicators (KPIs). He emphasizes the importance of setting clear targets and holding the ecosystem accountable.

Evidence

Examples of Singapore’s KPIs include 70% satisfaction with resident and business services, 100% online payment, and 90-100% of data fields being machine-readable and accessible by API.

Major Discussion Point

Digital Government Excellence Framework

Agreed with

Audience

Agreed on

Importance of KPIs in digital government

Saudi Arabia’s progress in digital government rankings

Explanation

Axel Domeyer highlights Saudi Arabia’s significant progress in digital government rankings. He attributes this success to their systematic approach and focus on key performance indicators.

Evidence

Saudi Arabia is now ranked fourth in the digital services index on the EDGI.

Major Discussion Point

Digital Government Excellence Framework

Agreed with

Audience

Agreed on

Importance of KPIs in digital government

Lack of centralized technology platform in some countries

Explanation

Axel Domeyer identifies the lack of a centralized technology platform as a major challenge in some countries’ digital government implementation. He argues that this leads to inefficient spending and suboptimal outcomes.

Evidence

Example of Germany spending 30 billion euros on public sector IT without a centralized platform.

Major Discussion Point

Challenges in Digital Government Implementation

Importance of user satisfaction and cost-effectiveness

Explanation

Axel Domeyer emphasizes the importance of user satisfaction and cost-effectiveness as key performance indicators for digital government. He argues that these ‘evergreen’ KPIs should be at the heart of any digital government strategy.

Major Discussion Point

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Digital Government

Agreed with

Audience

Agreed on

Importance of KPIs in digital government

Need for proactive service delivery metrics

Explanation

Axel Domeyer suggests the need for proactive service delivery metrics as a new KPI for digital government. He argues that measuring the number of services moved to a completely proactive mode of delivery is a valuable indicator of progress.

Major Discussion Point

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Digital Government

Focus on outcome-based KPIs rather than technology adoption

Explanation

Axel Domeyer advises focusing on outcome-based KPIs rather than technology adoption metrics. He argues that measuring actual outcomes that matter to citizens, businesses, and government entities is more important than tracking the adoption of specific technologies.

Major Discussion Point

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Digital Government

Agreed with

Audience

Agreed on

Importance of KPIs in digital government

Importance of basic digital literacy for all government employees

Explanation

Axel Domeyer stresses the importance of basic digital literacy for all government employees, especially those in leadership positions. He argues that this is crucial for building digital capabilities in government.

Evidence

Singapore’s approach of ensuring basic digital literacy for all civil servants is mentioned as an example.

Major Discussion Point

Building Digital Capabilities in Government

Singapore’s GovTech as model for in-house capability building

Explanation

Axel Domeyer presents Singapore’s GovTech as a model for building in-house digital capabilities in government. He highlights its unique structure and management approach that allows it to operate like a private sector organization.

Evidence

GovTech Singapore is set up as a statutory board, allowing it to operate like a private company and attract top talent.

Major Discussion Point

Building Digital Capabilities in Government

Need for balance between internal and external capabilities

Explanation

Axel Domeyer argues for a balance between internal and external capabilities in government IT. He suggests that while some outsourcing is necessary, governments should maintain a significant level of in-house capability.

Evidence

Industry average of 50-50 split between internal and external IT spend is mentioned as a benchmark.

Major Discussion Point

Building Digital Capabilities in Government

Agreed with

Audience

Agreed on

Need for balance between internal and external capabilities

A

Audience

Speech speed

142 words per minute

Speech length

776 words

Speech time

327 seconds

Public sector services lag behind private sector in quality

Explanation

An audience member points out that public sector digital services are generally of lower quality compared to private sector services. They question why this disparity exists, especially in high-income countries that can afford the latest technology.

Evidence

Example of Berlin, where registering a newborn can take two weeks.

Major Discussion Point

Challenges in Digital Government Implementation

Differed with

Axel Domeyer

Differed on

Approach to digital government excellence

Difficulty in measuring user satisfaction

Explanation

An audience member raises the issue of difficulty in measuring user satisfaction and experience for government services. They ask for examples of good practices in this area.

Major Discussion Point

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Digital Government

Challenges in standardizing KPIs across agencies

Explanation

An audience member highlights the challenges in standardizing KPIs across different government agencies. They note that different agencies may have different needs and contexts, making it difficult to apply a single set of KPIs.

Major Discussion Point

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Digital Government

Importance of business process management in digital excellence

Explanation

An audience member emphasizes the importance of business process management in achieving digital excellence. They ask about the role of business process management in the context of digital government excellence.

Major Discussion Point

Building Digital Capabilities in Government

Agreed with

Axel Domeyer

Agreed on

Need for balance between internal and external capabilities

Agreements

Agreement Points

Importance of KPIs in digital government

Axel Domeyer

Audience

Singapore’s systematic approach with 15 KPIs

Saudi Arabia’s progress in digital government rankings

Importance of user satisfaction and cost-effectiveness

Focus on outcome-based KPIs rather than technology adoption

Both Axel Domeyer and audience members emphasized the importance of well-defined KPIs in measuring and improving digital government performance.

Need for balance between internal and external capabilities

Axel Domeyer

Audience

Need for balance between internal and external capabilities

Importance of business process management in digital excellence

There was agreement on the need for a balanced approach to building digital capabilities in government, combining internal expertise with external support.

Similar Viewpoints

Both Axel Domeyer and audience members recognized the challenges faced by public sector digital services, particularly in countries lacking centralized technology platforms.

Axel Domeyer

Audience

Lack of centralized technology platform in some countries

Public sector services lag behind private sector in quality

Unexpected Consensus

Difficulty in measuring user satisfaction

Axel Domeyer

Audience

Importance of user satisfaction and cost-effectiveness

Difficulty in measuring user satisfaction

While an audience member raised concerns about the difficulty of measuring user satisfaction, Axel Domeyer unexpectedly agreed by emphasizing its importance as a key performance indicator, suggesting a shared recognition of both the challenge and necessity of this metric.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around the importance of KPIs, the need for a balanced approach to digital capabilities, and the recognition of challenges in public sector digital services.

Consensus level

There was a moderate level of consensus among speakers, particularly on the importance of measuring and improving digital government performance. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of key challenges and potential solutions in digital government implementation, which could facilitate more targeted and effective strategies for improvement.

Differences

Different Viewpoints

Approach to digital government excellence

Axel Domeyer

Audience

Three key elements: compliance, excellence, and impact

Public sector services lag behind private sector in quality

While Axel Domeyer proposes a framework for digital government excellence, an audience member points out that public sector services still lag behind private sector in quality, suggesting that the proposed framework may not be sufficient to address the quality gap.

Unexpected Differences

Role of technology adoption in digital government excellence

Axel Domeyer

Audience

Focus on outcome-based KPIs rather than technology adoption

Importance of business process management in digital excellence

While Axel Domeyer emphasizes focusing on outcome-based KPIs rather than technology adoption, an audience member unexpectedly highlights the importance of business process management, which could be seen as a more technology-focused approach. This difference in perspective on the role of technology in digital government excellence was not explicitly addressed in the main arguments.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the approach to achieving digital government excellence, the feasibility of measuring user satisfaction, and the role of technology adoption versus outcome-based metrics.

difference_level

The level of disagreement appears to be moderate. While there are some differences in perspective, they do not fundamentally contradict the overall goal of improving digital government services. These disagreements highlight the complexity of implementing digital government excellence and suggest that a multifaceted approach, considering various viewpoints, may be necessary for successful implementation.

Partial Agreements

Partial Agreements

Both Axel Domeyer and the audience member agree on the importance of user satisfaction as a key performance indicator for digital government. However, they disagree on the feasibility of measuring it, with the audience member highlighting the difficulties in measurement.

Axel Domeyer

Audience

Importance of user satisfaction and cost-effectiveness

Difficulty in measuring user satisfaction

Similar Viewpoints

Both Axel Domeyer and audience members recognized the challenges faced by public sector digital services, particularly in countries lacking centralized technology platforms.

Axel Domeyer

Audience

Lack of centralized technology platform in some countries

Public sector services lag behind private sector in quality

Takeaways

Key Takeaways

A comprehensive digital government excellence framework should include compliance, excellence, and impact elements

The UK’s Digital and Data Functional Standard and Singapore’s systematic KPI approach are considered best practices

Saudi Arabia has made significant progress in digital government rankings through a performance improvement mindset

Public sector digital services generally lag behind private sector in quality across most countries

Centralized technology platforms and governance are crucial for successful digital government implementation

There should be a balance between building in-house digital capabilities and leveraging external vendors

Outcome-based KPIs focused on user satisfaction and cost-effectiveness are more valuable than technology adoption metrics

Basic digital literacy for all government employees is essential for digital excellence

Resolutions and Action Items

None identified

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively measure and standardize user satisfaction metrics across different government agencies

The optimal balance between government involvement and private sector participation in digital governance

How to address the gap in quality between public and private sector digital services

The specific technical capabilities that should be prioritized for in-house development in government agencies

Suggested Compromises

Aim for a 50-50 split between in-house capabilities and outsourced IT services in government agencies, as this aligns with industry averages

Thought Provoking Comments

I think it’s important to realize that yes, they can do quite a bit, right? So they can design and build and operate some common digital solutions for the country, which they often do. But at the end of the day, what they really do is they influence the ecosystem, right?

speaker

Axel Domeyer

reason

This comment reframes the role of central digital government agencies from direct implementers to ecosystem influencers, challenging the common perception of their function.

impact

It set the tone for the rest of the discussion by emphasizing the importance of influence and ecosystem management in digital governance rather than just direct implementation.

And what I want to argue is that it’s a good idea here to have a compliant approach, yes. So… Do entities comply with digital government standards? But then to also add several, so two further elements, right? So number one is excellence, right? So have a more detailed view of what actually constitutes the best practice in managing digital in a government entity and help agencies to achieve this best practice. And then I would also argue that as a third element, you will require an impact approach as well, right?

speaker

Axel Domeyer

reason

This comment introduces a comprehensive framework for assessing digital governance, moving beyond simple compliance to include excellence and impact.

impact

It structured the subsequent discussion around these three key elements – compliance, excellence, and impact – providing a framework for analyzing digital governance initiatives.

And the public sector services are not, in general, even 50 to 60 percent of the quality of the private sector services. So my first question is, what is the piece that miss in the public sector services?

speaker

Audience member (Zoran Jordanoski)

reason

This question challenges the status quo and prompts a critical examination of public sector digital services compared to private sector offerings.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards a more critical analysis of public sector digital services and prompted Axel to discuss structural challenges in government digital transformation.

I think in some sense, I mean, like the good things in life, right, they kind of like stay stable over time, right? I mean, they don’t change that much. So I would expect the ones that we have right now continue to be important, right? So user satisfaction, cost, right, of investing in digital and what do you get out of it. So I think these will remain important KPIs.

speaker

Axel Domeyer

reason

This comment provides a perspective on the enduring nature of certain KPIs in digital governance, emphasizing fundamental metrics over trendy technological measures.

impact

It refocused the discussion on core, user-centric metrics rather than getting caught up in measuring adoption of specific technologies, providing a long-term view on digital governance assessment.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from a basic understanding of digital governance to a more nuanced, ecosystem-focused approach. They introduced a comprehensive framework for assessment, prompted critical examination of public sector digital services, and emphasized the importance of enduring, user-centric metrics. The discussion evolved from describing digital governance to analyzing its complexities and challenges, ultimately providing a more holistic view of the subject.

Follow-up Questions

What is the piece that is missing for public services to have the same quality as private sector services?

speaker

Zoran Jordanoski

explanation

This question addresses the persistent quality gap between public and private sector digital services, which is crucial for improving government service delivery.

What is the role of soft regulations, like standards, in improving public services?

speaker

Zoran Jordanoski

explanation

Understanding the impact of non-binding guidelines could provide insights into effective ways to improve government digital services.

Do governments truly understand what users want and need?

speaker

Zoran Jordanoski

explanation

This question highlights the importance of user-centric design in government services and the potential gap between service providers and users.

What are the next batch of KPIs for digital government, given the advent of AI and other emerging technologies?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This explores how to measure digital government progress in the context of rapidly evolving technologies, which is crucial for future planning and assessment.

How can governments effectively measure user experience and satisfaction?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This addresses the challenge of quantifying qualitative aspects of service delivery, which is essential for improving government digital services.

What are the key digital or technical capabilities that should be focused on to propel excellence and build in-house expertise?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This question seeks to identify the most critical skills and knowledge areas for governments to develop internally to improve their digital services.

What is the appropriate balance between government involvement and private sector participation in digital governance?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This explores the optimal mix of public and private sector roles in digital governance, which is important for effective and efficient service delivery.

Disclaimer: This is not an official record of the session. The DiploAI system automatically generates these resources from the audiovisual recording. Resources are presented in their original format, as provided by the AI (e.g. including any spelling mistakes). The accuracy of these resources cannot be guaranteed.

Day 0 Event #189 Toward the Hamburg Declaration on Responsible AI for the SDG

Day 0 Event #189 Toward the Hamburg Declaration on Responsible AI for the SDG

Session at a Glance

Summary

This discussion focused on the development of the Hamburg Declaration, an initiative aimed at promoting responsible AI for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The conversation involved representatives from UNDP and the German government, along with various stakeholders. The Hamburg Declaration is part of the annual Hamburg Sustainability Conference, which seeks to bridge the gap between AI and development communities.

Key points included the need to align AI applications with SDG principles while addressing potential risks such as exclusion, environmental impact, and data privacy. The declaration aims to gather voluntary commitments from multiple stakeholders, including governments, private sector, and civil society. Participants emphasized the importance of avoiding duplication with existing AI governance efforts while focusing specifically on development contexts.

The discussion highlighted several crucial areas for consideration, including digital sovereignty, infrastructure development in Global South countries, and the need for AI governance structures in developing nations. Participants stressed the importance of including voices from affected communities and showcasing local initiatives that demonstrate responsible AI use for sustainable development.

Human rights-based approaches were suggested as a framework to address various concerns comprehensively. The organizers welcomed input from diverse perspectives and encouraged ongoing engagement through various channels, including online platforms and future consultations. The process aims to create a pragmatic, action-oriented declaration that aligns efforts to use AI responsibly in support of the SDGs.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Developing a Hamburg Declaration on responsible AI for sustainable development goals (SDGs)

– Aligning AI development and use with SDG principles while addressing risks

– Engaging diverse stakeholders including governments, private sector, civil society in the process

– Focusing on concrete, implementable commitments rather than high-level principles

– Considering environmental sustainability impacts of AI infrastructure and development

Overall purpose:

The goal of the discussion was to introduce and gather input on the process of developing the Hamburg Declaration, which aims to promote responsible use of AI to advance the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The organizers sought to engage diverse stakeholders in shaping the declaration’s content and commitments.

Tone:

The tone was collaborative and open, with the organizers actively seeking input and ideas from participants. There was a sense of enthusiasm about the potential of AI for development, balanced with awareness of risks and challenges. The tone remained constructive throughout, with participants offering suggestions and the organizers expressing appreciation for the feedback.

Speakers

– YU PING CHAN: Moderator

– ROBERT OPP: Chief Digital Officer of UNDP

– NOÉMIE BÜRKL: Head of the Digitalization Unit at the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) of Germany

– YASMIN AL-DOURI: Co-founder of the Responsible Technology Hub

– MAI DO: Responsible AI manager at ABUS in Hamburg

– THIAGO MORAES: Works at the Brazilian Data Protection Authority and PhD researcher at University of Brussels

Additional speakers:

– KASSIA: UK delegation to United Nations in New York

– CLAIRE: No role/title mentioned

– TRINE: Representative of the government of Denmark, based in Geneva working on human rights

Full session report

The Hamburg Declaration on Responsible AI for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction:

This discussion focused on the development of the Hamburg Declaration, an initiative aimed at promoting responsible AI for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The conversation involved representatives from UNDP, the German government, and various stakeholders, as part of the annual Hamburg Sustainability Conference’s AI track. The declaration seeks to bridge the gap between AI and development communities while gathering voluntary commitments from multiple stakeholders.

Purpose and Scope:

The primary purpose of the Hamburg Declaration is to address the intersection of AI and sustainable development, focusing on responsible use of AI for development outcomes and embedding this approach in development practice. Robert Opp, Chief Digital Officer of UNDP, emphasised the need to bridge the gap between AI and development communities. Noémie Bürkl, from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, stressed that the declaration should align with the Global Digital Compact while being more concrete and action-oriented.

A key point of agreement among speakers was the importance of not duplicating existing AI governance processes. Instead, the declaration aims to fill a specific gap in the AI for SDGs space. The scope includes addressing potential risks such as exclusion, environmental impact, and data privacy while promoting responsible AI use for sustainable development.

Process and Stakeholder Engagement:

The development of the Hamburg Declaration is designed as a voluntary, non-negotiated process open to multiple stakeholders. This approach was supported by both Opp and Bürkl, although they proposed slightly different methods for engagement. Opp emphasised the voluntary nature of the process, while Bürkl focused on utilising existing conferences and bilateral discussions for input.

There was strong agreement on the importance of including voices from developing countries and local innovators. Thiago Moraes, from the Brazilian Data Protection Authority, particularly stressed the need to showcase local sustainable technology initiatives. The organisers expressed their commitment to engaging diverse perspectives through various channels, including an online website for submitting inputs, future consultations, and existing conferences.

Key Issues to Address and Thought-Provoking Comments:

Several crucial areas for consideration were highlighted during the discussion:

1. Environmental Sustainability: Thiago Moraes raised concerns about the environmental impact of AI infrastructure, particularly in developing countries.

2. Access to AI Infrastructure: Yasmin Al-Douri, co-founder of the Responsible Technology Hub, emphasised the need to address access to AI infrastructure and hardware in developing countries, particularly in the Global South.

3. AI Governance Structures: Al-Douri stressed the importance of developing AI governance structures, especially in developing countries.

4. Responsible AI Training and Education: Al-Douri emphasised the importance of responsible AI training and education.

5. Human Rights-Based Approach: A representative from the Danish government suggested incorporating a human rights-based approach to address various concerns comprehensively.

6. Multi-stakeholder Approaches: The need for inclusive, multi-stakeholder approaches that involve those directly affected by SDGs was highlighted.

7. Showcasing Local Initiatives: Moraes suggested bringing in people from the innovation ecosystem and showcasing local sustainable technology initiatives.

8. Balancing AI for Good and Responsible AI: Al-Douri questioned whether the focus was on AI for good or on ensuring AI itself is responsible in achieving the SDGs.

9. Alignment with Global Digital Compact: A representative from the UK delegation asked about aligning the declaration with the Global Digital Compact and clarifying the level of commitments sought.

10. Holistic Approach to SDGs: An audience member emphasised the need for a holistic approach considering potential conflicts between different SDGs.

Implementation and Accountability:

The discussion emphasised the need for concrete, implementable commitments. Opp stressed the importance of balancing ambition with feasibility in making these commitments. Bürkl suggested reviewing progress at future Hamburg Sustainability Conferences. The organisers mentioned the AI-SDG compendium as an opportunity to feature initiatives and track progress.

Conclusion and Next Steps:

The organisers plan to launch a public call for inputs, put the draft declaration online for comments, and present the Hamburg Declaration at IGF 2025 in Norway. Unresolved issues include specific accountability measures and effectively including perspectives from the Global South.

The Hamburg Declaration on Responsible AI for SDGs represents an ambitious effort to promote responsible AI use in sustainable development. While there is general consensus on its importance, the discussion highlighted the need for careful consideration of various perspectives and potential challenges in its implementation.

QR codes were shared for signing up to the email list and accessing the SDG AI companion, providing additional resources for engagement and information.

Session Transcript

YU PING CHAN: session, where we’ll explain the process towards the Hamburg Declaration, we’ll also talk about the goals and the aims of the Hamburg Sustainability Conference, and really, this collective effort that we hope all of you will join us in, in really realizing the potential of responsible AI for the Sustainable Development Goals. I’ll start by first calling to the stage, Mr. Robert Opp, Chief Digital Officer of the UNDP, the virtual stage, I think. Robert, please.

ROBERT OPP: Okay. Hello, everyone. This is a strange way of doing a workshop with everyone on headphones. I feel a little weird. I see a few people without, okay, good. All right, just making sure everyone has headsets. Well, thank you, Yuping, and welcome, everyone. On behalf of UNDP, as well as our government of Germany representatives who are online, I wanted to just give a little bit of overview on the way that we as UNDP are seeing the current, I would say, interest and expectations, in a sense, around artificial intelligence, and what we do when it comes to our work to support countries and their national development. And I think it’s fair to say that a lot of us see tremendous potential in AI for supporting the achievement of the SDGs. We already see a proliferation of experimental and sometimes scaling approaches around artificial intelligence and leveraging these technologies in support of different development work, like, for example, in the health space, screening for different kinds of conditions like tuberculosis and other things, helping support small farmers access information on subsidies and other programs that’s available using verbal to text kinds of interaction with chatbots, weather risk modeling, building damage assessment, and so on and so forth. So many examples of application of AI going on right now. But of course, we all know that AI also brings with it a number of risks, whether it be the proliferation of misinformation, or issues like data privacy and protection. But there’s another risk that we also see in the space of applying AI for development. And that is the risk of exclusion, the risk of lack of representation of bias and or inaccuracy in systems, as well as some of the sustainability aspects around the environmental impact of these technologies. So when it comes to the way that we as development actors, and by development actors, I’m referring to international organizations like us, national donor governments, national governments themselves who are implementing their national development programs, civil society actors, and other NGOs, etc. So that whole set of players that are involved in development, we have been looking at how it is that we can improve the alignment that we have around the direction of artificial intelligence application. So what I mean is, if we profess to be working toward the SDGs, we have to be mindful of certain things like the the risk of exclusion, like the potential negative environmental impacts of promoting technologies that consume an enormous amount of energy, for example. And so how do we as a community come together and really align ourselves and work toward a sort of set of directions or a set of commitments that we can make together as a community moving forward. So the Hamburg Sustainability Conference was an event that was sponsored last October by the government of Germany, and featured a lot of discussions around the practice of sustainable development. and the future directions of sustainable development. And my colleague from BMZ in Germany will be speaking in just a second and she’ll also address the kind of background of the conference and things like that. But in the Hamburg Sustainability Conference, there was a track that was set aside for AI and digital. And it really looked at the different aspects of responsible application of artificial intelligence and digitalization in the development space. And we looked at a number of things, including specifically the environmental impacts and some of the other aspects. But we also took the opportunity to start convening a panel that was focused on the principles that we wanna work toward for alignment around using AI for development. And we focused those principles around the five P’s, the five principles that are as part of the agenda 2030. So people, prosperity, planet, peace and partnerships. But now, so we had a very good discussion. There was a lot of interest from stakeholders. Generally in Hamburg last year, there was a high level of participation and a very multi-stakeholder participation as well. And now we are moving forward to thinking what is it that we can move toward in next year’s Hamburg Sustainability Conference in this space of artificial intelligence and the SDGs. And we want to continue convening these discussions around what are the areas of commitments we can make, as well as how are we collecting and gathering information on what’s out there. And to that end, one thing I just forgot to mention is we launched at last year’s Hamburg Sustainability Conference, an SDG compendium or AI compendium that starts to gather AI examples that have been used in the development space. In other words, trying to pull together a sense of where the practice is out there as well. So final thing I would say before turning back to you Ping is we do see all of this as a direct part of the follow-up to the Global Digital Compact. Paragraphs 53 and 54 of the Global Digital Compact talk about the application of AI to the sustainable development goals and the promise that they put forward. And so this effort is really seen as taking the next step in terms of collective commitments we can make that are more granular and instead of high level and saying, what are the things we can align around to really work together as a global community when it comes to pursuing the SDGs with artificial intelligence. With that, I’ll turn back to you Ping.

YU PING CHAN: Thank you, Rob. And as Robert said, we’re really looking to this session to be a little bit more of an engagement with you to really think through what we could have as part of the work towards responsible AI for the SDGs. So not just for the Hamburg Declaration, but also around convening these types of discussions at the Hamburg Sustainability Conference, which as Rob says, will be a unique opportunity to make sure that development practitioners which are gathering at Hamburg will also take into account what perhaps technologists and internet governance experts such as yourself convening here for technology conference really need to keep in mind. How do we bring these two communities together? So now, before we really go to hearing from you, we would like to invite our second speaker who is online, Ms. Naomi Burke, who is head of the Digitalization Unit at the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, the BMZ of Germany to speak. Naomi, please.

NOÉMIE BÜRKL: Yes, thank you so much. Thank you. you Ping and Rob, and welcome to all of you from Germany. It’s a pity I can’t be with you today, but the technical tools we have today allows me to be with you, so let’s use them like that. A lot of what I wanted to mention has already been said, and for the sake of time, I don’t want to to repeat them, but also to confirm that from a German government perspective, we do see artificial intelligence as a driver for achieving SDGs or for at least accelerating the implementation of SDGs there. The sectors that we could look at, agriculture, shows that AI can enable analysis for climate and crop data to adapt to climate change more effectively. Health has been already mentioned by Rob, where AI can distribute health information during epidemics, for example, and education, of course, we see that AI can help personalize learning. This is why the Ministry of Development Corporation has been engaged since 2019, actually, as a partner to support also the use of AI in this respect. It has potential, but also the risks that have already been mentioned, talking about, for example, water and electricity consumption, discrimination or disinformation. This is why we want to really focus on how to use AI in a responsible way to ensure that AI serves people and planet. On the HSC, the Hamburg Sustainability Conference, maybe just to say very broadly. It is an initiative that facilitates an exchange based on mutual trust and partnership between leading international minds from politics, international organizations, private sector, academia, civil society on those structural issues that we see. And this is why I think it is very good to know it is not just a one-off conference, it is an all-year and multi-year process. And we really want to take the time to discuss with you what we can do to underscore this need of commitment that has been mentioned, linking also to implementing the efforts underlined in the Global Digital Compact as well. So yes, the SDG Compendium has already been mentioned. A warm welcome to you to participate in that, to look at that, to contribute into that process. We have discussed principles to see what we mean when we talk about a responsible use of AI. And we really want this to be an inclusive and collaborative effort. And so thank you very much UNDP to convene all the minds that can contribute to that. And I’m really looking forward to your support, to your engagement and to using AI in a responsible way to have a boost for the SDGs. Thank you.

YU PING CHAN: Thank you so much, Naomi. And I really want to welcome new colleagues that just came into the room and say that we’re looking forward to having an engagement with you, not just through this particular meeting, but also throughout the entire process towards the Hamburg Declaration. And to that end, I’ve actually circulated some documents, a copy of the, some of the background around the SDGs. So if you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me. the Hamburg Sustainability Conference that encapsulates what Rob and Naomi had just briefed but we’re also happy to provide more copies. I’ve also sent around an email list and so if you could leave your email addresses on it if you’d like to stay and engage with this process as we develop the Hamburg Declaration. We also have a couple of links online that I think I’ve put there but if not I’m happy to repeat the links later so that you can sign up online as well. So basically starting with this workshop and moving towards the next Hamburg Sustainability Conference which will be in early June 2025 we will be convening a number of these both online as well as in-person consultations on the content of the Hamburg Declaration. It will be as Rob has explained really thinking about what we together as the global community can come together to think about what are commitments or areas of action that we think need to be committed to or agreed on so that we can realize responsible AI for the SDGs and it’s really a very iterative process. We don’t have a draft in mind, we don’t really have areas that we want to focus on beyond the guiding principles of the Agenda 2030 and so it really would be shaped by your contributions and inputs as well. We’ll also have an online website where you can submit such inputs in writing if you or your organization would like to contribute something towards the thinking process as well as possibly even convene consultations of your own as well. So we’ll have some background material that you can use to also convene these types of informal conversations around the content of responsible AI for the SDGs. We also want to emphasize it’s not really a one-off, right? It’s not that we would necessarily come up with something at the Hamburg Conference in June of next year and end there because Hamburg as Nomi has explained will be an annual meeting. There will be an opportunity to continuously reflect back on these areas of responsible AI for the SDGs. We do think that it will be a start of a continuing conversation that will be multi-stakeholder in nature, hoping to bring in these commitments not just from the private sector but also donor institutions, governments and development actors as well towards AI for the SDGs. So having sort of started with that point, I think what I’ll do first is maybe open up the floor to any questions that colleagues might have. around Hamburg, the background, the Declaration, before we dive right into the content. Would there be any questions both online and offline? I also want to welcome, I think there are about 20 colleagues online as well. I see a couple of questions in there about the content of the Declaration and maybe some of the specific areas that we had discussed, so I’ll leave those for a little bit later, but I’ll just start with any questions around the process, the Hamburg Sustainability Conference that happened just this October, before we open up into the substance itself. Ah, please, come to the standing mic and introduce yourself.

YASMIN AL-DOURI: Okay, now I can hear myself as well. Hi, my name is Asmina Alduri, I’m the co-founder of the Responsible Technology Hub and I have a very maybe general question. When we talk about responsible AI for the SDGs, are we talking about AI for good? Are we talking about AI that is used to get to the SDGs or are we talking about AI that needs to be responsible to get to the SDGs? They are two different things. So this is like what I was wondering earlier also in the talks.

ROBERT OPP: Noemi might have a take on this as well, but if I’m understanding where you’re coming from, this is about responsible use of AI, which for me includes ensuring that AI systems themselves are responsible. So we’ll try to, because this is the distinction I think we’re making between, you could utilize AI for a development end or output of some kind, but if you’re not, let’s take a concrete example. Let’s say that we think that AI could revolutionize the education platforms in certain countries and so we invest a lot in creating a lot of compute power and extending AI systems to students, etc. But if we’re not mindful of the sustainability footprint of those AI systems, we’re actually creating another problem while we’re trying to fix one. And so it’s actually about both of those. It’s about utilizing AI for development outcomes, but doing that in a responsible way. So I hope that answers the question.

YU PING CHAN: Noemi, if you might want to come in on that as well.

NOÉMIE BÜRKL: No, I would support that. And… I would add the dimension of, but this is actually what you just said, Rob, that we need to make sure that when we do believe that AI can actually contribute to a positive development outcome in one area, we have to make sure that we also see at the same time the potential risks and be mindful of that as well. I mean, HSC, why we bring this topic in, to also maybe explain a little bit overall, it is not per se an AI conference. It is a conference on how to promote the achievement of the SDGs by 2030, which is a very difficult task. And this is where we see the role of AI and digital, both in the positive and negative sense. So you can say AI for good in a way, but yes, I think it is more holistic than that. Thank you. Always focused on development aspects though.

AUDIENCE: From the UK, Kassia? Hi, colleagues. UK delegation to United Nations in New York. From the perspective of GDC negotiator, have you thought about aligning the lines of declaration with GDC more like clearly, just for consistency? So I’m just asking this question to maybe stir the pot a bit. And the second question is, do you know what the level of commitments that you want to achieve in the end? What’s the ultimate goal in terms of commitment?

YU PING CHAN: Pardon the passing of mics over here. Before I give the floor back to Rob and Naomi to respond to Kassia’s question, I think this is linked to another question that I’m seeing in the chat from Monica, which is, how is the Hamburg annual conference linked to GDC AI follow-up processes? Does it stand apart? And how is it linked to the IGF dynamic coalition on data and AI? I think very quickly before I turn it over to them, I would say we would very much welcome a link between the IGF dynamic coalition on data and AI, if the dynamic coalition wanted to think about possible inputs that they could actually submit towards this process, as well as to perhaps, we would very much value the network and the coalition being part of the consultation forward. So over to Rob and Naomi.

ROBERT OPP: Okay. Well, thanks for the questions on the link with the GDC, and I was just pulling up my copy of the GDC right now. If I understand your question correctly, so we see this process as contributing overall to the, I would say, implementation of the GDC or in the spirit of the GDC. For sure, I expect elements that are mentioned in the GDC to come up in this process. So GDC talks about the importance of capacity building, It talks about like a lot of other aspects around technology in general and then the AI pieces themselves. The. But in terms of, like, direct linkages with for example the, the scientific panel that is proposed around AI and some of the things as well we don’t know yet because those mechanisms are not in place. I suspect that there could eventually be a link. There’s also the proposal in the GDC around the global annual dialogue on AI governance. Again, that may form a part, but we’re not trying to address the issue of international AI governance with this process. This is much more as Noemi also just reminded. What we see is there’s a whole set of summits going on globally around AI safety and AI governance and so on and so forth and there will be another one there was Bletchley Park. There was one in Korea, there will be another one in Paris, there will be a galley talking about AI in Africa. In April, and so on and so forth. The Hamburg Sustainability Conference is not trying to be one of those. The Hamburg Sustainability Conference is a conference on development, which has an AI track. And so we’re trying to ensure that we don’t just keep this discussion of AI and technology in those AI and technology focused conferences but actually we’re embedding it in our development practice, because to be frank, that’s where the big money flows when it comes to overseas development assistance and many other forms of bilateral and multilateral cooperation. And so we want to be sure that the practice of development is infused with this responsible AI utilization and application for SDGs. So I hope that answers today.

NOÉMIE BÜRKL: I think Rob said it very nicely and maybe also because I just saw another question on the chat. Why do we need another declaration? We want to make sure that there is no duplication to other processes. When we came up on these issues, really what stands out for us is we have on the one side and this was just just mentioned we have the SDG community discussing and we have the AI community on the other side discussing. And what we really want to focus on is on the implementation aspects of those paragraphs on the GDC that that that were mentioned. But also to go a step further, because what we do bring in together here are the players from the private sector, from academia, civil society, et cetera, and to really continue what we see in the agency is that we do not have that formalized discussions, which is good because we want to move forward on really this particular issue and see how how far it takes us there. And I think that some actors are really quite willing to participate in this process and we really need them as well. So, yes, we are mindful of not to be duplicating other aspects.

ROBERT OPP: Noemi, you just also reminded me of a key aspect of this declaration, which is that it is not intended to be a negotiated process, meaning we’re not trying to get universal adoption here as such. We hope that everyone will come and commit to it, but it’s going to be a voluntary kind of thing, not a negotiated process like the GDC or some of these other intergovernmental or universal kinds of agreements.

YU PING CHAN: And again, on that particular point, even though the AI space is very crowded and the UN space is very crowded, we do think that there is a gap when it comes to this idea of AI for the SDG. and particularly from a development perspective. So that is the gap that we’re looking to fill. And as the United Nations Development Agencies practicing in this field, we have noticed that there needs to be that coming together of these types of communities. I saw a comment or a question over there, please.

MAI DO: Hello, can you hear me? Yeah, thank you. So, Mai Do, I’m a responsible AI manager at ABUS in Hamburg. So I work for the civil part of ABUS. And I was very interested about the aspect of the involvement of the different stakeholders. And as you mentioned before, it’s a voluntary commitment, right? So, therefore, how do you envision to bring those different stakeholders together from the private sector to the civil society to ensure building a resilient infrastructure, which is one of the goals you’re trying to promote? So how do you envision it? And how do you go about it? And lastly, how do you think of holding these people or the different stakeholders accountable to ensure these goals? Thank you.

YU PING CHAN: Thank you for the question. I think maybe given that this is a German stakeholder and you’re coming from the perspective of Hamburg, I could reverse the order and ask if Naomi could take that question first, followed by Rob.

NOÉMIE BÜRKL: Well, thank you very much. What we really want to do is, we’re kicking off the process, right? So we really want to go with those who feel that they can have and really make a difference in that. So we do want to involve all those interested. And in this room, we have those minds that I mentioned before, and also online. And I think that’s really important. think that is exactly what we’re trying to aim for. It will be a process where we will also use those conferences mentioned before in Kigali and in Paris, et cetera, to also involve all those partners. But we will also have discussions on a bilateral basis, for example, with firms that have already shown their interest, SAP, et cetera, and others in the private sector. Because we really think that there is a huge potential there. And of course, civil society and academia. I know that being involved in those GDC discussions, there may be some hesitancy in why we need this. But we really want to become more concrete and in terms of how we can really have a major boost in these SDGs. This is a very, actually, narrow approach to that. And we will not be able to tackle all the SDGs in all the areas. We are looking at five principles. We will be also looking at the ideas that we have. And we hope to be as ambitious as we can. But we will have to see how the process goes in the coming months to see what we can agree on. And on this, after that, it will depend how we will make sure in terms of accountability. We will keep looking at the next HSEs after that. Looking back, how far did we go with these commitments so that it is beyond mere agenda setting? And what comes out of that? We do believe that those who are part of the process will also be those who are also convinced and willing to participate. So I’m still very hopeful that this is a very good approach to go. And also, we are. I want to underline again, we want to be very concrete as well. Thank you.

ROBERT OPP: I don’t have a lot to add to that except to say in the Hamburg Sustainability Conference, I’m not sure if you were there or not, but on the discussion that kicked all of this off, we had the head of sustainability from SAP there and inside discussions with him, he was saying this would be of interest to his company to align if those principles and the eventual commitments can make sense and so on. And we’re still kind of designing what this actually looks like. We very much welcome private sector to sign on to the commitments as well. And there will likely be a number of ways to do that. So more to come on that.

YU PING CHAN: And so moving on to really that concrete part of it, if we could move on maybe from the questions around process, do we welcome them subsequently as well, and maybe get into the meat of what the declaration should look like. And here again, we’re just really looking for ideas and inputs as to what you think are critical issues in the AI for SDG space, or as maybe a development practitioner, what do you think when you think about AI? What does it mean to use AI responsibly? And conversely, from a technologist or AI scientist space, if you’re looking at how AI is being used in development space right now, what are your concerns? What are your thoughts on the risk? What do you see as the opportunities? And so let’s have this as a little bit more of that open discussion that Rob was speaking to a little bit earlier on, in this thought that if you could really have curate a conversation or create an opportunity for the private sector, the multi stakeholders, the governments to come together around these issues, what do you think should be top of mind for them? Anyone in the room would like to take a first stab at this? If not, while you are ruminating on that, I actually have a question from the online chat already, and I will direct this at both Rob and Naomi, where? So the question here is about the, whether the Hamburg Declaration will be using. we’ll be dealing with issues around artificial intelligence-based weapons, where there has been a concern over the use of such weapons in the ongoing situation in Gaza. And so what could be the role of the UNIGF and the United Nations in the fight against the weaponization of artificial intelligence? And so I would turn that over to Rob and Naomi.

ROBERT OPP: Okay, so the issue of weaponization of AI will not be tackled directly by this process, we don’t foresee. There are elements of the peace principle that we need to respect in terms of the way that AI is applied so that it doesn’t promote divisions among people and so on. But because there are other parts of the United Nations multilateral system, that like disarmament affairs and things like that, that are dealing with some of the weaponization issues, we don’t feel that this is the best process placed to actually do that. So I think we need to acknowledge it in some way, but likely not be, this is not meant to be the platform to really address those issues which are being taken up elsewhere.

NOÉMIE BÜRKL: Yes, I agree, absolutely. Because I think there is already so much to do on these issues that I mentioned before. Also, people, prosperity planet, etc. We don’t want to duplicate processes that are being discussed elsewhere. And I think there’s another question also on presenting then the declaration at the IGF 2025 in Norway. I don’t see why we shouldn’t do that. That’s also interesting to look at, because we really want to link the different processes. But I think it’s good to get all the ideas here in this room. and to shape the process together. This is what this is really about.

YU PING CHAN: Naomi, can I also ask you to answer the second part of Dennis’ question online in the chat, which is if the conference is by invitation only?

NOÉMIE BÜRKL: Yes, it is by invitation, but we of course have a say in who is invited. I think what we will do is to look at the process, who is involved and who would like to participate. I think we can look at that flexibly in the coming months.

YU PING CHAN: Any other questions from here? Yes. Please introduce yourself.

THIAGO MORAES: Thanks. My name is Thiago Moraes. I work at the Brazilian Data Protection Authority and also as a PhD researcher at University of Brussels. Responsible innovation in AI or other emerging technologies has been part of my research topic. The more I look into that, I see sometimes a bit of a dissonance on how we as governments, using a bit of the government hat, we’re discussing a lot these days about digital sovereignty and how we have to raise the capacity of infrastructure, especially in global majority countries that usually have more challenges for that. We just participated this year as the host of Digital Training Brazil. The Digital Economy Working Group was discussing a lot about this importance of raising the capacity level. But then, and this here now is more of my academic hat that I want to bring, it’s like I think as well that I miss a bit of the part of what I’m doing. I miss a bit of the part of what I’m doing. I miss a bit of the part of actually is being doing for the sustainable part because when we are so concerned about digital sovereignty and actually creating more infrastructure for better data centers, better you know like just having more data power if we don’t think of the other side of the balance and how we are actually promoting that and for sure green energy like green data centers is that concept really exists is definitely part of it but even like environmental impacts because it’s not only about using you know like okay Brazil use a lot of energy from water sources which supposed to be cleaner for sure but still there’s a lot of environmental impacts that sometimes we create and this should be part of the discussion so if several countries now are working to build better data centers more represents and they don’t add this to the equation we’ll have a lot of trouble in the upcoming years so maybe I know it’s a voluntary declaration but this somehow should be embedded there in the discussion I think that’s my suggestion. Thank you and I think that’s an important suggestion and

YU PING CHAN: we will definitely look to taking that up under the planet part of the declaration but really indeed as you say this environmental sustainability and bilingual as we look to build out compute data and the AI revolution is really critical. Responses, Naomi, Rob.

ROBERT OPP: No just to say absolutely yes and the one of the challenges we are going to need to address over the next few months as we do this is what can those commitments look like and so that’s also why we welcome the participation of many voices to help us understand what would actually be feasible and implementable ways of putting those kinds of commitments in because I don’t think it’s quite as simple as just saying as you mentioned okay it’s data centers have to be carbon neutral or something right like it’s there are other aspects of the issue that we need to explore and then eventually balance the perfect with the feasible of what can actually be implemented what people can commit to so just completely agree and since you’re a PhD researcher and government authority we would definitely welcome both sides on the challenge of academia with the kind of implementation necessity or need or how what governments would be able to do.

YU PING CHAN: Yes there was a question over there and then I think another one over here.

AUDIENCE: So I hope yeah it’s working good. This is less of a question and more of an answer to your question that you had. So I basically work in the field of responsible AI used to work for it for big corporations big tech in the past before I was one of the co-founders of the Responsible Tech Hub and then Munich where we focus on these topics specifically from a youth perspective and there are a couple of things that I think or I deem as super important when we talk about SDGs and using AI to harness it the first thing is what SDGs are you focusing on after you actually really define which SDGs you focus on you can actually go into the aspect of okay who has access to the infrastructure and who has access to the hardware. As long as these questions are not answered there’s no way we can even include for example the global south or anything sub-saharan if we focus on Africa. That’s the one thing. The other thing is also if we talk about responsible AI training is the number one aspect that we’re not only focusing on in Germany right now but generally in the EU. So yes we have the EU AI Act for example but there is a lot of governance still lacking. I was just at a session where we discussed AI governance structures for the Middle East that is barely even existing so there’s still a lot of room to talk about AI governance in different countries specifically in developing countries so this has to be set as well and then there needs to be training for those who are actually developing the AI and who are actually deploying it. I think there’s a lot of resources out there. There are a lot of institute the Alan Turing Institute the Tom think tank which I also represent in some kind of ways. There are a lot of academic resources to go into AI impact assessments for example. So that already exists but it’s super important to keep in mind that if we talk about SDGs we always have to include those who are directly affected by the SDGs and those are mostly the ones who don’t have the access AI and to actually access the training and to have the base, which is AI governance. So these multi-stakeholder approaches have to actually happen first, I believe, before we can even set up trainings for them. Comments in the room. These are incredibly helpful. Hi, I’m Claire, and I wanted to ask a question which is somewhat in the similar direction, and that is that the point I found most interesting is that point of conflict between SDGs, maybe. And I was wondering, because if I look at the document, you ask for input for special areas. So I don’t see the representation of somewhat of a general point of looking at, well, if I want to promote a certain point, I also have to incorporate others, as well as, especially if you look at AI and that most of the use cases are based on the data, obviously. And I mean, that is probably the area where we are lacking most in responsibility and in humanity, and whether this will also be part of it to look at the development point from a more holistic point of view and incorporating those SDGs, as well.

YU PING CHAN: I think that’s a great point. And yes, for convenience sake, we did sort of split into those five Ps, but we do expect there will have to be some kind of chapeau, as you say, like looking at AI more generally and then maybe touching on data that would then fit across all of this. So thank you for that. I also want to say, really, we appreciate those of you that are really looking at this from your practitioner, but also expert perspective. So if you could make sure to pass me your contact details and card or sign up online to the website and the email list, we really want to stay in touch with you and have you as part of the process. Rob, Nomi, while there are any other questions in the room, over here, please. I think after this and another comment, we’ll turn it back to panellists very quickly and come back to comments.

AUDIENCE: Hi, and apologies in advance. I’m not quite sure if this will turn into a comment or a question. My name is Trine, I’m a representative of the government of Denmark, but I’m normally based in Geneva working on human rights. So I’m actually neither a development or an AI practitioner. But I got inspired by your talk about not duplicating, not reinventing the wheels, but actually making sure there’s complementarity. And of course, in the human rights field, we also work a lot on on AI and the negative, mostly consequences of it. And I think a human rights based approach to whatever you are doing, be it AI or the SDGs, actually, is very helpful in that sense, because if you make sure that you have a human rights based approach, you don’t only cover those very obvious elements such as discrimination, AI bias, all of that, if you indeed incorporate it in the design, development and deployment phases. So when you talk to those actors, when they develop the products, basically, and I think that’s also partly where the education comes in, those communities talking to each other. But you also have the right to health. You have the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. So indeed, the human rights framework is not only respected and accepted by all states, but it’s actually also very well developed and well versed. So I think it probably turned into a comment that that would be something to look at. Thanks.

YU PING CHAN: More comments in the room or online from online colleagues and participants. Again, it doesn’t have to be focused, per se, on the Haber process. as a declaration, maybe just what do you worry the most about when you look at the use of AI today? Particularly interested also in perspectives from developing countries and the global majority. A follow up.

THIAGO MORAES: Yeah, OK. I mean, it’s always nicer when we have more perspective. But just in addition, another thing that I think it could be really interesting for any conference, not only the number one, but when we want to have more concrete results. I know, of course, policy-oriented conference, in the end, you try to end up with a statement, but also, I don’t know, I mean, it’s the first time I’m hearing about the conference, so maybe you already do that. But one thing that I miss in conference in general, like the IJF, for example, is have more of like showcases of local initiatives that are actually making this kind of difference. So for example, let’s say, why not bring some people that are actually bringing a smart, clean, sustainable way of using a certain type of technology and reaching, even if just in a local level, what’s happening in some places. Also bringing a bit more of people from the innovation ecosystem. And nowadays, we see a lot of different initiatives like the sandboxes, innovation hubs, and experimentation facilities that are also trying to bring more of this discussion of responsibility in AI development, or sustainability, et cetera. And usually there are some small use cases, and maybe for them to become scalable, we have to look more into them. So if this is not already done, maybe it’s something that could be nice to have during the conference, you know?

YU PING CHAN: We think that’s a great idea. We look to our German colleagues who are actually supporting more the organization of the conference. I would also say, I think we had mentioned that we had launched the AI-SDG compendium, where there could be an opportunity to also feature these initiatives. And from the UNDP perspective, because we are present in so many countries and really are looking to globally scalable, as Sergio said, initiatives in this area that really represent the ability to affect across, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us as well.

ROBERT OPP: Yeah, maybe I can just add to that by saying we have a, you know, as Yu-Ping said, countries in all of the country, representation in all countries across Africa and many others, so 170 countries in total. Many of those places, we actually are tied into the local innovation ecosystem. And there’s been a couple of incidents recently, where we have been forming networks of African innovators in particular, and featuring their participation in global conferences and discussions, which is very interesting, because you need those voices around the table. Also in the Hamburg conference last year, we brought an indigenous activist from Chad to discuss the aspects from her perspective, what is actually happening on the ground, what is touching people there, or indeed not representing them well when it comes to the rollout of technology and AI. So this is absolutely, just to say, completely agree with your point. And the conferences are very, especially those that are based in the global north, often have trouble getting the representation that we need to have the right discussion around the table. But that’s also another reason why the IGF and some of these multi-stakeholder forums are important to have as part of our consultation process.

YU PING CHAN: We’re running out of time. I see a reminder. I just really want to give an opportunity to anybody who still has any comments or suggestions. Again, recognizing this is the first time that we are opening this up, so again, we welcome future contributions. If any of the dynamic coalitions or the youth or regional IGFs want to take up the Hamburg Declaration or even the conversation around responsible AI for the SDGs, please let us know. Reach out to us. We’d be more than delighted to do that. Any last comments from those online, offline, here in the room? Comments, observations, and so on. I also ask my colleague Marie to share a QR code for you to scan to stay updated with us at the very end. So maybe Nomi first, then Rob. Nomi?

NOÉMIE BÜRKL: Well, thank you very much to all of you for your good questions, good ideas. This is exactly what we were going for. We hope you will be or stay engaged. We’re very excited about the future months to come. Please do also use the online possibilities to reach out, as Yuping just mentioned, and yes, looking forward to your ideas. Thank you.

ROBERT OPP: Similarly, from my side, just to thank you for participation. Thank you for the comments. It is exactly what we had hoped that we would get out of this session. It is a good reminder about the kind of importance of collective brain power. So we want to have something good. We want to pressure test it from a lot of angles. It’s not going to be perfect. We know that from the beginning. But what we want is something pragmatic because the practice is evolving so quickly out there that we want to try to stay ahead as much as we can and start to align our actions, our commitments, so that we really are making sure that AI is used in the right direction and for the actual support of people, putting people and their rights at the centre. So that’s just a thanks from our side for all these good ideas and comments.

YU PING CHAN: Shear screen very quickly. Marie, you should have permission that these are the QR codes for you to be able to sign up to the email list. I think, Marie, you need to full screen. There we go. So that’s www.bmz-digital.global.en. And then here we also have the SDG AI companion that I mentioned, where we also do welcome initiatives, especially at the global level, where you feel that it fits this idea of responsible AI for the SDGs. And we really look forward to keeping in touch with all of you and really taking into account your views and perspectives. We’ll also have a public call for inputs later on. We’ll also put up the declaration online so that we can take comments and so on. And really looking forward to this being an engaging process and thinking about how the IGF can contribute not just here, but also into other global processes as well. We look forward to working with all of you. And thank you again for sharing your time with us today. 笒笒笒笒笒笒笒笒笒笒笒笒笒笒笒笒笒笒笒笒笒笒笒

R

ROBERT OPP

Speech speed

142 words per minute

Speech length

2303 words

Speech time

971 seconds

Addressing the gap between AI and development communities

Explanation

Robert Opp highlights the need to bridge the gap between AI and development communities. He emphasizes the importance of embedding AI discussions in development practice rather than keeping them isolated in technology-focused conferences.

Evidence

Hamburg Sustainability Conference is not trying to be one of those AI-focused conferences. It is a conference on development, which has an AI track.

Major Discussion Point

Purpose and Scope of the Hamburg Declaration on Responsible AI for SDGs

Differed with

NOÉMIE BÜRKL

Differed on

Scope of the Hamburg Declaration

Focusing on responsible use of AI for development outcomes

Explanation

Opp stresses the importance of using AI responsibly for development outcomes. He emphasizes the need to consider both the potential benefits and risks of AI in development contexts.

Evidence

Example of AI revolutionizing education platforms while being mindful of the sustainability footprint of those AI systems.

Major Discussion Point

Purpose and Scope of the Hamburg Declaration on Responsible AI for SDGs

Agreed with

NOÉMIE BÜRKL

Agreed on

Focusing on responsible use of AI for development outcomes

Voluntary, non-negotiated process open to multiple stakeholders

Explanation

Opp explains that the Hamburg Declaration is intended to be a voluntary commitment rather than a negotiated process. The aim is to encourage broad participation from various stakeholders without requiring universal adoption.

Major Discussion Point

Process and Stakeholder Engagement for the Declaration

Agreed with

NOÉMIE BÜRKL

THIAGO MORAES

Agreed on

Importance of multi-stakeholder engagement

Making concrete, implementable commitments

Explanation

Opp emphasizes the need for concrete, implementable commitments in the Hamburg Declaration. He stresses the importance of balancing ambition with feasibility in the commitments made.

Major Discussion Point

Implementation and Accountability

Balancing ambition with feasibility

Explanation

Opp highlights the importance of finding a balance between ambitious goals and what is realistically achievable. He suggests that the commitments in the declaration need to be both impactful and implementable.

Major Discussion Point

Implementation and Accountability

N

NOÉMIE BÜRKL

Speech speed

139 words per minute

Speech length

1409 words

Speech time

606 seconds

Aligning with the Global Digital Compact while being more concrete

Explanation

Bürkl emphasizes that the Hamburg Declaration aims to align with the Global Digital Compact while providing more concrete actions. The focus is on implementation aspects of the GDC paragraphs related to AI and SDGs.

Major Discussion Point

Purpose and Scope of the Hamburg Declaration on Responsible AI for SDGs

Agreed with

ROBERT OPP

Agreed on

Focusing on responsible use of AI for development outcomes

Differed with

ROBERT OPP

Differed on

Scope of the Hamburg Declaration

Not duplicating other AI governance processes

Explanation

Bürkl stresses that the Hamburg Declaration is not intended to duplicate existing AI governance processes. Instead, it aims to fill a gap by focusing specifically on AI for SDGs from a development perspective.

Major Discussion Point

Purpose and Scope of the Hamburg Declaration on Responsible AI for SDGs

Agreed with

ROBERT OPP

Agreed on

Not duplicating existing AI governance processes

Utilizing existing conferences and bilateral discussions for input

Explanation

Bürkl outlines the strategy for gathering input for the Hamburg Declaration. This includes leveraging existing conferences and engaging in bilateral discussions with interested parties.

Evidence

Mentions using conferences in Kigali and Paris, as well as bilateral discussions with firms like SAP.

Major Discussion Point

Process and Stakeholder Engagement for the Declaration

Agreed with

ROBERT OPP

THIAGO MORAES

Agreed on

Importance of multi-stakeholder engagement

Reviewing progress at future Hamburg Sustainability Conferences

Explanation

Bürkl explains that future Hamburg Sustainability Conferences will be used to review progress on the commitments made in the declaration. This approach aims to ensure ongoing accountability and progress beyond mere agenda-setting.

Major Discussion Point

Implementation and Accountability

T

THIAGO MORAES

Speech speed

128 words per minute

Speech length

611 words

Speech time

284 seconds

Environmental sustainability of AI infrastructure

Explanation

Moraes highlights the importance of considering the environmental impact of AI infrastructure. He emphasizes the need to balance digital sovereignty with sustainability concerns.

Evidence

Mentions the environmental impacts of building data centers, even when using renewable energy sources.

Major Discussion Point

Key Issues to Address in the Declaration

Balancing digital sovereignty with sustainability

Explanation

Moraes points out the potential conflict between efforts to build digital sovereignty and environmental sustainability. He suggests that this balance should be a key consideration in the declaration.

Evidence

Refers to discussions in the Digital Economy Working Group about raising capacity levels in global majority countries.

Major Discussion Point

Key Issues to Address in the Declaration

Including voices from developing countries and local innovators

Explanation

Moraes suggests including more perspectives from developing countries and local innovators in the conference. He emphasizes the importance of showcasing local initiatives that are making a difference.

Major Discussion Point

Process and Stakeholder Engagement for the Declaration

Agreed with

ROBERT OPP

NOÉMIE BÜRKL

Agreed on

Importance of multi-stakeholder engagement

Showcasing local sustainable technology initiatives

Explanation

Moraes proposes showcasing local initiatives that demonstrate sustainable use of technology. He suggests this could help identify scalable solutions and bring more voices from the innovation ecosystem into the discussion.

Evidence

Mentions examples like sandboxes, innovation hubs, and experimentation facilities.

Major Discussion Point

Process and Stakeholder Engagement for the Declaration

Y

YASMIN AL-DOURI

Speech speed

174 words per minute

Speech length

93 words

Speech time

31 seconds

Access to AI infrastructure and hardware in developing countries

Explanation

Al-Douri emphasizes the importance of addressing access to AI infrastructure and hardware in developing countries. She suggests this is a crucial first step before other aspects of responsible AI can be addressed.

Major Discussion Point

Key Issues to Address in the Declaration

AI governance structures, especially in developing countries

Explanation

Al-Douri highlights the need for AI governance structures, particularly in developing countries. She notes that this is an area where there is still significant work to be done.

Evidence

Mentions recent discussions on AI governance structures for the Middle East.

Major Discussion Point

Key Issues to Address in the Declaration

Responsible AI training and education

Explanation

Al-Douri stresses the importance of training for those developing and deploying AI. She suggests that this is a critical component of responsible AI implementation.

Evidence

Mentions existing resources from institutions like the Alan Turing Institute and the Tom think tank.

Major Discussion Point

Key Issues to Address in the Declaration

M

MAI DO

Speech speed

145 words per minute

Speech length

124 words

Speech time

51 seconds

Building a resilient multi-stakeholder infrastructure

Explanation

Do inquires about the strategy for bringing together different stakeholders and ensuring their commitment to building a resilient infrastructure. She emphasizes the importance of accountability in this process.

Major Discussion Point

Implementation and Accountability

U

Unknown speaker

Speech speed

0 words per minute

Speech length

0 words

Speech time

1 seconds

Incorporating a human rights-based approach

Explanation

The speaker suggests incorporating a human rights-based approach in the Hamburg Declaration. They argue that this approach can help address various issues including discrimination, AI bias, and environmental concerns.

Evidence

Mentions that the human rights framework is well-developed, accepted by all states, and covers various relevant rights such as the right to health and the right to a clean environment.

Major Discussion Point

Purpose and Scope of the Hamburg Declaration on Responsible AI for SDGs

Agreements

Agreement Points

Focusing on responsible use of AI for development outcomes

ROBERT OPP

NOÉMIE BÜRKL

Focusing on responsible use of AI for development outcomes

Aligning with the Global Digital Compact while being more concrete

Both speakers emphasize the importance of using AI responsibly for development outcomes, aligning with existing frameworks while providing more concrete actions.

Not duplicating existing AI governance processes

ROBERT OPP

NOÉMIE BÜRKL

Voluntary, non-negotiated process open to multiple stakeholders

Not duplicating other AI governance processes

Both speakers stress that the Hamburg Declaration is not intended to duplicate existing AI governance processes, but rather to fill a gap in the AI for SDGs space.

Importance of multi-stakeholder engagement

ROBERT OPP

NOÉMIE BÜRKL

THIAGO MORAES

Voluntary, non-negotiated process open to multiple stakeholders

Utilizing existing conferences and bilateral discussions for input

Including voices from developing countries and local innovators

All three speakers emphasize the importance of engaging various stakeholders in the process of developing the Hamburg Declaration.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the importance of considering infrastructure issues in developing countries, including environmental sustainability and access to AI hardware.

THIAGO MORAES

YASMIN AL-DOURI

Environmental sustainability of AI infrastructure

Access to AI infrastructure and hardware in developing countries

Both speakers emphasize the need for concrete, implementable commitments and ongoing review of progress in future conferences.

ROBERT OPP

NOÉMIE BÜRKL

Making concrete, implementable commitments

Reviewing progress at future Hamburg Sustainability Conferences

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of local initiatives and voices

THIAGO MORAES

ROBERT OPP

Showcasing local sustainable technology initiatives

Voluntary, non-negotiated process open to multiple stakeholders

Despite coming from different perspectives, both speakers unexpectedly agree on the importance of including local initiatives and voices in the process, particularly from developing countries.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the need for responsible AI use in development, avoiding duplication of existing processes, multi-stakeholder engagement, and the importance of concrete, implementable commitments.

Consensus level

There is a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the overall approach and key principles of the Hamburg Declaration. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for developing a meaningful and impactful declaration on responsible AI for SDGs. However, there are still areas where more detailed discussions and alignment may be needed, particularly on specific implementation strategies and addressing the unique challenges faced by developing countries.

Differences

Different Viewpoints

Scope of the Hamburg Declaration

ROBERT OPP

NOÉMIE BÜRKL

Addressing the gap between AI and development communities

Aligning with the Global Digital Compact while being more concrete

While both speakers agree on the need for the Hamburg Declaration, they emphasize different aspects of its scope. Opp focuses on bridging the gap between AI and development communities, while Bürkl stresses alignment with the Global Digital Compact and providing more concrete actions.

Unexpected Differences

Environmental sustainability of AI infrastructure

THIAGO MORAES

ROBERT OPP

NOÉMIE BÜRKL

Environmental sustainability of AI infrastructure

Focusing on responsible use of AI for development outcomes

Not duplicating other AI governance processes

While Moraes raises concerns about the environmental impact of AI infrastructure, this issue is not explicitly addressed by Opp or Bürkl in their main arguments. This unexpected difference highlights a potential gap in the current focus of the Hamburg Declaration.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific focus and scope of the Hamburg Declaration, the methods of stakeholder engagement, and the extent to which environmental sustainability should be addressed.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low, with most differences being more about emphasis and approach rather than fundamental disagreements. This suggests that there is a general consensus on the importance of responsible AI for SDGs, but some refinement may be needed in defining the specific goals and methods of the Hamburg Declaration.

Partial Agreements

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of stakeholder engagement, but they propose different approaches. Opp emphasizes a voluntary, non-negotiated process, while Bürkl focuses on utilizing existing conferences and bilateral discussions for input.

ROBERT OPP

NOÉMIE BÜRKL

Voluntary, non-negotiated process open to multiple stakeholders

Utilizing existing conferences and bilateral discussions for input

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the importance of considering infrastructure issues in developing countries, including environmental sustainability and access to AI hardware.

THIAGO MORAES

YASMIN AL-DOURI

Environmental sustainability of AI infrastructure

Access to AI infrastructure and hardware in developing countries

Both speakers emphasize the need for concrete, implementable commitments and ongoing review of progress in future conferences.

ROBERT OPP

NOÉMIE BÜRKL

Making concrete, implementable commitments

Reviewing progress at future Hamburg Sustainability Conferences

Takeaways

Key Takeaways

The Hamburg Declaration aims to address the gap between AI and development communities, focusing on responsible use of AI for SDGs

It will be a voluntary, non-negotiated process open to multiple stakeholders

The declaration will align with the Global Digital Compact while being more concrete and implementation-focused

Key issues to address include environmental sustainability of AI, access to AI infrastructure in developing countries, and AI governance structures

The process will incorporate voices from developing countries and showcase local sustainable technology initiatives

Resolutions and Action Items

Launch a public call for inputs on the declaration

Put the draft declaration online for comments

Utilize existing conferences and bilateral discussions to gather input

Create an AI-SDG compendium to feature initiatives and use cases

Present the Hamburg Declaration at IGF 2025 in Norway

Unresolved Issues

Specific commitments and accountability measures for stakeholders

How to balance digital sovereignty with sustainability concerns

Extent of addressing AI weaponization within the declaration

How to effectively include perspectives from the Global South in the process

Suggested Compromises

Balance ambition with feasibility in making commitments

Incorporate human rights-based approaches while focusing on development outcomes

Address environmental sustainability without duplicating other AI governance processes

Thought Provoking Comments

When we talk about responsible AI for the SDGs, are we talking about AI for good? Are we talking about AI that is used to get to the SDGs or are we talking about AI that needs to be responsible to get to the SDGs? They are two different things.

speaker

Yasmin Al-Douri

reason

This question cuts to the heart of defining the scope and goals of the initiative, highlighting an important distinction between using AI as a tool for development versus ensuring AI itself is developed responsibly.

impact

It prompted clarification from the organizers that the initiative aims to address both aspects – using AI for development outcomes while ensuring the AI systems themselves are responsible and sustainable. This helped frame the subsequent discussion.

From the perspective of GDC negotiator, have you thought about aligning the lines of declaration with GDC more like clearly, just for consistency? … And the second question is, do you know what the level of commitments that you want to achieve in the end? What’s the ultimate goal in terms of commitment?

speaker

Kassia (UK delegation)

reason

These questions probe important aspects of how the Hamburg initiative relates to existing processes and what concrete outcomes it aims to achieve.

impact

It led to clarification that the Hamburg process is meant to complement rather than duplicate other AI governance efforts, focusing specifically on development applications. It also highlighted that the declaration will be voluntary rather than a negotiated agreement.

I miss a bit of the part of actually is being doing for the sustainable part because when we are so concerned about digital sovereignty and actually creating more infrastructure for better data centers, better you know like just having more data power if we don’t think of the other side of the balance and how we are actually promoting that and for sure green energy like green data centers is that concept really exists is definitely part of it but even like environmental impacts because it’s not only about using you know like okay Brazil use a lot of energy from water sources which supposed to be cleaner for sure but still there’s a lot of environmental impacts that sometimes we create and this should be part of the discussion

speaker

Thiago Moraes

reason

This comment highlights the tension between digital development goals and environmental sustainability, bringing attention to often overlooked environmental impacts.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include more emphasis on environmental considerations in AI development, which the organizers acknowledged as an important point to address under the ‘planet’ aspect of the declaration.

So I don’t see the representation of somewhat of a general point of looking at, well, if I want to promote a certain point, I also have to incorporate others, as well as, especially if you look at AI and that most of the use cases are based on the data, obviously. And I mean, that is probably the area where we are lacking most in responsibility and in humanity, and whether this will also be part of it to look at the development point from a more holistic point of view and incorporating those SDGs, as well.

speaker

Claire

reason

This comment emphasizes the need for a holistic approach that considers potential conflicts between different SDGs and highlights data as a critical area for responsible development.

impact

It prompted acknowledgment from the organizers that they would need to consider a more overarching framework beyond the five P’s to address these interconnections and data issues.

And I think a human rights based approach to whatever you are doing, be it AI or the SDGs, actually, is very helpful in that sense, because if you make sure that you have a human rights based approach, you don’t only cover those very obvious elements such as discrimination, AI bias, all of that, if you indeed incorporate it in the design, development and deployment phases.

speaker

Trine (Danish government representative)

reason

This comment introduces the importance of incorporating a human rights-based approach into AI development for SDGs, providing a framework that can address multiple concerns.

impact

While not directly addressed by the organizers, this suggestion added a new perspective to the discussion on how to ensure responsible AI development across multiple dimensions.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by clarifying the scope and goals of the Hamburg initiative, highlighting important tensions and considerations in AI for development (such as environmental impacts and potential conflicts between SDGs), and introducing frameworks like human rights that could guide responsible AI development. They pushed the organizers to think more holistically about the initiative and consider how to address complex, interconnected issues in the declaration and conference.

Follow-up Questions

How to balance digital sovereignty and infrastructure development with environmental sustainability?

speaker

Thiago Moraes

explanation

Important to consider environmental impacts when building data centers and digital infrastructure for AI development, especially in developing countries

How to ensure access to AI infrastructure and hardware in developing countries, particularly the global south?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

Critical for inclusive AI development and addressing SDGs in underserved regions

How to develop AI governance structures in developing countries, particularly in the Middle East?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

Necessary for responsible AI implementation and addressing potential risks

How to incorporate a human rights-based approach in AI development for SDGs?

speaker

Trine (Danish government representative)

explanation

Ensures comprehensive coverage of issues like discrimination, bias, health, and environmental sustainability

How to showcase local initiatives and small-scale use cases of sustainable AI applications?

speaker

Thiago Moraes

explanation

Provides concrete examples and potential for scaling up successful projects

How to ensure representation of voices from the Global South and indigenous communities in AI and SDG discussions?

speaker

Robert Opp

explanation

Critical for understanding on-the-ground realities and ensuring inclusive technology development

Disclaimer: This is not an official record of the session. The DiploAI system automatically generates these resources from the audiovisual recording. Resources are presented in their original format, as provided by the AI (e.g. including any spelling mistakes). The accuracy of these resources cannot be guaranteed.