Uncategorized

Colin Perkins

Colin Perkins, an academic with extensive experience in standard development, highlights the primary challenge faced by individuals in participating in this field: funding. Perkins argues that the lack of financial resources presents a significant barrier for those who wish to contribute to standard development. This observation reflects a negative sentiment towards the current state of funding in this area.

To address this issue, Perkins suggests that remote participation, facilitated through video conferencing and email discussions, can be a cost-effective and efficient alternative for those unable to attend standard development events in person. While he acknowledges that remote participation may not be as effective as physical presence, he asserts that it is better than no participation at all. This perspective demonstrates a positive outlook on the potential of remote participation in overcoming the challenges associated with physical presence constraints.

Regarding diversity in standard development organizations (SDOs), Perkins notes that diversity has significantly increased over time. He highlights the shift from 75% of Request for Comments (RFCs) originating from North America 20 years ago to the current figure of 40%. Additionally, Perkins points out that the number of RFCs from Europe and Asia has doubled in the past two decades. However, he acknowledges that participation from South America, Africa, and women remains inadequate. This mixed sentiment underscores the growth of diversity while recognizing the need for further progress in achieving greater inclusivity.

Lastly, Perkins asserts that engagement in standard development requires time, effort, and expertise. He emphasizes that gaining the necessary expertise is not an instantaneous process, underscoring the importance of investing in education and continuous learning. This neutral sentiment highlights the commitment and dedication necessary for effective engagement in standard development.

In summary, Colin Perkins emphasizes the significant funding challenge faced by individuals interested in participating in standard development. He also highlights the potential of remote participation as an alternative for those unable to attend in person, while acknowledging its limitations. Perkins acknowledges the progress in diversity within SDOs but notes the need for increased participation from underrepresented groups. Lastly, he emphasizes the importance of time, effort, and expertise in engaging in standard development. These insights provide valuable considerations for addressing the current limitations and future directions in the field of standard development.

Ignacio Castro

The process of standardization for technical standards is becoming more complex, involving a wider range of stakeholders and taking approximately three years from the initial draft to publication. This increasing complexity is attributed to the participation of a larger number of areas, people, countries, and companies. The expansion of technical standards highlights the need for continuous updates and enhancements to meet the evolving requirements of industries, innovation, and infrastructure, as outlined in SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

However, although many Internet Standard Bodies are open, accessibility to these standards remains a significant challenge. It has been observed that accessibility is limited to individuals who have a technical background, understand the standards, and have the time and energy to engage with them. This lack of accessibility contradicts the principle that open standards should be accessible to everyone. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities can only be achieved when accessibility is inclusive, enabling everyone to benefit from and contribute to technical standards.

Another hindrance to engaging with technical standard bodies is the requirement of a technical background. While this may seem obvious, it is crucial to acknowledge that not all participants in the standardization process possess the necessary technical expertise. This limitation can potentially exclude valuable perspectives and hinder the development of more inclusive and comprehensive standards. Recognizing and addressing this issue is essential for achieving the collaborative and cooperative goals outlined in SDG 17: Partnership for the Goals, which emphasizes the importance of partnerships.

To address the challenge of accessibility and promote inclusivity within technical standard bodies, further research is needed. One proposed approach is the analysis of standardization processes, which has the potential to bridge the gaps and make standards more accessible to individuals without a technical background. A research group led by an expert in this field is actively examining standardization processes within the International Research Task Force (IRTF). This research aims to provide insights and recommendations for making standard bodies more accessible to a wider audience.

In conclusion, the standardization process for technical standards is becoming more complex, requiring the involvement of more stakeholders and an extended timeframe for development. However, accessibility to these standards remains limited to individuals with a technical background, creating barriers to inclusivity. Engaging with technical standard bodies demands technical expertise, but acknowledging the need for inclusivity without such expertise is crucial. Further research into analyzing standardization processes can contribute to addressing accessibility challenges and making technical standard bodies accessible to all.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar

The discussion focused on the significance of internet standards in shaping our lives and the exercise of human rights in the digital age. It was emphasised that the growing dependence on the internet and digital technologies makes the role of internet standards crucial.

The Office for the Human Rights Commissioner published a report that aimed to provide an understanding of how technical standards intersect with human rights. The report highlighted the need to comprehend the impact of new and emerging technologies on human rights. It encouraged the integration of human rights perspectives in technical standard-setting organisations. The report also underlined the importance of sharing experiences to foster a better understanding of the opportunities and challenges associated with engagement in standard-setting forums.

There was a consensus that a wider range of stakeholders should be involved in standards development to enhance inclusivity and comprehensiveness. It was acknowledged that involving diverse perspectives is necessary to ensure that the standards reflect a broader range of interests and considerations.

Challenges faced at standard forums were discussed, and there was an emphasis on finding ways to overcome these challenges to represent diverse perspectives effectively. Moderator Sheetal Kumar appreciated the panel’s input and highlighted the need to address the identified challenges.

One notable observation was that technical standards are deemed complex and difficult to monitor. This highlights the need for improved accessibility and understanding of these standards for a broader audience beyond those who possess technical expertise.

It was recognised that efforts should be made to encourage and engage communities that want to participate in technical standards, even if they do not have a technical background. The session emphasised the importance of fostering collaboration between technical and non-technical communities.

The session also discussed the progress being made to make internet standards more accessible and human rights-oriented. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Human Rights Protocol Considerations Group were mentioned as organisations that have already started working towards this goal. Recommendations from the OHCHR report, as well as the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, can serve as frameworks to ensure proper human rights due diligence in standards organisations.

Overall, the session recognised the challenges and complexities involved in standards development and implementation. However, there was a consensus on the need for change and a strong desire to implement the shared ideas and recommendations. The session concluded by looking forward to seeing the implementation of these ideas and recommendations to create standards that are more inclusive, responsive to diverse perspectives, and uphold human rights.

Peggy

The landscape of standard-setting bodies in relation to human rights in digital governance processes is characterised by diversity and complexity, presenting various challenges that need to be addressed. One of the key issues lies in the lack of meaningful participation and transparency in the standard-setting processes. This hampers the ability of stakeholders to actively contribute and shape the standards, leading to potential biases and imbalances in their development. Moreover, financial, cultural, and language barriers further exacerbate the problem by excluding certain groups from participating effectively.

Furthermore, there is a pressing need for equal access and inclusion in standard-setting bodies, particularly for civil society, academia, marginalised voices, women, youth, and voices from global majority. Despite the doors being seemingly open, obstacles continue to hinder their engagement in these processes. This indicates that more efforts are required to ensure that these bodies become genuinely inclusive and reflect a broader range of perspectives and experiences. Additionally, it is worth noting that these standard-setting processes are often dominated by large companies due to their greater resources, which can perpetuate power imbalances.

However, there is a positive development in the form of a strong appetite from standard-setting bodies to improve their engagement with communities affected by digital technologies. They recognise that their credibility and effectiveness depend on incorporating the insights and concerns of these communities. This acknowledgement suggests a growing recognition of the importance of inclusive decision-making processes.

In conclusion, the landscape of standard-setting bodies in the context of human rights in digital governance processes presents a complex and diverse picture. The challenges that need to be addressed include the lack of meaningful participation, transparency, financial, cultural, and language barriers, and the dominance of large companies. Nonetheless, there is a growing awareness of the need for equal access and inclusion, and an appetite among standard-setting bodies to engage more effectively with affected communities. These insights highlight the importance of enhancing participation, inclusivity, and transparency within standard-setting processes to ensure the development of fair and effective digital governance standards.

Vanessa Cravo

Standards play a significant role in our lives, impacting how we live and communicate. They shape various aspects of our daily lives, from the products we use to the services we rely on. However, standardization processes are often not representative of all regions, particularly the Global South. This underrepresentation leads to inequalities and hinders the inclusion of diverse perspectives.

Furthermore, the development of standards often fails to consider the needs of every demographic, resulting in potential harm to certain groups. For example, seatbelts that do not prioritize women’s safety can pose risks to female passengers. It is crucial for standards to be inclusive and prioritize the needs and safety of all individuals.

The role of standards has evolved with the emergence of new technologies and changing demands. This evolution necessitates a shift in how we approach processes and organizations to effectively address these changes.

Stakeholder engagement is vital in the standardization process. Engaging all parties, including academia, fosters a more diverse and inclusive discussion. The inclusion of academia in sessions addressing standardization within the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is an important step towards incorporating their expertise and perspectives.

Brazil serves as an example of a country that actively involves diverse stakeholders in its national standardization processes. With an open and plural organization, Brazil encourages discussion and participation from multiple perspectives.

Digital technologies have a significant impact on our lives, and their regulatory standards require comprehensive discussions. The rapid development and adoption of emerging technologies call for proactive and thorough debates to ensure that the standards effectively address associated risks and opportunities.

While some standard organizations strive for openness, it does not guarantee universal engagement in discussions. Openness must be accompanied by active efforts to involve different stakeholders to ensure a truly inclusive standardization process.

It is essential for standard organizations to embed human rights considerations in their processes. Discussions surrounding standards should include a focus on upholding human rights principles to ensure ethical outcomes.

Civil society plays a crucial role in the standardization process, and its engagement with national governments is key to participation in standard organizations. The Philippines and Brazil serve as examples of countries where national delegations provide platforms for civil society engagement.

However, barriers, such as membership fees associated with standard organizations, hinder civil society participation. These fees limit involvement and perpetuate inequalities. Efforts should be made to address these barriers and promote equal participation.

In conclusion, standards have a significant impact on our lives and require an inclusive and diverse approach. Addressing the underrepresentation of the Global South and considering the needs of every demographic are essential to avoid harm. Stakeholder engagement, including academia and civil society, is vital for a comprehensive and equitable standardization process. Openness and the inclusion of human rights considerations should be embedded in the processes of standard organizations. Additionally, barriers that limit civil society participation, such as membership fees, should be addressed to promote equal engagement.

Yog Desai

This analysis explores the critical role of funding in enhancing the participation of the global South in standardization organizations. It emphasizes the need for continuous financial support, rather than one-time contributions, to ensure meaningful engagement. To achieve a well-rounded representation, the interests of the broader community should be considered, rather than solely focusing on government agendas.

The study highlights the importance of physical presence during discussions and decision-making processes within these organizations. This active involvement requires substantial financial backing for travel expenses, accommodation, and related costs. By securing adequate funding, organizations can enable representatives from the global South to contribute significantly and have their voices heard on standardization matters, promoting diverse perspectives and reducing inequalities.

Additionally, the analysis stresses the importance of sourcing funding in line with the interests of the broader community. It points out that certain programs, such as those implemented by the Indian government, often send representatives who primarily prioritize government interests. However, for effective representation, funding decisions should consider the needs and aspirations of all stakeholders, including civil society organizations, academia, and industry.

Moreover, the analysis calls for increased awareness among social science researchers about their role in the standardization domain. By actively engaging with this field, researchers can better understand the actions and impacts of standardization processes on socio-economic aspects. This knowledge can inform policymaking, encourage innovative solutions, and contribute to achieving SDG 9 on Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

In conclusion, this analysis highlights the critical link between funding and increased participation of the global South in standardization organizations. It advocates for continuous financial support and a community-focused approach. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of social science researchers contributing their expertise to the standardization domain. By addressing these considerations, a more inclusive and equitable standardization landscape can be fostered, supporting the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Eva Ignatuschtschenko

The UK government has a strong track record of engaging in international technical standards, supporting a multi-stakeholder and industry-led system that promotes inclusivity and participation. They have recently embedded standards in the G7 agreements, highlighting their dedication to global cooperation. The government also prioritizes the promotion of human rights within technical standards, recognizing potential infringements on privacy and personal liberties. They emphasize the importance of ethics in developing standards for emerging technologies like AI. Meaningful engagement between human rights experts and standards bodies is crucial, as is investment in organizational development and collaboration. When it is not feasible to involve all civil society organizations directly, working with proxies can ensure their presence. The government supports collective action and knowledge-sharing among organizations to address challenges effectively. By prioritizing these principles, the UK government fosters innovation and progress in the development and implementation of technical standards.

Natam

The analysis explores the issue of inequality in the participation of civil society organisations (CSOs) and human rights experts in standard-setting bodies related to internet governance. It highlights that the limited participation of such organisations is due to the lack of resources and technical capacity. This inequality raises concerns about the inclusivity and representativeness of standard-setting processes.

Data Privacy Brazil emphasizes the need for standard-setting bodies to incorporate discussions on human rights. Their submission to the Human Rights Office call for inputs underscores the importance of integrating human rights considerations into the development of technical standards. By incorporating human rights discussions, standard-setting bodies can ensure that their processes align with principles such as freedom of expression, privacy, and non-discrimination.

On a positive note, advocating for a multi-stakeholder approach has the potential to improve dialogue between standard-setting processes and human rights considerations. By involving multiple stakeholders, including CSOs and human rights experts, in the standard-setting processes, a broader range of perspectives and expertise can be integrated. This approach ensures that human rights considerations are taken into account and that the resulting standards are more inclusive and responsive to the needs of all stakeholders.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) acts as a space that provides opportunities for CSOs to participate in international standard-setting processes. It is described as an open and multi-stakeholder platform where discussions on technical and human rights issues can take place. The IGF not only allows CSOs to contribute to the development of standards but also facilitates capacity-building activities that enable participants to deepen their understanding of internet governance issues.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the inequality in the participation of CSOs and human rights experts in standard-setting bodies related to internet governance. It emphasizes the importance of incorporating human rights discussions into the development of technical standards. Advocating for a multi-stakeholder approach is presented as a means to improve dialogue between standard-setting processes and human rights considerations. The IGF is identified as a platform that enables CSOs to actively participate and contribute to international standard-setting processes while promoting capacity-building and discussions on technical and human rights issues. This enhanced understanding of the issue provides valuable insights into the need for more inclusive and rights-based approaches in the development of internet governance standards.

Vint Cerf

The summary highlights the significance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the need to identify standards for the realization of these rights. It emphasizes the importance of accessibility, specifically in terms of online access, for addressing issues related to information and rights. The lack of implementation of standards is also addressed, noting the need for practical examples to guide developers and policymakers. Furthermore, the negative impact of limited accessibility on individuals’ ability to access the justice system is discussed. Overall, the summary emphasizes the importance of standards and accessibility in promoting equal access to information and justice.

Peter Marien

The report raises concerns about certain technical standard proposals that have the potential to undermine the use of the internet while respecting human rights. These proposals, if implemented, could have severe implications for privacy and may even lead to the fragmentation of the internet. This is particularly worrisome as the internet is meant to be a platform that respects fundamental rights as outlined in various charters.

On a positive note, the close cooperation and dialogue between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) are appreciated. This collaboration shows a commitment to addressing the challenges posed by digital standard setting and ensuring that human rights are protected in this context.

The importance of involving various stakeholders in technical environments is highlighted. The complex nature of these environments calls for a diverse range of perspectives and expertise. It is hoped that more stakeholders will gradually be involved in these discussions to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive decision-making process.

Furthermore, the European Commission has announced new cooperation with OHCHR in the field of human rights and standard setting. This demonstrates a commitment to reinforcing the links between human rights and the establishment of standards. This collaboration has the potential to create a positive impact and promote human rights considerations in the development of technical standards.

In conclusion, the report brings attention to the potential risks and challenges associated with certain technical standard proposals. It underscores the need for ongoing collaboration, dialogue, and the involvement of various stakeholders in the decision-making processes related to standard setting. The newly announced cooperation between OHCHR and the European Commission presents an opportunity to strengthen the protection of human rights in this domain.

One noteworthy observation from the analysis is the focus on the Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) and Goal 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). These goals align with the discussions around human rights, standard setting, and the involvement of various stakeholders. This highlights the broader context of the report and its implications for global efforts to achieve sustainable development.

Andrew Campling

The discussion centers around the lack of diversity in internet standards bodies, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It is reported that only around 10% of members in the IETF are female, highlighting a significant gender disparity within the organization. Additionally, there is underrepresentation in terms of geography, ethnicity, and age, indicating a lack of diversity on multiple axes.

The lack of diversity in standards bodies is viewed negatively as it undermines the development of inclusive and comprehensive standards. Having a limited range of perspectives and experiences poses a risk of overlooking important considerations and requirements. The current situation emphasizes the need for greater representation and inclusion in the decision-making processes of these bodies.

In addition to the gender disparity, there is a noted lack of involvement from governments and their agencies, including the European Commission and European Member States. This results in a narrow viewpoint driving the development of standards, potentially leading to biased or inadequate outcomes. The low engagement of these stakeholders further limits the diversity of perspectives and expertise in shaping internet standards.

To address these issues, it is argued that there is a need to integrate multiple stakeholders into the standards process. By involving a broader range of voices and expertise, the resulting standards can be more comprehensive, inclusive, and representative of the global population. Embedding diversity and inclusion principles into the decision-making processes of standards bodies can lead to better standards that meet the needs of a wide range of users.

It is suggested that better diversity and inclusion would lead to improved standards. By incorporating a wider range of perspectives and experiences, standards can become more robust, adaptable, and responsive to the diverse needs and requirements of users. This aligns with the goals of SDG 5: Gender Equality and SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities, which aim to promote equal opportunities and inclusive societies.

In conclusion, the lack of diversity in internet standards bodies, such as the IETF, is a significant concern. The underrepresentation of women, diverse ethnicities, different geographical backgrounds, and various age groups highlights the need for greater diversity and inclusion in these bodies. By integrating multiple stakeholders into the standards process, better standards can be developed that are more inclusive and representative of the global population. Achieving this would not only address the current disparities but also contribute to the goals of gender equality and reduced inequalities.

Jessamine Pacis

CSO participation in standard setting processes is hindered by various challenges, including the resource-intensive nature of these processes and the requirement for long-lasting and consistent engagement. The costs associated with travel, membership, and participation make it difficult for civil society organisations (CSOs) to actively participate in these processes. Additionally, continuous engagement is vital for meaningful participation and influencing outcomes.

On the other hand, government agencies can provide access to standard-setting processes, such as those facilitated by organisations like the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). However, there is a significant challenge in terms of inconsistent engagement from government agencies. Fluctuating leadership and changing priorities often lead to varying levels of commitment and involvement, which can impact the effectiveness of CSO participation enabled through government agencies.

To address these challenges and ensure a more inclusive and effective standard-setting process, it is suggested that a multi-stakeholder approach be adopted. This approach emphasises the involvement of various stakeholders, including CSOs, government agencies, and other relevant actors, in decision-making processes. The recommendation is to commence this multi-stakeholder process at the national level first before expanding it globally.

One reason for starting at the national level is that government interest and commitment to international standards-setting processes can fluctuate over time. By establishing a strong foundation at the national level, the multi-stakeholder approach can better handle any changes in government priorities or leadership. Currently, the Philippines serves as an example, as it has not had a representative in the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) for over a decade. This lack of representation highlights the importance of having consistent engagement and a multi-stakeholder process that can ensure sustained involvement and influence in global standard setting.

In conclusion, CSO participation in standard-setting processes is challenging due to the resource-intensive nature and the need for consistent engagement. While government agencies can enable access to these processes, their level of involvement tends to be inconsistent. Adopting a multi-stakeholder approach, beginning at the national level, can help overcome these challenges and ensure a more inclusive and effective standard-setting process.

Vittorio Bertola

The analysis covers three speakers and their perspectives on various topics.

Vittorio, who was involved in designing the multi-stakeholder model 20-25 years ago, supports the application of this model to standard-setting organizations. This indicates his positive sentiment towards a multi-stakeholder approach.

Concerning the standardisation process for the internet, Vittorio holds a negative sentiment. He believes that the current process is always playing catch-up due to its deployment-first nature. In his view, technology is first invented and deployed on the internet, and only then standardised. This perspective suggests that Vittorio sees the current standardisation process as problematic and in need of improvement.

Turning to the HRPC (Human Rights, Privacy, and Conditions) committee, it is noted that the current perspective is predominantly focused on freedom of expression, with a lack of representation from the Global South. Vittorio argues that in order to address this issue, it is necessary to create more diversity in perspectives within the committee. This highlights the importance of including voices from different regions to ensure a balanced and inclusive approach to human rights.

Overall, the analysis showcases Vittorio’s support for a multi-stakeholder model in standard-setting organizations, his concerns about the deployment-first nature of the standardisation process for the internet, and his belief in the necessity of diversity in perspectives on the HRPC committee. These viewpoints shed light on the need for more inclusive and collaborative approaches in these areas.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Hello, everyone. Good morning. Welcome to this session on Internet Standards and Human Rights. We will get started. I’m sorry that we’re starting a bit late. I was waiting for the panelists to arrive. A very warm welcome to you if you’re joining us online as well. My name is Sheetal Kumar, and I co-lead Global Partners Digital’s engagement in digital governance processes, and we are co-hosting this session with the European Centre for Not-for-Profit Law, ECNL, with the Office of the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, OHCHR, and the European Commission, the Department for International Partnerships. So welcome, welcome. We have just started. Again, welcome to everyone here in the room and online. Just to give a bit of a context, at GPD, we are a human rights organization working to embed human rights in the governance of digital technologies, which includes not only, of course, regulation and policy frameworks, but also technical standards. And I think internet standards are perhaps one of the areas of internet governance or part of the internet that may feel invisible for many, but actually, and unless perhaps you’re working on them, they’re fundamentally shaping, of course, our lives and the exercise of our human rights in the digital age as we become even more dependent on the internet and on digital technologies. And so in this session, we want to discuss and elucidate for you two main things. the connections between Internet standards and human rights, and the challenges and opportunities for stakeholders to engage, or a wider range of stakeholders to engage in standards development. So the Office for the Human Rights Commissioner this year published a report based on consultations with stakeholders on technical standards for new and emerging technologies, and that’s why I’m delighted to start with opening remarks from Peggy Hicks, Director, Thematic Engagement, Special Procedures and Right to Development Division. As Peggy does have to leave us, I want to make sure that we come to you first before we turn to the other panellists and before I introduce them. So Peggy, over to you. I know that the report is a really important introduction to this issue and provides an overview and an understanding of how technical standards and human rights intersect. That relationship provides a range of recommendations as well. If you can provide, over the next few minutes, an overview of the report, its substance, that will provide a really great context for our discussion here. So over to you, Peggy. Thank you.

Peggy:
Great. Thanks so much. It’s a real pleasure to be here, and thank you for really highlighting this critical issue. I think you’re right that it’s an issue that doesn’t really rise to the top the way that it needs to in terms of the focus, but it’s incredibly important, and I think in the conversations I’ve had here in Kyoto at IGF, the impact of AI developments as well in this area, it was already important, now it’s even more urgent, given the reality that many of the critical decisions around AI may come as a result of the work of technical standards setting bodies. So you referenced the report, and sorry, I just do want to thank, of course, the European Commission, Global Partners Digital, and ECNL for your incredible work in this area in convening us today. You mentioned the report that we did last year. I have with me my colleague, Eugene Kim, who is one of the primary drafters of that effort. We are grateful to the Human Rights Council for giving us a mandate to look at this issue. We had already done enough, but it gave us a real opportunity to look at the full landscape for standard setting and to see what are the challenges within it from a human rights perspective. And the first thing I need to say is that what we found, of course, is that it’s not a landscape that has just one actor or one type of actor. It’s a vast constellation of actors that are very diverse, various differences in terms of the standard setting organizations. They have different size, different working methods, and process seeds. What we found within them, of course, were a number of best practices, but also a number of challenges. And the challenges that we saw related to access, the difficulties with regards to working documents, proposals, meeting minutes, obviously problems with meaningful participation and transparency of working methods, language, technical knowledge, lack of financial and human resources to do some of the work that we’re looking for. One of the things that we focused on was the need for greater transparency and access to standard setting processes, making documentation accessible to the public, addressing the financial and cultural barriers to participation, and, of course, something that I think needs to be thought about much more seriously, including in this IGF forum, the need for inclusion of more diverse voices, including from women, youth, voices from the global majority, and those that have been historically marginalized. When we look at the landscape that I’ve just described, as I said, one of the key things is that we need to recognize that there can’t be a one-size-fits-all approach, that the standard setting bodies themselves are at different places, and we need to sort of look at how to move things forward for the different standard setting bodies. But it’s an urgent endeavor, as I said. What we’re trying to think about is really sort of a two-flank approach. The first flank is to really look at each standard setting body, work with them to see what are some of the best practices, what are the barriers, to access in their own institutions and work with and to put in place policies that are going to make it more uh easier to bring in human rights expertise in a variety of ways including of course civil society engagement as I just said but also from the academic community and and others. Uh and you know breaking down those barriers to access transparency is is a critical piece. The second piece of course though uh we we want the doors to be open but even when the doors are open there are still real obstacles to civil society and academia being able to engage effectively in these bodies. Um it requires these are labor intensive processes that go on for long periods of time. Uh a lot of work being done in person rather than remotely. Um and it requires uh resources and capacity to be able to do it. And the reality is these are bodies that are often dominated by large companies because they’re the ones that have the resources to be there. We need a level playing field and that will require real investment. If we think that civil society and academia have important voices within these fora then we need to find a way to resource it and make it happen as well. So we’re talking about what would it take, what types of funders might be able to better support civil society and academic engagement and and standard setting processes and we’re going to need that piece uh to be put in place as well. Um the good news is I think there’s a real appetite from the standard setting bodies that we talked to. They want to move forward on this. They understand that their credibility and effectiveness depends on better engagement with the communities that are affected by digital technologies. So we think there’s there’s room to move on these issues but to just leave everybody with the thought that it’s it’s an urgent endeavor and one that we need to take action on now. Thanks very much.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thanks Peggy. That was great and I think we’re going to unpack a lot of that this morning. So just to quote from your report from the report um one one line which I think speaks to to to some of what you said. Technical standards reflect the interests values and concerns of those participating in their elaboration and so of course as these standards undergird um the the technologies and the the internet as it evolves um and thus um the the the rights of those who use them it is really important as you said to ensure that that the the engagement in them is is diverse. So I want to come next to um our first panelist um who is Natan Pascoalini who is a researcher at Data Privacy Brazil and is sitting on my on my left here um because you have done research um on exactly this question engagement in internet governance bodies and the and thank you Peggy for for joining us. I know um I know you had to to leave you have to leave. Thank you so much for making the time. Um so Natan this this report uh that you have uh worked on provides um real data and insights into the actual engagement in internet um governance bodies and stand standard setting. Really interested to hear now if you can keep it to three minutes that would be great. The top level insights from your research. Thank you.

Natam:
I’m working with Data Privacy Brazil, which is a non-profit civil society organization that deals with the promotion with the digital rights through a social justice lenses. And I believe that before talking about opportunities to engage, it’s important to highlight some of the challenges that CSOs face when trying to engage within technical standard-setting bodies. In March, we at Data Privacy Brazil submitted a contribution to the Human Rights Office call for inputs, and there we stated the need of such standard bodies to incorporate the discussion of human rights and human rights discussions and frameworks into the development of technical standards. However, to incorporate such discussions and frameworks, it’s necessary to enable the participation of CSOs and human rights experts in those bodies, which is limited, as Peggy said, due to several barriers related, for example, to lack of financial resources and lack of technical capacity building. And historically, these debates between the debates of technical standards and human rights usually occur separately, which impedes the integration of human rights and considerations into technical standard-setting processes. So since there is a lack of dialogue between those two areas, we need to advocate for a stakeholder approach so that it would help to improve the dialogue between standard-setting processes and human rights. It also appeared in this study that you mentioned and that we conducted on data privacy in Brazil. We designed this study with representatives from global southern organizations and we are launching this report today. The document will be available very soon. And this study is called Voices from the Global South, Perspectives on International Engagements and Digital Rights. It was supported by the National Endowment for Democracy and sheds light specifically on the active involvement of a carefully selected group of activists from the global south within international organizations. And going forward to the end, I promise I’m finishing, and in terms of opportunities of engagement, in this report we were able to identify that despite the challenges and barriers in general that CSOs face to engage with international standard-setting bodies, the processes that take place inside the UN, especially the IGF, are still key spaces, especially because the IGF is the only entirely open and multi-stakeholder space, which despite not making a binding decision, it’s conducive to creating capacity building and for technical community actors to bring their discussions to be debated with an open and fruitful space within the scope between human rights and probably and maybe standard-setting processes. So thank you, Chetan.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Okay, I will get this right at some point. So thank you, Natan. And I think what you’ve said also reflects a lot of what the OHCHR report outlined, but it’s very important to have that understanding from civil society as well on the ground trying to engage in these spaces. And I encourage everyone to look at that report that’s just been launched. So I’m now going to come. come over to Ava Ignatyshenko, who is head of Digital Standards and Internet Governance at the UK’s Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology. Ava, the UK has a strategy on standards engagement. How are you engaging on this topic of technical standards, internet standards, and human rights? And what do you think needs to be done to address the challenges we’ve heard, but also take advantage of the appetite and the interest in ensuring more diversity in this space?

Eva Ignatuschtschenko:
Thank you. Oh, it’s actually already on. There you go. And thank you to Global Partners Digital for setting up a session that is really important. And as you say, UK government is really committed to this agenda. And thank you for everybody who made it out this morning. I’m going to talk a little bit about the UK approach to this, and then leave you with three thoughts, which hopefully will spark a bit of discussion later as well. So the UK government, and I feel like I’m repeating myself, but maybe for some of you this is new, has a really long track record of engaging in technical standards internationally. Within that, supporting the multi-stakeholder and industry-led system as it is, ensuring there’s integrity and promoting human rights. So this is not new for us, but we’re very aware of the challenges. And within that, I think the inclusion in the development of standards is not an easy task. In the deployment process of standards, sometimes you see issues. But we have made a huge amount of progress over the last few years. I always like to think I made standards sexy for UK government, and I stand by that. And we’ve also embedded it in the G7 agreements. In 2021, the G7, for the first time, adopted an agreement and partnership on digital technical standards, which has a lot of human rights-relevant commitments of looking at internet protocols in particular, looking at inclusion, looking at standards that have wider societal impact, and how the G7 can engage in that and support the community. And as we already heard from OHCHR, SDOs are aware, standards bodies are aware, and they know it’s not a straightforward task. But there’s more that we need to do, despite the fact that standards bodies have woken up to the challenge. And especially from our perspective, it’s not always in the development of the standard. It often comes to the implementation, the deployment of the standard, where human rights play a role and where human rights abuses might happen. And you can think of a standard like facial recognition that is really important to protect privacy and might unlock your phone with that, but can equally be used by other regimes for mass surveillance. I wanna leave you now with three thoughts, because I’m conscious of time. First one is that we’re not starting with a blank sheet of paper. One of the issues OHCHR has when looking at this problem is there isn’t really any guidelines on human rights and technical standards. However, we do have the UN Principles on Business and Human Rights, and they. give good requirements and good baseline for businesses to consider human rights in their engagement in standards bodies and the development of standards. We should be building on those. Secondly, we really need a meaningful, and I do emphasize that word, meaningful way for human rights experts to engage. It’s a two-way street. Human rights experts need to start paying attention and start educating themselves, but importantly, also standards bodies need to become more open to them. The UK is doing a lot to engage civil society in particular, but also industry experts and coordinate with them on standards, including in the multi-stakeholder advisory group on internet governance in the UK, but also informal networks on organizations like Etsy, ITU, IETF. I’m sorry, I’m not spelling them out. What happens with standards bodies is you spell it out and it’s still, you’re no wiser, so I’m just gonna leave it there. And the last thought I want to leave you with, maybe a bit more provocative, is I really see AI, and I’m sure you’ve not heard anything about AI during this IGF, as an enabler of this discussion, because for the first time, what we’re seeing is that there’s a real recognition that ethics are a key part of what goes into developing technical standards in a new technology, and we hope that that could bring some lessons learned for the future for other technologies. I’ll leave it there. Thank you.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thanks, thanks, Seva. That was really, really useful, I believe, and I’m excited to pick up some of those points in the open discussion and also invite you all to start thinking about your questions or how you’d like to engage once we’ve heard from our next two speakers. And the next speaker is online, so I hope we can connect to Vanessa Copetti Cravo, who is joining us online. She is Telecommunications Regulation Specialist at the Brazilian National Telecommunications Agency, ANATEL. Vanessa, are you able to unmute yourself and join us on the? Okay, there, we see you there. Excellent. I’m glad it’s working well. and all the standards are ensuring we can connect with you and hear what you have to say and to share about the experience of Anatel and engaging in standards organizations, but also in engaging a wide range of stakeholders in these discussions. Over to you.

Vanessa Cravo:
So thank you very much and good morning, good afternoon, good evening to all. So I think it’s important to highlight that Anatel has the legal mandate in Brazil to represent the country in the international telecommunications organizations and perhaps my experience that is most relevant to the session is the fact that I engage in the ITU, the International Telecommunications Agency for now more than 14 years. So I think it’s a pleasure to have this conversation and this is very relevant and in fact, as we have heard today, this matter become relevant every day that goes by. And why is that? It’s because our world and our lives have changed profoundly with all these technologies and they will continue to do so. We just heard about AI and they will continue to evolve, they will continue to develop. And there was a chase for leadership and this new and emerging technologies and they also have turned the standardization processes, the subject of our inter-new geopolitical battlefields. And this also exacerbate, highlight the disparities in the participation of, in the process and the fora. It’s not surprised that the global South lags behind in participation in these processes. Something also that was highlighted in the report of the Office of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on this matter. And one of the challenges that Peggy has mentioned before. So at the same time that we recognize the unique representation, we also recognize that the processes define several different aspects of how we live. Communicate, interact. and no matter where or how you live. So, recognize that, but that the different voices are not being considered in shaping their own lives, something also that Sheetal has mentioned in the opening remarks. So, of course that through the history we have seen examples that standards that didn’t take into consideration human rights and one well-known example is the seatbelt that was designed to save men’s lives, but not women’s lives. So, the fact is that now standards have a completely different role in our societies. We live in an interdependent, connectional, digital society which lies upon technical standards, and we cannot wait until we discover that these standards are not designed for everyone and they can jeopardize women, for example, and other vulnerable groups to take some action. So, having said that, I think there is an agreement that the role of standards have completely changed and they demand a change on how we look and we consider these processes in these organizations. So, the real challenge is how to integrate the discussions within the framework and processes of standardization and Peggy also have highlighted quite a few challenges that we need to address. And so, Brazil has some reflections on this point and we have participated in discussions within the ITU framework about this and we see this as, of course, an opportunity for the improving of the working methods and, of course, we also take into consideration the challenges, but I think one very important thing is how to better integrate human rights perspective into the already existing processes. So, we believe that this discussion should be embedded in the cycles of the work of standardization and, for example, when we are talking about ITUT, we are talking of discussing these issues within the telecommunications and standardization sector. So, this is something very important and I think also something that we have seen is that we already seen some movement in this regard within ITU. And so, I think this is for the international perspective that we are looking forward to follow how this is going to evolve within ITU and, of course, engage in this matter and when we look internationally, what we have done in Brazil is we have set a framework structure to try to have a plural participation to ITU and other international organizations that ANATEL represent Brazil in. So, this is an open, a plural organization and we try to foster the discussion, but, of course, internationally we consider this as a challenge because it’s really difficult to engage. We try to engage academia, for example, for the last session of… the security lead group that address standardizations within ITU, we even were able to engage academia in this discussion, so it was the first time that we had a delegation that involved academia for this discussion, so we have seen this improvement as well, but it’s not easy because all the challenges, they also apply nationally, even if I try to engage nationally to build consensus to take this forward, so this will be my opening remarks and thank you very much.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you very much and I think you spoke to some points that have been picked up before, that you picked up on some points from the discussion before that really I think illustrate the opportunities that there are for engaging stakeholders, you provided some examples of how Anatel is doing that and I think show us that we are largely at the beginning of many of these discussions and so for that reason, while there are challenges, there are also opportunities to leverage the interest and the appetite that Peggy spoke of, of ensuring human rights voices and perspectives are represented in standards discussions and forums. So Jessamine Passi, you are program officer at the Foundation for Media Alternatives or FMA in the Philippines and really would be interested to hear from you, picking up on these discussions about how in practice it is, what it is like to engage in these discussions as a civil society organization, if you can share how you have faced some of those challenges in trying to engage in these discussions, bring that human rights perspective and perhaps if you have some recommendations for how things can

Jessamine Pacis:
improve. Thank you. Thank you, thank you Chital and good morning everyone. So I think from the previous discussions, it appears that we’re all in agreement that there is an issue of access in these spaces right and I think that’s great. I don’t want to repeat everything that Peggy and Nathan have already said, because I think the OHHR report and Peggy earlier also summed up the challenges quite well. So, there’s not a lot of CSO participation in standard setting processes because they are very resource intensive. It takes, there are travel costs, there are membership and participation costs, and it takes a lot of time and energy. And I think just one thing that I wanted to highlight is that these are labor intensive, these are resource intensive, because it’s not just enough to participate in these spaces. We have to participate meaningfully. And this means, because like engaging in these processes is not just a one-off thing, right? You have to really continue engagement for a prolonged period of time, and not a lot of CSOs have not only the access to these spaces, but also like the resources to sustain this kind of work and this kind of engagement for a period of time. I think one thing that has worked with FMA in the past and one thing that we’re also trying to do now is being able to access spaces such as the ITU and the ICANN and the IETF through working with the government, specifically our Department of ICT as well as our National Telecommunications Commission, because these agencies are often more able to access these spaces as part of the national delegation. So our previous speakers already mentioned the importance of the multi-stakeholder process, but I think we should also emphasize the fact that this process should also start within the national level, so it’s not important just with the global level, but it has to start with our own countries as well. Of course, there are also challenges with this kind of strategy, working with the government. Of course, there is constantly fluctuating leadership, the officials and the leaders are replaced every once in a while, especially with ministry-level agencies. And in the Philippines, for example, there were some moments in the past when the Department of ICT and the National Telecommunications Commission were active in participating in global standards-setting processes, but again, because the people in the government changed. over time, the agenda changes as well, the priorities change, so the level of engagement also changes over time. I was telling Chital yesterday that currently I think it’s been more than a decade that the Philippines has not had a representative to the ICANN GAC, which reflects the kind of the level of priority and the level of engagement that the government has right now. So yeah, so now the department is in process of coming up with a new digital strategy and new strategic vision for them, so we are, as FMA, as part of civil society, we are trying to reach out to the government to put engagement in these standard-setting processes back on their agenda and in their priorities as well, and open conversations on internet governance and internet fragmentation and related issues with them as well. Thank you.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you. Thank you so much, and as you were speaking, I thought it was interesting that you remarked on the need for that general agenda-setting and prioritization of the issue, which Eva, you shared some considerations from the UK government and the approach of having a strategy and having this sort of, I suppose, more longer-term and more embedded approach, which then provides for that ability, I think, to ensure continuity in engagement despite changes in administration, for example. So that’s one area we can explore in the open discussion, but as I mentioned, we are co-organizing this session with the European Commission and in the Department for International Partnerships in particular, so I wanted to check if any representative wanted to come in at this point and reflect. Yes, please, please do come, and if you want to use that mic, that is absolutely fine. Thank you so much.

Peter Marien:
Thank you very much, Peter Marien, European Commission. international partnerships. Thank you very much indeed for organizing this interesting discussion and exchange of information. So we welcome the report by OHCHR on human rights and digital standard setting and it describes well how some proposals for technical standards can actually turn into standards which undermine the usage of Internet in a way that respects the rights as we see them reflected in the fundamental charters for example the UN Charter on Human Rights. So as you all know there have been standards proposed in the past which in our opinion can also lead to fragmentation of the Internet or you know quite severe implications for privacy. So the report is specifically relevant for the standard setting organizations and we hope that these organizations will take them duly into account. We also appreciate very much the close cooperation the dialogue between OHCHR and the ITU especially the recent changes also in ITU. Now of course it’s important that these high-level I would say commitments exchanges that have taken place but also the recommendations that have been made in the report that these of course trickle down into the actual work at the technical level working groups and hopefully indeed that other stakeholders as has been mentioned here will gradually be able to be involved even more in these sometimes technical and difficult environments difficult access as was explained by by the speakers. So on our side we are happy at the European Commission to contribute to this process to this reinforcement of the links between the human rights and standard settings and we’re actually happy to announce a new cooperation on this field between Commission and OHCHR and also later today we will be announcing this in another session. Maybe I’d like to finish just with it with a question would be interesting if people in the room or on the panel or online would have any information about concrete steps that might already have been taken or are being planned following this

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
report if any. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming and for also being a co-organizer of this of this session. So we can start with your question. I also have another another few questions for those of us here in the room and also online. Do you have experience engaging in technical standard-setting organizations or are you implementing or actioning any of the recommendations in the OHCHR report and how do you see this work going forward? I think we’ve heard a lot of optimism about the opportunities that could it can exist as long as the challenges that we have identified and agreed on that do exist for human rights perspectives and more diverse perspectives to be represented in standards forums are overcome. So do you have further recommendations or ideas for how to overcome those? I think as I said we identified the challenges and there are recommendations in the report but are there any… any other recommendations that you may have based on your experience. So, that is how we will start the open discussion because we’ve got about 15 minutes to hear from you all. The way that, okay, I already see some hands, I’d like to do this is to see whether there are hands. I’ve seen one, I’ve seen, okay, I’ve seen two. And then I’ll take those two questions first and see whether panelists want to respond. And I’ll also keep an eye on the online moderator and whether there’s anything there. But please do feel free to respond to what the panelists have said as well or just bring your own perspectives to the discussion. So, we’ll start with a question or reflection here. Please introduce yourself and then ask your question or share your reflection. Thank you.

Andrew Campling:
Yeah, this is on, good. Good morning, my name’s Andrew Campling. I run a public policy consultancy and certainly get involved with internet standards mainly around the ITF. And from that, I’d reflect that new internet standards and changing to existing ones have absolutely have significant implications for public policy. However, diversity in the standards bodies is a major problem on pretty much every axis. So, for example, in the ITF, it’s about 10% female. It’s equally underrepresented on geographic axes, ethnicity, age. I could go on, you get the right understanding. Part of the problem is, certainly within the ITF, it’s not a multi-stakeholder process. So, it’s purely led by the sort of technical community. Now, that might seem reasonable, but that means that a very narrow point of view is represented by those that do engage in the development of standards. And those few CSOs that are involved are often supported by funding by tech companies themselves represent a pretty narrow segment of civil society. There’s also, by the way, a low involvement. involvement of governments and their agencies, including, dare I say it, the European Commission and European Member States, are almost entirely absent from the discussions, and end users are not even in the room. Because of that lack of diversity, and therefore lack of diversity of thought, that leads to problems with the culture of the community, and also affects the quality of the standards and the type of standards that are actually produced. So we will get better outcomes if we have a more diverse community working on the problems. So in my view, we need to fix this problem if we’re going to make the internet better. We’ve got to find a way to integrate multi-stakeholders into the standards process, and I would suggest one way of doing that is to measure the diversity of the different standards bodies and publish the stats regularly to hold them to account to do better. So I’ll leave that thought with you, but if anyone wants to discuss it after this, happy to do so.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you. And if we have anyone here who is doing some of that work, please feel free to share your work, your research. Natan already shared some of that research that is being done, and it would be interesting to hear from others as well. Thanks, Andrew, for that contribution. We have two here. Please go ahead.

Ignacio Castro:
Thank you. My name is Ignacio Castro, and I’m a lecturer in Queen Mary University of London, and I also chair a research group at the IRTF on analyzing standardization processes, in particular ITF and W3C. And what I wanted to say is pretty much related to what the last colleague has said, and the colleague from the European Commission and one of the other speakers. The question is how are we going to resolve the conundrum of the fact that technical standards are complex, they are technical, and that’s unavoidable. And we can be aspirational, and we can desire things to be in one way or the other, but we cannot avoid the fact that at the end of the day, these things are quite complicated. And I can actually tell you that from my research, it’s getting even more complicated. A draft now takes about three years, since the first draft until it’s published. It involves more areas, it involves more people, more countries, and more companies. All this makes things more complicated. Monitoring this is difficult, even if you know about the technical complexities. Many of the Internet of Standard Bodies are open, they are very open, but open doesn’t mean accessible. Accessible is only for those who understand, have the time and the energy, as one of the colleagues has said. And this is something that is quite difficult to challenge. And even though I pretty much agree with what everyone has said, I haven’t heard anything that helps to walk towards a solution. So I’m sorry, I don’t have a good answer. And I think that the work that we are doing in providing analysis is helpful, because as I said, these bodies are open, but they are not accessible. they are not accessible because they are complicated and doing research in this direction, I think it can help. But I think it also takes an effort from other communities that want to engage that acknowledging the fact that they might not have the technical background is necessary. They are not gonna be able to engage with technical people otherwise. Some technical people also needs probably to walk a little bit towards the other side, but the space in the middle, it’s quite wide. And I would really be looking forward to hear how people think that this space can be a bridge.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Okay, thank you for that. I think that work is beginning. It started in some spaces and there are some examples, for example, at the IETF, the Human Rights Protocol Considerations Group has been starting that work. And in the OHCHR report, there are recommendations, for example, that standards organizations put in place adequate human rights due diligence processes. And there are frameworks to support that. I think Eva, you pointed out how the UN guiding principles and business and human rights can also be used as a framework. So those are just some of my reflections. We’re very keen to hear from panelists on the in terms of responding to how, the how, how can we do this better, even if we are just starting out. So Vittoria, you and then if there’s anyone else who wants to come in, please do. But after you, I will come to the panelists who want to respond to those questions, including from Ignacio on what do we do and how do we do it question. Thank you.

Vittorio Bertola:
Yeah, thank you. I’m Vittoria Bertola from Open Exchange. And first, I want to support the two previous comments. I already said a lot of what I wanted to say. And I must say that being one of the people that 20, 25 years ago were involved in designing the multi-stakeholder model coming up with it. First at ICANN, then the IGF, but we overlooked the importance maybe of the standard setting organizations. So maybe this is the time where we have to really do something to make the multi-stakeholder as well. But at the same time, I was a bit surprised. I mean, I came here because of the title. I hadn’t read the report. So the title is about internal standards, but a lot of discussions about the ITU, which doesn’t do internal standards. So I think we should maybe focus on more on the ITF and W3C, the places where. And given the way the internet works, on the internet, the first you invent and deploy technology and then you standardize it. So you’re always catching up. And this is not going to change. So there is a need for an additional effort to be there even before things get to the standardization phase of the process. And this is also something that should be demanded to the industry. But what I wanted to add is that it’s not just a matter of money and bringing people, being able, and bringing people with the good skills, engineers. You need people that understand the technical part. But then there is a mindset problem. I mean, even the HRPC committee, which was mentioned, it does bring a human rights perspective, but it is a very narrow human rights perspective, mostly dominated by, I’d say, freedom of expression from the global north. in the type of human rights perspective you get. There’s not a lot of people from the global south that there are no other human rights. When people come with other, talking about rights of other groups, or like it happened with the children’s rights, for example, they are mostly basically sent away and say, no, we don’t want you, or we don’t care about you. We think that freedom of expression is a top right. And this is widely shared by the engineering community. So there’s also to educate the community to be more open in the view of the human rights they have.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Yes, absolutely. So we have a few points there about, well, enforcing the issue on diversity, suggesting more research is done. A question about the challenge of complexity. How do we deal with that? And some also reflections at the end there. I think to the point, again, that diversity is an issue, and resourcing is a challenge. How do we make those connections happen between the human rights community, making that more diverse as well, ensuring that the human rights perspectives are also diverse. So lots of questions about how do we actually change the situation relating to the challenges. Etta, Ava, Jess, or indeed Vanessa online, do you have any responses to those?

Vanessa Cravo:
Can I go?

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Please do.

Vanessa Cravo:
Sorry. So thank you very much. I think the previous comment was quite interesting. I’m very aware that we have all this discussion about what ITU does or does not regarding its mandate on related to the internet. So I’m not going to get into this conversation. Otherwise you’re gonna need some hours to address this issue. That’s not the point. But the fact is, and the report is on this, and all this digital technology, it’s much broader and all this emerging and new technologies, they are shaping our lives. And if you go to the standardization sector of ITU, and you take a look of the discussions they’re having and the items of study, there is going to produce recommendations and standards you’re going to see that much of discussions applied also to ITU. So there is no wrong here role for ITU in this discussion. But I just wanna make one comment. When usually we are comparing standard organizations, usually one of the biggest questions is regarding openness. And I think the previous three comments were right on the spot. To say that a standardization organization is open doesn’t mean that people can. really engage on that. And you’re going to have a multistakeholder discussion and a multistakeholder standard processes and a process that is going to have all the voices heard and take it to consideration. I think this is quite important that we have very clear in our minds. And this is something that always appear when we are having this conversation. So I think one useful exercise would be also to map all the standard organizations because they have different scopes and different levels of openness and different level of participation. And to map how this discussion of the integration, the need to embed human rights into their processes is being held because we have organizations that are poorly market-led organizations and we have others with different kinds of stakeholders. So I think this could be a useful exercise for us. Thank you.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Hello, yes, that’s working. Thanks so much, Vanessa. And also for that recommendation for perhaps bringing more clarity and understanding to what is already happening in standards organizations. And I wanted to turn to Eva because I know that you wanted to respond to the questions around what we do and also Vint. Would you like to, would you like to answer? Oh, I’m sorry. I don’t, I didn’t see that. Please do take the mic there or I can hand you this one. Oh, you have one there, great.

Vint Cerf:
How many engineers does it take to turn on a microphone? First of all, this is a very important discussion. I’m going to suggest that at least a thought exercise, I’m not necessarily arguing we should actually do this, but it’s tempting. Imagine that you take Universal Declaration of Human Rights and for each one of the ones that’s articulated, ask ourselves what kinds of standards are needed to realize those rights. There’s a broad category of accessibility and that covers everything for all practical purposes. If you look at today’s world and you ask yourself, how do people find out about things that are rights related? An awful lot of it is online. And if you don’t have access to that online facility or if you don’t have accessibility features, then you are denied access to that information. That’s a big, broad category. And along those lines, just speaking about accessibility, the one thing I have found is that standards don’t necessarily get implemented or they’re not, the people who are trying to implement to the standards don’t necessarily have a lot of intuition about how to do that because they haven’t experienced the use of, for example, screen readers and things like that. So I’m finding that the best way to help engineers and user interface developers develop an intuition for this is to give them examples of what works and what doesn’t work and show them the differences. And after a while, you begin to develop an intuition for what does work and what doesn’t work. There are a lot of places around the world that focus on accessibility and technology for that. And I would urge you to prepare whatever documentation you can out of this session and make that as visible as possible just to draw more attention. Let me just bring up one other thing about justice and the access to it. There have been a number of studies pointing out that in the absence of access to online facilities, including accessibility, people do not have access to the justice system. And so this exercise of going through the declaration might turn out to help us identify where we have gaps and where we could do more work. Thank you.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
For that very, very helpful suggestions for what can be done to advance the understanding of different communities. And I think we can pick those up in the hallways. And I think that’s what’s exciting about this discussion is it’s just starting. So we have two points here. If you can make them quick, we’ll then have to wrap up. But thank you.

Yog Desai:
Hi, Yog Desai, Internet Society Youth Ambassador. I think when it comes to increasing participation, especially from the global South, the biggest barrier is funding because being present in the room is very important. And it’s also not something that’s going to happen if you just send people once. This has to happen again and again because it takes time to socialize into the system. And again, the interest behind the funding also matter because for instance, the Indian government is coming up with a program through which they will. send people to these standardization organizations, but of course the people that they are sending will be representing the interests of the Indian government. So if we want the civil society to be present there, we will need funding that has interests of the broader community in mind. And I want to, well it’s not a question, but I would like, as a social science researcher interested in standardization, I wanted to understand from the room what is the call to action for social science researchers in the standardization domain. Thank you.

Colin Perkins:
Thank you. Please. Hi, my name is Colin Perkins. I work at the University of Glasgow and I’m the chair of the IRTF. I think there’s been a bunch of good points made. I especially agree that funding is a challenge for a number of people to participate in standards development. It’s a challenge I’ve been facing as an academic for many years trying to participate in this area. I think there are practical steps that can be made. Not all SDOs have large membership fees. There are a number of SDOs, ITF included, that provide extensive and very cheap remote participation options. Of course, remote participation is not as effective as being in the room, but it’s a lot better than not being there. And there are people who can and do participate effectively via the video conferencing, via the email discussions, via the various other discussion forums. In the ITF community, we also have groups like the Human Rights Group, Human Rights Protocol Considerations Group, that’s been mentioned, and that has been running for the past decade or so. We’ve got the Research into Standardization, Standards Development Processes Group, which Ignacio, who spoke earlier, chairs, which is looking at the effectiveness of the process. We have a number of ITF-led diversity initiatives to try and improve diversity. These are having some effect. If you look at the ITF, for example, the diversity has increased significantly over time. Twenty years ago, if you look at the RFCs being published, 75% were from North America. Now that’s down to approximately 40%. The number of RFCs being published, the number of standards being published by people from Europe, from Asia, has doubled over the last 20 years. Clearly, we have a way to go, right? Clearly, the number of people from South America, from Africa, is not as high as we would like. The participation from women is not as high as we would like, but there is a recognition of this. I do have to ask you to close here. To close, I think as Ignacio said, engagement requires time and effort. With the best will in the world, developing the necessary expertise takes time.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Yes, and actually, I think that’s one of the key points that we’ve been hearing here, is there are a number of areas where progress is being seen. There are many opportunities, there are many challenges, but at least we know what those challenges are. As a colleague from the European Commission also said, there are efforts to start implementing the recommendations from the report already underway. I wanted to come to Eva very quickly for 30 seconds, and then I’m going to come to Vanessa as well, and then we will wrap up. I know we are over time. Eva.

Eva Ignatuschtschenko:
Thank you. I’m trying to be quick. I think a bit of optimism. We are talking about dozens of standards bodies, hundreds, thousands of working groups, and then standards being developed. However, we believe that the majority of those will not have human rights implications, so we don’t need to worry about all of them possibly being used for human rights breaches. But it’s actually a small proportion of that that we’re worried about, and that’s where we need to engage. So I think the landscape doesn’t… it’s not as scary as it might look from outside. Three points to respond to this point on what sort of practical actions we can take. What we’re doing is we are teaching our own staff members and bringing in technical experts, engineers into government, where you have the resources as an organization, do that. And that sort of solves one of some of the problems raised. Secondly, with the best will in the world and with anything that we can do, all the funding that we throw at it, we will not be able to get all the CSOs in the room. So working together, being able to work through proxies, and we’ve had some really good experiences on people doing that for some encryption standards is really, really important. And I think that’s one of the solutions moving forward. I think if you show up as one individual from a civil society organizations, it’s going to be really hard because of all the reasons that we mentioned in this. But if you work together, you might be able to have a voice and you might be able to share expertise and share that sort of technical knowledge.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you. And we had a colleague from Article 19, the civil society organization, also shared the work that they’ve done in mapping standards organizations, which is a particularly useful resource. So it’s called the Internet Standards Almanac. Please do consider looking at that. It’s a great introduction to standards organizations, particularly for civil society organizations looking to engage. Vanessa, I’ll give you 30 seconds.

Vanessa Cravo:
Thank you very much. So just one final comment. One possible way to go for civil society organizations is to look for the delegations of your national government that maybe it’s maybe a room for also to exploit participation and engaging within your national delegations to all this kind of fora we have for Philippines. And also Brazil also is something that we do and many other countries do that. This could be an option of starting engaging and getting to know this forum without having to pay fees, for example, for the ones that demand membership fees and all this kind of barriers. So thank you.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you. So I wanted to end now with a optimistic note. We do have the report from the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner. We have all of these ideas and we do have, I think it sounds like consensus. Is it rough consensus or is it consensus that there are challenges to engaging in standards organizations, to reflecting a diversity of views and to ensuring human rights perspectives are reflected in standards development and implementation? We agree that that needs to change and there are a set of recommendations both in the report and we’ve heard some in the room here to change that. So I hope that this for many of us has been a start to what will be a path to that change. Please do ensure that you make the connections here with others and online and there is an IETF session happening at one today as well so connecting the dots between these different discussions is going to be important and I look forward to continuing this important discussion and implementing some of the ideas and the recommendations that have come from here. And thank you also to the. panelists who have made the time to be here and also to the co-organizers of this session. I hope that you have a great rest of the IGF and also I really look forward as I said to continuing this discussion with you afterwards. Thank you.

Rodney Taylor

During the discussion, several important topics were addressed, including the Global Digital Cooperation (GDC), internet governance, and the challenges faced by Small Island Developing Countries (SIDS) in actively participating in ongoing processes.

One of the main concerns raised was the limited resources, both financial and human, that hinder the active participation of SIDS in these processes. This constraint prevents SIDS from fully engaging in discussions and decision-making. Additionally, barriers to entry still exist despite the multi-stakeholder nature of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which theoretically allows participation from all stakeholders. These barriers may include technical expertise or access to necessary resources.

Another topic of discussion was the value proposition of the investment in the IGF. Some participants questioned whether the IGF, being a place for discussion and networking, actually leads to actionable outcomes. It was argued that although the IGF provides a platform for dialogue, it does not necessarily result in concrete actions or solutions. This raised concerns about the effectiveness of the IGF and its ability to address pressing global challenges.

A key distinction was highlighted between the United Nations (UN) and multistakeholder forums. It was noted that countries have more influence in the UN, where the priority is given to member states’ interventions. On the other hand, in multistakeholder forums like the IGF, all attendees are considered equal, providing an opportunity for greater inclusivity and diverse perspectives. This observation emphasized the different dynamics and power structures between the two approaches.

Despite the challenges and questions raised, there was a general sense of positivity towards the Global Digital Cooperation (GDC). Participants expressed hopes that the GDC would lead to positive outcomes and address the complex issues discussed in the IGF process. However, skepticism was also voiced regarding the GDC’s ability to effectively tackle these complex issues, especially within the context of global collaboration on internet-related matters.

It was acknowledged that the GDC could provide a platform for small states, such as SIDS, to have a stronger voice in global digital cooperation. However, participants recognized that attaining positive outcomes in these forums would be challenging due to various factors, such as the limited capacity of small states to actively participate and support the GDC.

The potential of the GDC to address digital inequality, especially in SIDS, was highlighted. It was noted that approximately 2 billion people, mostly in developing and small island developing countries, are still not connected to the internet. The GDC was seen as an opportunity to focus on these issues and improve connectivity and digital infrastructure in these regions.

The focus and scope of the GDC were discussed, particularly in relation to cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. The GDC was expected to play a role in addressing these global key issues and potentially leading to an expansion of the IGF’s role or the creation of a new process to tackle these specific challenges.

There were concerns raised about the duplication of processes and internet governance fragmentation. Some participants argued that there may not be a need to create a new process focused solely on digital issues, as this could lead to further fragmentation in internet governance. It was suggested that efforts should be made to avoid duplication and instead strengthen existing processes.

The implementation of global cybersecurity norms was highlighted as the responsibility of national parliaments and local authorities. It was emphasized that discussed global agreements should be actioned at the local level to implement mutually agreed norms for routing cybersecurity. This observation emphasized the need for concrete action and implementation at the national and local levels, rather than relying solely on global conversations and agreements.

In conclusion, the discussion covered various important aspects of the GDC, internet governance, and the challenges faced by SIDS in actively participating in ongoing processes. While there were concerns raised and questions about the efficacy of some processes, there was also a sense of optimism for the GDC’s potential to address global issues and promote digital cooperation. The need for inclusivity, concrete actions, and the implementation of agreed norms were recurring themes throughout the discussion.

Sorina Teleanu

The discussion revolves around the challenges faced by countries in keeping up with the complexities and rapid evolution of digital diplomacy and Internet policies. It is overwhelming for both small and large countries to contribute meaningfully and keep pace with these intricate issues. The lack of capacity to become experts in all aspects of Internet governance is a major hurdle for countries.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has played a partial role in mitigating these challenges. It serves as a platform where people collectively learn from each other, but there is room for improvement. However, the IGF and the Global Digital Cooperation (GDC) serve different functions. Therefore, direct comparison between the two is not appropriate. The GDC, on the other hand, holds promise and potential to address the challenges faced in the realm of digital diplomacy and Internet policies.

One of the significant challenges highlighted in the discussion is the limited participation of governments in the IGF. This poses a hurdle to the effective implementation of Internet policies. The GDC aims to address this challenge and provide a platform for discussing digital governance and reducing inequality.

The discussion also stresses the importance of considering past events, such as resolutions and outcomes from the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), which can be built upon. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) rely, in part, on technology for development. The GDC should take into account these previous events and avoid reinventing the wheel.

A forward-looking GDC is seen as a potential solution to address digital inequalities. It is viewed as a mechanism that can work in harmony with the IGF to strengthen global digital governance. Many people have endorsed the concept of ‘IGF Plus’, which suggests that the GDC could serve as a follow-up mechanism for the IGF.

In terms of resource availability, stakeholders must consider the multiple processes and issues involved in Internet governance. Collaboration rather than competition for resources is considered essential for effective implementation.

In conclusion, the discussion unveils the challenges faced by countries in keeping up with digital diplomacy and Internet policies. The IGF has made some progress in mitigating these challenges, but the GDC shows potential to address them. The GDC and the IGF serve different purposes and should not be directly compared. The GDC should build on and strengthen the IGF to foster global digital cooperation. Stakeholders must consider resource availability and find ways to collaborate effectively.

Otis Osbourne

The analysis reveals several insightful points discussed by the speakers. One key issue raised is the economic barriers faced by small island developing states in their digital transformation and access efforts. These states are hindered by a lack of trust in digital transactions, which is a major concern for small to medium-sized business service providers and consumers. This lack of trust could potentially limit the growth and adoption of digital technologies in these states.

Another important point highlighted is the need for national Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) to guide initiatives on the ground. It is noted that some countries, such as Jamaica, do not have national IGFs. The absence of these forums could impede the progress of internet governance and hinder the development of policies that promote an inclusive and accessible digital environment.

The analysis also acknowledges that small island developing states are progressing at a slow pace in transitioning to the new digital global economy. This transition is crucial for these states to effectively participate in the interconnected world and leverage the benefits of the digital economy. The need for adequate support and resources to propel this transition is highlighted as an important concern.

Furthermore, the speakers emphasize the recognition of universal access to free internet as a human right, particularly for facilitating e-governance and reducing social exclusion. They argue that without data access on their phones, individuals are unable to access e-governance services. Thus, governments are urged to acknowledge free internet as a fundamental right to ensure equal access opportunities and promote inclusive digital societies.

The importance of online security, privacy, and safety is also emphasized, and it is noted that these aspects must be prioritized alongside the recognition of free internet as a human right. However, the analysis does not provide specific evidence or examples to support this point.

Regarding the implementation of best practices in securing the internet, it is highlighted that despite discussions in IGFs, most Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and network operators have not adopted the necessary actions to secure data being routed through the internet. Additionally, many organizations, including NDAs, Ministries, Departments, Agencies, SMEs, financial, and educational institutions, have not implemented cost-free DNSSEC and IPv6 standards. This lack of tangible implementation raises concerns about the effectiveness of IGF discussions in shaping concrete and practical outcomes.

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) is seen as a potential solution that could address the shortcomings of the IGF. While no specific details or evidence are provided to support this viewpoint, the speakers express optimism about the GDC’s ability to enforce successful internet practices.

It is also noted that UN directives hold power and influence, and governments are expected to eventually follow through, particularly in the domain of the digital economy for realizing the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This indicates the significance of international cooperation and collaboration in driving digital transformation and achieving the SDGs.

Further observations highlight the exclusive nature of discussions at the UN level, suggesting that they may be out of touch with grassroots realities. This excludes start-up entrepreneurs and university students from directly accessing or relating to the discussions. It is argued that more efforts should be made to make UN discussions more accessible and relatable to these groups.

Despite the potential overlap with the GDC, the speakers reaffirm the continued relevance of the IGF due to its unique reach from grassroots to corporations. The IGF’s focus on Internet Governance is seen as a clear indication of its purpose and provides a platform for individuals and small to medium-sized businesses to actively participate and gain a better understanding of internet governance issues.

In conclusion, the analysis explores various aspects of digital transformation, internet governance, and the challenges faced by small island developing states. It highlights the economic barriers, the need for national IGFs, the slow pace of transitioning to the digital global economy, the recognition of free internet as a human right, the importance of online security, and the potential of the Global Digital Compact. The analysis also discusses the power of UN directives, the exclusivity of UN discussions, and reaffirms the relevance of the IGF.

Tracy Hackshaw

The Global Digital Cooperation (GDC) initiative has the potential to positively impact digital governance and address global inequalities faced by Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The GDC aims to establish a global framework for digital cooperation and promote a more inclusive and equitable digital world, especially for SIDS. SIDS encounter challenges in prioritising internet governance due to limited resources and attention as they grapple with significant issues such as climate change and economic challenges.

One of the key arguments in support of the GDC is that it can provide a platform for SIDS to have their voices heard. Existing forums like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and regional spaces like LAC, AP, and Africa do not adequately emphasise the representation and voice of SIDS. This results in SIDS feeling marginalised, and their concerns not receiving the attention they deserve within the digital governance discourse. The GDC process could provide a more equitable platform for SIDS to contribute their perspectives and address their specific issues.

Moreover, SIDS face challenges in resource allocation and attention towards internet governance. These challenges arise because SIDS have competing priorities that include climate change adaptation, infrastructural issues, and economic development. As a result, internet policy issues and digital issues do not receive much priority. The GDC could play a crucial role in mitigating these challenges by collaborating with governments and prioritising capacity development, knowledge transfer, and addressing the digital divide. This includes actively engaging with SIDS governments and communities to understand their needs and working towards real skills and knowledge transfer.

Another important point worth noting is the emphasis on the digital divide. While digital technologies have the potential to bridge gaps and create opportunities, it is essential to recognise that not everyone is connected. The digital divide persists, and assumptions cannot be made that connectivity is universal. The GDC process must take this into account and work towards addressing the digital divide by ensuring accessibility and connectivity for all.

In conclusion, there is optimism and support for the GDC and its potential positive impact on SIDS. The GDC’s aim to establish a global framework for digital cooperation and promote an inclusive and equitable digital world resonates with the challenges faced by SIDS in prioritising internet governance and addressing global inequalities. By providing a platform for SIDS to have their voices heard, collaborating with governments, and focusing on capacity development and knowledge transfer, the GDC process can contribute significantly to addressing these issues. It is crucial to recognise the unique needs and perspectives of SIDS and actively work towards creating an inclusive digital world for all.

Quintin Chou-Lambert

The analysis explores different perspectives on Internet governance and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). One argument raised is that the approach taken by the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) can overwhelm participants with an excessive number of meetings. Delegations in New York are already burdened with various other issues, and the urgency of Internet governance matters can be pushed down as a result. On the other hand, it is argued that the IGF holds significant value in facilitating networking and information exchange. By bringing people together, the IGF helps them better understand Internet governance issues. Networking and exchange are becoming increasingly important, especially considering the challenging political conditions.

Furthermore, the analysis suggests that developing countries, landlocked countries, and least developed countries may need to unite and express their concerns collectively in the global process. Internet governance challenges and the way the IGF addresses them are common in these countries. This unity can enable them to have a stronger voice in shaping global policies.

The GDC is highlighted as an opportunity for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and other nations to address their specific concerns regarding the use of digital technologies and data. The GDC will assemble leaders to make decisions on global digital issues, providing a platform for SIDS to voice their concerns and benefit from digital advancements.

The rise of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and data, has raised concerns about safety, monetisation, and inclusivity. The GDC offers a platform to address these issues at a high level. It becomes crucial to ensure safety while harnessing the benefits of these technologies on a global scale.

It is argued that the GDC should reconcile the goal of globally spreading the benefits of new technologies, while ensuring safety and inclusivity. The GDC will bring leaders together to make these important decisions and presents an opportunity to update the focus and ambition in utilising these technologies.

Challenges within the IGF include the absence of decision-making and a vast capacity gap, making it difficult to keep track of everything happening in the digital technology landscape. There are also questions about whether the GDC can effectively address these challenges.

The GDC is seen as an opportunity for the digital economy to grow and evolve. The Secretary-General emphasises the importance of a unified and ambitious GDC. It also allows for debates on how countries can adapt their digital architectures in the future.

The analysis highlights the critical need for countries to consider the significance of the digital transition and its potential for growth. Many delegations are observed to be overstretched in their capacity, making it essential for countries to look beyond immediate crises and envision a digital future.

Reviewing and following up on GDC commitments is deemed important, but questions remain about the extent to which governments can participate in these follow-ups.

To address gaps in existing digital governance, the creation of a Digital Cooperation Forum is proposed by the Secretary-General. This digital governance platform would pool emerging internet governance issues, ultimately saving resources and efforts. Implementing a central place for countries to discuss digital governance issues would allow them to focus holistically on digital governance and defragment governance efforts.

It is emphasised that while bringing politicised discussions to digital governance platforms can change their nature and spirit, it is vital to safeguard the unique character and spirit of various digital governance platforms. This can enable free and creative discussions.

Lastly, raising the voices of different groupings in the GDC process is seen as crucial. Voicing the interests of various groups can lead to better reflecting their interests in the outcome document.

In summary, the analysis presents diverse opinions on Internet governance and the GDC. It highlights the challenges and benefits of the IGF and emphasises the need for unity among developing countries. The GDC offers an opportunity for SIDS and other nations to address their digital concerns. The analysis also explores the concerns surrounding new technologies and the importance of safety and inclusivity. Challenges within the IGF are discussed, as well as the GDC’s potential to foster the growth of the digital economy. The significance of considering the digital transition and reviewing GDC commitments is stressed. The proposal for a Digital Cooperation Forum to address gaps in digital governance is mentioned, along with the importance of preserving the unique character of various digital governance platforms. Finally, the importance of raising the voices of different groups in the GDC process is highlighted.

Audience

The annual meetings featured a range of speakers who shared their perspectives on various topics. Carol, the new MAG chair from the Bahamas, emphasised the significance of taking strong actions to achieve desired outcomes. It was highlighted that robust actions are necessary to accomplish the goals effectively. This emphasised the importance of prioritising action-oriented approaches in order to make progress.

One of the main concerns discussed was the need for capacity building among parliamentarians and missions. It was noted that there is often a lack of understanding due to limited technical and domain knowledge. To address this issue, there was an emphasis on the importance of providing funding and support for capacity building initiatives, particularly through the IGF.

Carol also encouraged active involvement and feedback from the audience. She urged participants to provide their thoughts and feedback in a written format for higher authorities to consider. This inclusive participation was seen as crucial for creating a more transparent and participatory decision-making process.

In terms of policy-making, Carol expressed the belief that relevant departments should be empowered and involved in decision-making processes. She criticised the practice of relevant departments receiving meeting notes only when it is time for the government to make decisions. This approach was considered unfair, as it prevents these departments from having a comprehensive understanding of the issues.

The discussions on digital transformation revealed gaps and challenges in implementation. Sri Lanka, for example, has implemented digital strategies for the past two decades, but many gaps remain. There is a lack of clarification and guidance on who should be responsible for driving digital transformation initiatives. Therefore, it was argued that there is a need for developing frameworks or best practice guidelines to provide direction and ensure efficient implementation.

The importance of citizen satisfaction and establishing citizen-centric governments was also stressed. It was highlighted that digital transformation initiatives should prioritise the needs and satisfaction of citizens. This approach is key to fostering trust and improving the overall effectiveness of digital transformation processes.

The role of the IGF in facilitating outreach and regional initiatives was positively acknowledged. The IGF was recognised as instrumental in the development of regional initiatives, which promote collaboration and partnership in achieving the goals of industry, innovation, and infrastructure.

There was also an important discussion on the coordination of global, national, and regional issues. The speaker emphasised the need for a coordination mechanism that takes into account national and regional differences. This approach ensures that similar initiatives can be encouraged and implemented effectively.

It was observed that the problems and solutions in small island regions, such as the Caribbean and the Pacific, have distinct local aspects. This highlights the importance of considering and addressing these unique aspects when developing strategies and solutions for these regions.

The increasing importance of data flow and digital connectivity was brought to attention, including the prediction that data flow will grow significantly by 2026. However, it was noted that developing countries are at risk of becoming mere data providers in the global market due to a data divide and digital inequality. This issue raises concerns about the potential disadvantage and limited benefits that these countries may face in the digital era.

Overall, the discussions at the annual meetings shed light on the importance of taking strong actions, building capacity, promoting inclusive participation, empowering relevant departments, developing frameworks for digital transformation, prioritising citizen satisfaction, and addressing global and regional challenges. These insights and perspectives provide valuable considerations for policymakers and stakeholders as they work towards achieving the sustainable development goals.

Olga Cavalli

Olga Cavalli, an active participant and supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), expresses her belief that the IGF serves as a fantastic space for defining and creating numerous Internet-related changes. She has been involved with the IGF since its creation in 2005 and highlights its role in bringing about significant developments in the global coordination of the Internet, such as changes in ICANN and the IANA transition. Moreover, she emphasises that the IGF has also been instrumental in giving rise to national and regional IGFs, as well as schools of Internet governance.

Cavalli appreciates the chaotic nature of the IGF and considers it an essential part of its beauty. She argues that the creative chaos of the forum allows for free discussions and an organic exchange of ideas. Cavalli personally experienced the chaotic atmosphere during the forum, recounting a moment when she had difficulty finding the correct panel room. However, she believes that this sense of being lost adds to the overall experience of the IGF.

In terms of the Internet’s global impact, Cavalli emphasises the need to make it a global public good. She supports initiatives like the Global Digital Compact (GDC) that aim to mitigate digital issues. Cavalli led a consultation process with fellows from the School of Internet Governance to contribute to the GDC. Their contribution, focused on seven digital issues, includes connecting everyone to the internet, data protection, and regulating artificial intelligence, and has been published on the GDC’s website.

Cavalli highlights her preference for more open, bottom-up, and multistakeholder processes in digital governance, as opposed to closed multilateral processes. She finds value in the inclusive nature of multistakeholder discussions and believes they offer a path forward in addressing the challenges of the digital economy. However, she notes a trend towards establishing more closed multilateral processes, which she criticises. Cavalli stresses that the way forward should be through multistakeholder engagement, as it allows for a more diverse range of perspectives.

While Cavalli recognises the challenges faced by delegates from developing countries, particularly in handling the overwhelming number of digital governance processes, she sees value in coordinating and concentrating these processes. She believes that a certain level of coordination or concentration is necessary to ensure effective digital governance and prevent fragmentation.

Overall, Cavalli greatly values the unique, free-spirited nature of the IGF. She cherishes the open and inclusive atmosphere that allows for free discussions and networking. Cavalli argues for the preservation of the IGF’s special character, as she believes it is an essential forum for shaping the Internet and addressing global digital challenges. With her extensive experience and involvement in the IGF, Cavalli’s perspectives and support carry significant weight in the ongoing dialogue on Internet governance.

Shernon Osepa

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a platform established for open discussions to identify solutions rather than making decisions. It was created to address the challenges faced in various jurisdictions through meaningful discussions. The IGF allows stakeholders to engage in free and open conversations, enabling them to explore potential solutions.

One of the key purposes of the IGF is to provide an opportunity for small island developing states to voice their ideas and suggestions through the global digital compact process. This process allows these states to take an active role in drafting proposals and receiving feedback from others. It is seen as a way to empower these states and reverse traditional power dynamics.

The original intention of the IGF was to serve as a place for discussions, not decision-making. It aimed to facilitate dialogue and exchange of ideas to understand different perspectives. However, there is a growing need for action-oriented outcomes in countries. Merely discussing issues without taking concrete steps towards solving them may not be sufficient.

Collaboration and partnership are emphasized as important factors in the IGF process. This requires stakeholders to work together, leveraging each other’s expertise and resources to develop effective solutions. The call for collaboration is in line with the focus on SDG 17, which emphasizes the importance of partnerships in achieving sustainable development goals.

Consideration of climate change and natural disasters is highlighted as critical when building infrastructure. These factors can have a significant impact on the effectiveness and longevity of infrastructure projects. It is essential to incorporate climate resilience measures and robust disaster management strategies to ensure the sustainability of infrastructure investments.

Overall, speakers at the IGF urge problem-solving specific to the needs of different regions. By identifying and addressing the unique challenges faced by each jurisdiction, more effective and tailored solutions can be developed. This regional focus allows for the formulation of strategies that are relevant and impactful in driving positive change.

In conclusion, the IGF serves as a platform for open discussions and solution-oriented dialogue. It provides small island developing states with the opportunity to voice their ideas, emphasizes the importance of action-oriented outcomes, collaboration, and partnership, and underscores the consideration of climate change in infrastructure development. The push for region-specific problem-solving highlights the need for tailored approaches to address the diverse challenges faced in different jurisdictions.

Moderator

The discussions centred around the challenges faced by small island developing states (SIDS) when actively participating in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). SIDS have been part of the IGF process since 2005, but resource constraints, both financial and human, limit their active participation. The cost of attending IGF meetings and the need to get up to speed with the issues were identified as barriers to entry. Despite being a multi-stakeholder process that allows anyone to participate, it was argued that the IGF primarily serves as a platform for networking and discussion, with little focus on generating actionable outcomes. The need for a clear value proposition for the time and effort invested in the IGF was emphasized.

Tracy Hatcher was highlighted as an example of an active participant who serves on multiple boards, including the IGF, ICANN, and ARIN. It was suggested that his active participation benefits the region. The importance of capacity building and building institutional capacities across governments and stakeholders was emphasized. It was acknowledged that no individual can be an expert in all topics, hence the need for capacity building.

The discussions also explored the connection between internet governance issues and critical issues faced by SIDS, such as climate change, economic issues, and cybersecurity. It was argued that linking digital and internet governance issues with these critical challenges could help prioritize them. Cybersecurity and emerging digital threats to the economy were mentioned as notable areas to focus on.

The IGF was acknowledged as a successful platform for bringing people together to learn from each other. However, it was also noted that the overwhelming nature of the IGF approach, with its federated network of networks and numerous meetings, poses challenges. The low governmental participation in the IGF was highlighted as an issue that could potentially be addressed by the Government Digital Service (GDS).

The discussions highlighted the potential of the IGF to provide a space for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) to have their voices heard. The Caribbean IGF, Pacific IGF, and Indian Ocean IGF were mentioned as great platforms for SIDS to voice their issues at national, regional, and global levels. The Trans-Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group was cited as an example of such an initiative.

The challenges faced by SIDS, such as resource constraints and the prioritization of critical issues, were emphasized. It was suggested that digital and internet governance issues need to be linked with these critical issues to garner more attention and resources. The importance of understanding the notion of internet governance, including the confusion that arose in the 2000s, was highlighted.

The discussions also touched on the need for stakeholder engagement and the opportunities provided by the IGF to interact with various stakeholders. It was noted that all stakeholders are not always present locally, and the IGF offers a unique opportunity to connect with a diverse range of stakeholders. The importance of translating IGF discussions into local solutions was emphasized.

The potential barriers to digital transformation in small island developing states, such as economic barriers and the lack of trust in digital transactions, were discussed. The absence of national IGFs to guide initiatives on the ground and the need for recommendations and guidelines from the IGF to reach policymakers and decision-makers were highlighted as challenges.

The impact of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) on the digital governance landscape and addressing global inequalities was considered. Contributions towards the GDC from various countries were mentioned, and it was seen as a potential tool to address inequality. The importance of engagement with the School of Internet Governance in contributing to the GDC was noted.

The overwhelming amount of information and processes within digital governance was acknowledged, and it was suggested to focus only on what is relevant to one’s work and interests. The potential of the GDC to have a positive impact on digital governance and global inequalities facing SIDS was emphasized. The need for active participants and meaningful suggestions from small island developing states was highlighted.

The discussions also raised questions about the impact of the GDC on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process and potential improvements that the GDC could bring. The need for a clearer focus on implementation and the ‘who’ and ‘how’ aspect of digital transformation were emphasized. The importance of preserving the uniqueness of the IGF was also noted.

Overall, the discussions underscored the challenges and opportunities in internet governance, particularly for small island developing states. The need for capacity building, stakeholder engagement, and the linkage between internet governance and critical issues were emphasized. The potential of the Global Digital Compact and the importance of active participation and representation were highlighted. The discussions also highlighted the need for clearer guidance, resource coordination, and an inclusive and collaborative approach to address global digital challenges.

Moderator:
based intergovernmental international organization dedicated to promoting and supporting the development of the Caribbean Information and Communications Technologies, ICT, and that sector for the socioeconomic development of the region. This open forum is to share specific experiences and advance discussions on issues of global inequality in the new digital global economy within the context of the UN Sustainable Development Goals eight, nine, and 10, and to help developing countries formulate specific proposals and recommendations for the global digital compact as they prepare for the future of the world summit. We must ensure that the GDC takes into account the shortcomings of the UN IGF process, specifically as it relates to DCs and SIDS and identifies opportunities and mechanisms to address those shortcomings. All of these issues are addressed in this open forum, are issues that the Caribbean is currently grappling with and which present major social and economic development challenges for the region. Interaction between onsite and online speakers and attendees will be facilitated via an online moderator and that person will flag questions, comments, and other actions of online participants to the onsite moderator. So let’s get started. Our guests this morning are, let me start with myself. My name is Jo Ford. I am the onsite moderator and Misha Marius is the online moderator. Our guests this morning are, next to me, Mr. Rodney Taylor, Secretary General of the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. Sylvia Cadena, sorry, Sylvia’s not with us. Olga Cavalli, co-founder of the director of the South School on Internet Governance. Mr. Quinton Shu-Lambert, Office of the Secretary General’s Envoy on Technology. And Tracy Hackshaw, who is the president of the Trinidad and Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group. Online, we have Mr. Serena? And Ms. Serena Telano, Director of Knowledge, the Diplo Foundation. Online, we’ve got Mr. Otis Osborne. He’s the acting head HOD of Department of Information Technology at the University of the Commonwealth Caribbean and Mr. Shernan Oseipa, Internet Governance and Cybersecurity Policy Advisor. So once again, good morning everyone. We want this to be a robust discussion and interactive, so please feel free to join in. But I’m gonna start with the opening remarks. What are the main internet governance challenges you believe have been facing SIDS and how has the IGF served as a platform to mitigate those challenges? And I’m going to start with you, Mr. Taylor.

Rodney Taylor:
Thank you. Good morning, and thanks for joining us for this discussion this morning. With respect to the challenges facing SIDS, I think the part of the challenge, I would say, is the ability to actively participate in the processes that have been ongoing now since 2005. The fact is that we’re a small island developing state, so there are resource constraints or financial resources, human resources, and therefore, even though the IGF is a multi-stakeholder process, which means that anyone can participate, I mean, as long as you’re online, as a matter of fact, even if you’re not online, you can participate, you can come and make your voice heard. But there’s still barriers to entry, as it were. There’s a cost to coming here to Kyoto. Even if you access remotely, you need to still be brought up to speed with the issues. And you’ll see many of the panelists here are actively involved. I mean, I use Tracy Hatcher, who’s on the panel here, as a poster child for IGF participation because he’s been active for a long time, I mean, really active, sitting on boards, not just within IGF, but in other processes like ICANN and so on, and ARIN. So if we can get 10 more, like Mr. Hatcher, I think the region would be well-represented. But reality is that most people, including Tracy and myself, have a day job. So while we’re happy to come here and talk and discuss, reality is that we do have other duties and responsibilities. The IGF is well-recognized as a place where people come and talk and discuss and we network and so on. And there’s value in that, but it doesn’t necessarily translate into an actionable outcome. And therefore, you have to start asking the value proposition of the investment that is being made to participate. So I’ll stop there for now, but those are some of the challenges. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor. And I’ll move over to Serena Talalou. Serena?

Sorina Teleanu:
Thank you. Just building on what Rodney was saying, what we’re seeing in Geneva, and yeah, maybe I should start with the context. I work in Geneva a lot with missions of countries there. And you know, Geneva is one of the hub of digital diplomacy, internet governance, internet policy. A lot is happening there with ITU and a bunch of other organizations discussing internet and related issues. And what we’re hearing a lot from missions of small developing countries, and paradoxically also from larger countries, is that there’s a lot going on, and it’s impossible to follow everything. So there is this big challenge of keeping an eye on everything happening, and then meaningfully contributing, as you were saying. And another challenge they’re facing is the lack of capacity. There is so much going on, on so many topics, one person cannot be an expert into everything. So the question is, how do you build institutional capacities, in this case across governments, but also across other stakeholder groups? To what extent the IGF has managed to mitigate some of these challenges? I think there have been efforts, and even the whole idea of having an IGF where people get together to try to learn a bit more from each other is a good thing. But then again, there’s so much going on, and you have to make a choice. And again, speaking about governments, I think we’re seeing this is a challenge for the IGF. Not many governments actually show up. Let’s see if the GDC can help address some of these challenges. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Serena. Tracy, action.

Tracy Hackshaw:
Thank you very much. So in this session, I’m representing the Trans-Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group, which puts on the Trans-Tobago IGF. But I also wear the hat as co-coordinator of the Dynamic Coalition on Small and Developing States. of my co-coordinator sitting in the room where I’m watching her directly in front of me, Maureen Hilliard from the Cook Islands. So from a positive standpoint, I do think that the IGF can provide a space for SIDS to have their voices heard, especially in terms of the national and regional IGFs. The Caribbean IGF is one great example of that. Pacific IGF, I believe there’s gonna be the Indian Ocean IGF soon, and then at the national level in terms of the various islands who have their own IGFs that can feed into the national, regional, and global IGF. But of course, there are challenges. So even though we do have the dynamic coalition, we do have these IGFs, resources, as was said before, is a challenge. And the other thing that I think we need to worry about is whether or not the priorities that we place on internet issues, internet policy, even digital issues, in the SIDS are given sufficient priority. As we all know, in SIDS, there are significant other challenges that we face, climate change being one of them, obviously infrastructural issues generally, economic issues, and so on. Of course, other countries face that. So where we talk about something as ideas, did I say esoteric as internet governance, when you approach the leadership in the countries, that is somewhat shifted down the priority level. So we need to find a way to link digital and internet governance issues with the critical issues that face our country. And to a large extent, that links to things like cyber security, emerging threats to the economy that digital brings. And if we find a way to link those two, I think we can maybe. overcome the challenges using something along those lines. But we’ll leave that discussion for later on. Thanks.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Tracy. I will now ask Mr. Quinton Shue-Lambert to give his opening remarks.

Quintin Chou-Lambert:
Thank you very much. Yeah, it seems that some of the benefits of the IGF are also, you know, the cause of some of the issues as well. There seems to be a tradeoff between this kind of federated network of networks approach which allows the regional and local kind of consultations with the kind of overwhelm of how many different meetings people have to go to to keep up to speed. And in a case where the – we also hear in New York that the delegations, even in New York, are overwhelmed with many other issues, including climate, the debt issues. And so often the urgency of these Internet governance issues can be kind of pushed down. So I do think one of the benefits of the IGF is to just bring people together and, I mean, this being my first IGF, I feel very humbled having shared the room with people who have been here from the start, since 2003 and almost since the birth of IGF and the WSIS Action Line process. And coming in and listening to all the sessions and exchanging has allowed, you know, me to understand more some of the issues that – and some of the perspectives. And that’s – there’s a lot of value in that sharing of information. And so in a world where some kind of political conditions are becoming more challenging, this kind of networking and exchange will become increasingly valuable and something that we’ll come back to when we come to the question around the future of the IGF. But these comments are a little bit generic. But some of the Internet governance challenges and how the IGF deals with that are common with many other countries. other parts of the world, parts of the developing world, LLDCs, LDCs, and one of the questions is how this group will come together, if it comes together, to give voice to some of its concerns in a global process.

Moderator:
And I’m going to ask Ms. Olga Cavalli to also give her remarks. Olga.

Olga Cavalli:
Thank you. Thank you so much, and thank you for inviting me to this very interesting panel. This is my 18th IGF. I was there on, yes, I’ve been young for so many years. I was there when the IGF was created in Tunis in 2005, and when it was decided it was going to be in Athens, in Greece. I think that IGF has been a fantastic space for defining and creating many of the things that are in place now. Many of the changes that have been happening in the global coordination of the Internet were born in discussions here, where there is no one specific outcome. I think that all the changes that were done in the ICANN organization, the IANA transition, the affirmation of commitments, many, many changes that are really binding were born in spaces of dialogue like the IGF. All the national and regional IGFs were born spontaneous from discussions in this space. The schools of Internet governance were born as a spinoff from the IGF. Now we started, first it was the European, the second was ours in Latin America for 15 years, and now there are more than 20 all over the world. Those fantastic activities and dialogue spaces, perhaps more focused in regions, sub-regions, cities or specific issues, were born in the IGF. I think the IGF is a fantastic space. It is, sometimes people get lost. I was lost in trying to find this room. This is why I just came at the hour. But that’s part of the beauty, this creative chaos that the IGF bring to all of us. So I’m always positive. I think it’s a great meeting. I only attended twice virtually because I couldn’t travel and then the pandemic, but now I’m happy to be here again. So these are my comments for the moment.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. We now go to our online moderator, Ms. Michelle Marius. Michelle, you’re going to introduce our two online participants. Okay, hi, good evening, everyone. It is nighttime in Jamaica where I am. Is it possible, Shonan, for us to hear from you, Shonan Osepa, and then we will have Otis Osborne.

Shernon Osepa:
Yes, it is possible. Good morning, good evening to all. It’s a pleasure and honor to be here and to give a contribution to the development of the internet. I think when we talk about internet governance, it’s important for us to understand why we came up with all these discussions regarding internet governance. So back then, like around year 2000, there was a lot of confusion going on around the globe, especially governments, they didn’t know what this thing called the internet was. So we have seen all the discussions coming up with the WSIS that finally did lead to the IJF that we have in nowadays. And I think when we talk about internet governance, we can always use the, I like to use the baskets that Diplo Foundation has been focusing on, looking at, for example, the infrastructure, security, legal, economic, sociocultural development. and human rights issues. And I think especially since small island development states, we can use these baskets as a kind of a checklist to see where we are with developments in our own different, let’s say, jurisdictions. We should also recognize that it was never the intention of the IGF to come with to take decisions. So it’s not a decision making body. But it’s more like a place where people can talk freely and discuss in order to see how they can come up with solutions. But I think the very important thing is that once we have discussed issues, challenges, and opportunities at the IGF, we should return home and then have some meaningful discussions with, let’s say, all stakeholders that normally do attend IGFs. Because sometimes locally in our own jurisdictions, you would not find those persons. But at the IGF, you will find all these stakeholders. So I think, and once we return home, looking at the different countries, islands, whatever, we should say, okay, these are the challenges that we are facing in this particular jurisdiction. How can we solve these challenges that we are facing? And I think if we can focus on that, then it will add value. So although the IGF doesn’t focus on, let’s say, for us to take key decisions, but once we return home, we should be able to discuss with all the stakeholders in order for us to address local challenges that we are facing.

Moderator:
Thank you. Mr. Osborne, please. Hello, Mr. Osborne.

Otis Osbourne:
Sorry, I was so muted. Okay. Well, for me, I think that for small island developing states, there’s an economic barrier to digital transformation and access, especially, well, for everyone, the government, businesses, and citizens alike. Not to mention the pervasive lack of trust in digital transactions by majority of the medium to small, small to medium business service providers and consumers of these services. The IGF of course, plays a vital role in making recommendations and guiding discussions on internet governance. However, these discussions may have missed Jamaica’s policy and decision makers, due especially to the non-existence of national IGFs to guide initiatives on the ground. Thank you.

Moderator:
Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Osborne. We come back to our on-site panelists. And the first question is, how do you see the acceptance of the global digital compact, the GDC, changing the digital governance landscape and addressing global inequalities facing SIDS in the new digital global economy? I’m going to start at the other end of the table with you, Olga.

Olga Cavalli:
Thank you very much. We think this is a very interesting process. We thought that it was a good opportunity for engaging the fellows of the School of Internet Governance in making a contribution. So we started an online process of consulting with them. So we received contributions from 65 fellows from 22 countries of the five continents. I will share in the chat the document that we produced and we contribute, focused on the seven digital issues that the Common Agenda suggested. There were comments made about, one, connect everyone to the Internet including all schools, avoid Internet fragmentation, protect data, which is number three. Number four, apply human rights online. Five, introduce accountability criteria for discrimination and misleading content, promote the regulation of artificial intelligence and digital commons as a global public good. So this wasn’t a first experiment. We didn’t do such an activity before and the comments and outcomes finalized a very, very interesting document. We translated it into three languages, Spanish, English and Portuguese and we sent it to the Global Digital Compact. It’s published now in their website and for the fellows this was really a very remarkable activity. I will share with you the link to the document where you have their names, the countries of origin and the outcome document. Sometimes, as we were saying a moment before, it’s overwhelming how to follow all the processes. Many of my students at the university also ask me that and what I tell them is that, okay, try to focus on things that are important for your work and for your personal interest. We cannot be experts in everything but we cannot be interested in some of the things and follow them. So we are following all the activities of the Global Digital Compact and the Summit of the Future. Now, with the fellows of this year, We are preparing a similar document to what we did for the Global Digital Compact for contributing to the Summit of the Future and WSIS Plus 20. Now we have the experience from the first document, so we want to build upon from there. I will stop here. I will share the document in the chat.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Olga. I am going to go next to you, Quinten.

Quintin Chou-Lambert:
Thank you. So, the Global Digital Compact is quite a nice complement to the IGF. And we have heard already that the IGF is maybe decision-shaping, but it is not decision-making. The GDC is a decision opportunity at the leader’s level. So, heads of government will come together next September and make a decision around how the Global Digital Compact should be, what should be inside of it. The opportunity here for SIDS is to really, and for everyone, but especially countries who have not necessarily harvested as many of the benefits of the global digital ecosystem over the last 20 years, to maybe have an updated set of concerns incorporated. So, you know, when the WSIS action lines were first written, they were updated in 2015 for the SDGs, but there was not such a big concern around data and the value of data and how data was being monetized back in 2000s. Now data is, some people, you know, talk about it as a very valuable resource. And how is that monetized? How is those revenues taken into local jurisdictions? And, of course, artificial intelligence is a new technology. Well, not that new, but its technical breakthroughs have happened recently, which were not available before. So, it’s a chance to up… date the focus, and it’s also a chance to upgrade the ambition around trying to spread the benefits of these technologies globally in a way that’s safe, but also in a way that benefits all countries and all humans, let’s say. So one way of thinking about it is when the sustainable development goals were put on the table, they were a chance to reconcile the two competing goals of development, economic growth, and sustainability, because we have a finite planet. In a similar way, the Global Digital Compact could be a way of trying to harness these technologies and spread the benefits around the world, but to do it in a way that is safe and also benefits everyone, inclusive. So we’ll see what happens with the GDC. It will be in the hands of the member states, not the U.N., so everything I say is from a perspective or kind of speculative, if you like. But it is a leader-level decision, and it’s a rare opportunity to take some of the questions and issues that have been surfaced during the IGF discussions, some of those questions which cannot just be handled purely by the technical community that require high-level political decision-making, and inject them into this policy window.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Tracy. Same question to you.

Tracy Hackshaw:
All right. So I think it’s a very interesting question. The GDC does not exist yet, so it’s a question that we, you know, I don’t know. So what I decided to do is I went into my chat GPT and bot. The answer is shorter, so I’ll give what bot told me. So bot told me that one of the key goals of the GDC is to promote a more inclusive and equitable digital world. This is particularly important for SIDS. because it could help address global inequalities by providing SIDS with greater access to digital technologies and resources and by helping them to develop their own digital economies. Sounds good. Then there are some specific ways, increased access to digital technologies and resources, support for development of digital economies, strengthen digital capacity, improve digital governance and explains what those mean. And then it says, overall, the GDC has the potential to have a significant positive impact on digital governance and global inequalities facing SIDS by providing a global framework of digital cooperation. GDDC could help to create a more inclusive and equitable digital world for all. So that sounds like a lot of words that were just put nicely together because it’s a large language model, right? So it just puts all the words together. Sounds really good. What does it mean, though, in reality? What does it mean for the SIDS populations? So I think there is, I agree with what has been said, there is an opportunity. As I said, it does not exist yet, and I’m glad you said it’s up to member states to actually implement it. And again, coming back to the priorities issue, what it can do, I do think it can lift the priority of digital issues higher up on the agenda because it’s something a little more formal, a little more tangible than what the IGF has been set up as sort of a discussion space. So this is, I’m not saying it’s a treaty, it’s not any kind of mandatory thing to happen, but at the very least, member states will agree to something and you have your health account. So if it is that that is what it’s going to be, then I would imagine, like with other types of UN processes, the SDGs, the discrimination against women and so on, we can find, perhaps, the way to report on this, to hold member states to account, especially in SIDS, and to use it to get governments to actually program these activities, or what can improve the SIDS economy’s activities, into their various budgets, and allow the communities in their own countries and the stakeholders in their countries to deliver upon what the Digital Compact promises. Because it’s a promise. It’s, as you said, speculative. But once I think it’s a promise, it’s a promise to keep. So I do hope, and I’m being very optimistic here, that once that is happening, we can start to see a priority lift. And I also would like to say that maybe the fact that it’s being 2024, someone to the future, there’s a brand, there’s some push towards it. As we talked about in our DC SIDS session, it’s sort of an event we can mobilize around. There could be some signal activities around this that will raise the profile of these issues and make it along the same lines as our challenges that we face in terms of infrastructure and so on.

Moderator:
Thanks. Thanks very much, Tracy. And Serena?

Sorina Teleanu:
Thank you. Yeah, building on what Tracy and Bard were saying. Mostly Bard, all right. Indeed, there is a lot of promise and expectation in the global digital compact. Looking at the question, I’m not completely sure there is indeed a goal to actually have a GDC change the digital governance landscape. So I would skip that part of the question. Whether it will address inequality, I think that’s part of the promise and the potential. What I personally would like to see going towards this GDC is building a roadmap but taking into account everything that has happened so far. So trying a bit not to reinvent the wheel and re-say all those things that Bard was saying. But yet, rather try to take things forward. We have WSIS outcomes. We have the annual UNGA resolution on ICT for development. We have the SDGs, which to some extent should be relying on using technology for development. If we can in some way build on all this and have a global digital compact. that is a bit forward-looking, I think that would indeed help address some of these inequalities. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. Serena, Rodney?

Rodney Taylor:
Sure, I’ll be very quick. I think this question also goes to the heart of. You’re not hearing me? Okay, hi, good. This question goes to the heart of multilateralism versus multistakeholderism. So in the UN, and I saw this when we actually crafted some statements for our permanent representatives in New York who, from the Caribbean, some of them were able to make interventions during the GDC deep dives and various thematic areas. And it’s clear that the UN gives priority to its member states. I mean, so when I speak on the floor of the UN, I speak on behalf of my country. I have influence. Within this process here, you’re an attendee, like everybody else, and you’re free to make your contributions. Yes, there may be some influence if you’re a diplomat, but really, the forum is meant to be multistakeholder in that everybody has an equal voice. The UN is quite a different animal. So even though that process was, well, and it’s not a criticism of the process, but even though it was sought to be multistakeholder, it was clear that priority would be given or was given in terms of UN accepting interventions by the member states. So now that’s not necessarily a bad thing for small states because for small states, and if you look at the ITU process, for example, Barbados has the same voice, the same vote as the United States, as Canada, and so on. So we can influence, right? There’s a lot of lobbying within those processes for that very reason, all right? Whereas in the multistakeholder process, it’s all equal footing, but it’s not all equal resources and participation. as I mentioned before, so the voices that show up, the voices that have the resources to show up are the ones that have the potential to have a stronger influence. So there’s those dynamics, but I feel positive overall about the GDC and hopefully it leads to some positive outcomes for us. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Rodney. And Michelle, I’m gonna hand over to you for your online panelists. Yes, thank you. Otis, can you go first and then Shannon, please?

Otis Osbourne:
Okay, so I agree with my fellow panelists and I like to add without regurgitating what was said before, is that there’s no doubt that the world is transitioning into a new digital global economy. Well, however, for small island developing states, especially, this transition is progressing at a very slow pace. And unless governments, and I’m talking Caribbean governments, recognize the universal access or universal access to free internet, and I emphasize free internet as a human rights, because they are digitizing for e-governance. However, if you do not have data on your phones, then you’re not able to access that service. Also, this free internet as a human right must be paired with online security, privacy, and safety. If that is not done, the new digital global economy will continue. perpetuate the old-age manifestation of widespread social exclusion. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. Shernan, please.

Shernon Osepa:
Yes, to me, basically the beauty of the global digital compact process is the opportunity that especially small island development states will get through with this process. And whenever something doesn’t exist, you have the opportunity to create it. So I think that should be the point of departure that we are going to use right now. A lot of times, especially since we are looking, you know, we think that we are victims, but now we have the opportunity to come at the table and to come with meaningful suggestions. And as Mr. Taylor did mention, of course, you may have to do maybe some lobbying with others, but at least if you have something on paper, then people can discuss about it. So I think this is the opportunity for us to put something on paper and let others give comments regarding what we have been drafting. Most of the times, they draft things, and we just give comments. So I think we should reverse this right now. We should draft in which direction we think we should go, this whole global digital compact process, and let others give comments on what we think the direction that we should go. So I think if we do that, at least we may have a big chance that at least our voices are being heard and that we can make meaningful impacts and changes in our nations.

Moderator:
Is the GDC positioned to address the shortcomings of the IGF process? And if so, what are the opportunities and mechanisms to address these shortcomings? I’m gonna start back with you, Michelle, online. Let our online panelists get in the first word in this one. Okay, great. So I’m gonna start with you, Michelle. So what are the shortcomings of the IGF process? And if so, let our online panelists get in the first word in this one. Okay, great. Shannon, would you go first, please, and then Otis.

Shernon Osepa:
Yes, okay. I think when we talk about shortcomings of the IGF process, again, it’s very important for us to identify what happened back then with the IGF. How we have been approaching or looking at the IGF nowadays, it was, that was not the original intention of the IGF. The IGF was more like a talking place where people can discuss ideas with not, let’s say, to take significant decisions right in those rooms, but to have the discussions ongoing. So I’m not sure if we should say, if we look at that, if we can say that there were some shortcomings, because it was not meant to be like that, you know? So, I mean, if you look at the original objectives, they were met in one way or the other. But I believe, as I did mention before, it’s nice to have discussions regarding opportunities and challenges that we’re facing. But at the end of the day, we would like to see actions being taken place in our countries. And that’s basically what we can see with, let’s see, with this next approach. And I think, as I did mention before, that would be a big, a great opportunity for us to come with meaningful suggestions in order for us to achieve things and not only to keep discussions in a closed room that cannot help us with anything. So that would be the way how I would like to look at it.

Moderator:
Thank you. Thanks, Shannon. Otis, please.

Otis Osbourne:
Yes. Yes, it is my view that the potential of the GDC, followed with ways out of the IGF, due to the GDC being a UN directive or policy per se. No, I agree with Shannon that because when I look, when I think about it, for example, the idea of discussions on best practices in securing the Internet seem to have been, for the most part, just discussions. Right? As the best practices are seriously being implemented. Most ISPs and network operators have not adopted, for example, the MANRS actions to secure data being routed through the Internet. We have two ISPs, Digicel and Flow. And when I check if they are members of MANRS, Digicel was the only one. And they have not adopted all the actions. Right? So there are still some gaps. When I look at, again, NDAs, Ministries, Departments, and Agencies, and SMEs. and financial and educational institutions. Most of them have not implemented cost-free DNSSEC and IPv6 standards to secure digital transactions and other internet-based activities. I use internet.nl to check if our cybersecurity incident response team, if their URL is secure, and they have not implemented DNSSEC. And they are the implementing agency and advisory for the government and other institutions and organizations within Jamaica, right? So I think that in conclusion, the GDC could eliminate the shortcomings. And I’m talking about the lack of action of the IGFs by maybe elevating or expanding the IGF to an implementation monitoring and maybe even an enforcement coalition of country-based IGFs. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you so much, Otis. Yeah, some, I guess, very powerful thoughts about the situation in Jamaica. Thank you very much, Misha. I’m going to come now to my on-site panel and I’m going to start with you, Rodney. Your thoughts on, is the GDC positioned to address the shortcomings of the IGF process? And if so, what are the opportunities and mechanisms to address those shortcomings?

Rodney Taylor:
Thank you very much, Jewel. Well, if we were to believe Otis, It is going to be an amazing opportunity to fix all the problems we have. Sorry, Otis, sorry to take that job at you. But those are really high expectations. And I don’t see the GDC addressing those things because they’re not easy things to address to start with. There’s no UN compact that will force those operators to implement these measures. We can encourage, we provide, like you said, best practice. But at the level of the United Nations, we don’t see that happening. I mean, there are so many other things if you look at it globally, if you look at the geopolitics globally, even in things of climate change where there’s clear evidence that action needs to be taken. And still, the UN struggles to get the world to respond. Things like human trafficking and so on. So the internet is just another one of those very complicated things that the world is just trying to make sure that there’s a mechanism for collaborating. And that’s what the GDC is, in my view, another mechanism. There are advantages, like I said, for addressing the shortcomings, as in, well, it has the potential to give small states a stronger voice. I think it’s going to be very difficult. I wish the tech envoy success. He’s been tasked with that responsibility, and we’ve been actively participating and supporting. But it’s no means easy. I mean, as Tracy pointed out, it is not yet. And let’s hope that there are some positive outcomes. But we welcome it, and we think there is an opportunity to strengthen the IGF process, to work along with, and achieve better outcomes for the world, generally. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Serena.

Sorina Teleanu:
Thank you. I think I’ll take a step back a bit and try to, I don’t know, I think we sometimes need a bit more clarity in discussions. For instance, in this specific case, I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to put the GDC and the IGF, you know, in a comparison situation. Because the IGF is a process, and the GDC is supposed to be, at the end of 2024, a document, right? So if we were to be a little more fair, it would be comparing the GDC, which as Tracy was saying, we don’t really have, with the Tunis agenda, which was the starting point for the IGF. So leaving that aside, yes, we do need a bit more clarity into that. Shortcomings of the IGF, sure, no process is perfect, and definitely IGF has not been a perfect process. But we have seen over the 18 years that it has improved, and it has shown willingness to change, to adapt. to the changing technological landscape and to respond to some of these challenges. We had a few sessions back then, now we have, look at so many happening right now in parallel. We have all the interstitial activities, best practice forum, policy networks and a lot around that, the parliamentary track and all these attempts to try to do something. Again, it’s not a perfect process, there can be improvements. As Rodney was saying, ideally the GDC would build a bit on that and see how to strengthen the IGF. We have also had all these discussions in the past about IGF plus and there was a lot of endorsement of that whole concept. We haven’t seen much follow-up on that. Let’s see if the GDC could build on it. And I think all of us have heard throughout this week at the IGF how many have said, well, let’s see how the IGF itself can serve as some sort of a follow-up mechanism for the GDC itself. I won’t go into the third question because I was close to that, but yes, let’s look a bit at things this way, how we can bring things together instead of, yeah, just trying to see how new things might be solving problems of things that have existed. Thank you, Sabine.

Moderator:
Tracy?

Tracy Hackshaw:
All right. This is me, not bot, I hope. So just building on what I said before, I do think the opportunity is there to raise the profile and something I had spoken about in a session yesterday about outreach. So we expect, we’re sitting in Kyoto or wherever we are, and we expect things to just happen. People to come, somehow the U.N. system, things just come to us, come to us and talk. But maybe it should be the other way around so maybe the GDC can go the other direction and allow it to reach into the communities, getting back to the SIDS-specific issues, reach into SIDS and say, look, this is something. we are bringing to the table to help improve your existence and your circumstances and tell us what you need. And perhaps there’s an opportunity there for better dialogue. If it’s a compact, the word compact means something in the English language. It’s some sort of promise to deliver, promise to work together. It’s also a handshake almost. So if that’s what it is, and we don’t know what it is yet, if that’s what it is, then I think there’s a real opportunity there to have the UN system reach into and reach out to small and developing states, into the stakeholders, and make things happen. We don’t see a lot of that, I think, with other digital activities. So that’s good that it could happen that way. So besides funding interventions and so on, there may be opportunities for real skills and knowledge transfer, real capacity development in those territories, and also to work with governments to ensure that, as I said, the priorities of these issues are brought higher up on the agenda. So Otis’s concerns about cybersecurity, which I think are the broader issues in terms of resilience, can be brought further up on the agenda because we can’t just sit here and talk about it’s not happening and not make it happen, right? So it’s not happening, right? But what do we do just to make it happen? So maybe this is an opportunity to have that happen. So I see a lot of promise in that regard, and I hope that Tech Convoy is here, that he’s listening and hearing what we’re saying because I think that’s what we’re trying to say. Don’t sit in the New York and Geneva or wherever, Riyadh, Kyoto, wherever we are, and talk about it. Let’s go there. Let’s make it happen. Rub the sleeves. Get it done. And just remember, I always like to tell people, yes, it’s the internet. Yes, we are connected, but not everyone is connected. So don’t assume that we can just do a Zoom call and make it happen either. We may have to get there and do it. Thanks.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Tracy. As we say in our region, enough of the long talk. Quentin?

Quintin Chou-Lambert:
Thank you. Yeah, I love that, Tracy. And in fact, with certain topics, that is exactly the approach that the tech envoy is proposing, which we’re calling a multi-stakeholder networked approach. So for example, with the high level advisory body on artificial intelligence, which will be formed in the next couple of weeks, the recruitment process was extremely open. And we received more than 1,800 nominations. It was an open call, public call on the website. And in fact, some of the nominations from SIDS countries were self-nominations. And the multi-stakeholder networked approach to consultations, what we’re planning to do is have those members of the body go out into different networks that they already are members of and try and reach in, like you say, and try and understand the needs, understand the concerns, understand the expertise, and bring them back into the political process. Because that’s the thing that can be done kind of, let’s say, outside of New York, outside of the intergovernmental chambers, but get that information expertise in there and shape the decision. Maybe coming to the main question around the shortcomings of the IGF, I mean, what I’ve heard in this panel and generally is there seem to be two huge challenges. One is around the absence of decision making, and the other is around the overwhelm and the vast capacity gap in keeping track of everything going on. And whether a GDC can address these two issues really depends. So, obviously, you know, from the Secretary-General’s perspective, he would like to have a very ambitious GDC, one that unifies the UN system in providing support and gets, you know, the UN agencies, which are all around the world, working on some of the country-level issues, and also one which builds bridges between countries on issues like cross-border commerce, you know, the moratorium on tariffs on e-commerce, the trade revenue and taxation that may not be happening and which, if it were happening, would help build public sector capacity more endogenously. These are not specific proposals of the Secretary-General, but these are concerns which need to be voiced by those countries who have them, concerns around, you know, social, economic and cultural rights, for example, authorship and intellectual property over media content that may have been produced and exported and now that can be done using AI. These kinds of concerns need to be lifted up and presented in a unified voice. And when I say it depends, you know, the ambition level to get to those beyond just principles in the GDC and beyond just objectives to actions and commitments where there is some kind of promise to actually deliver something, there needs to be a unified voice and among, you know, the countries in whose interests it is. And so one of the things we’ve been observing is that because delegations are so overstretched in New York, they are… and because they’re so overwhelmed with… or let’s say their inboxes are overflowing with more urgent issues around debt relief, around some of the basic economic issues, the SDGs, you know, not on track yet with the SDGs, sometimes they’re overlooking the significant… of digital. And because digital is one of the growing sectors in the digital economy. I mean, the digital economy is one of the growing sectors and will continue to be. This is a real opportunity for the future. So the challenge is how can countries kind of look up from the immediate crisis they’re in and think about how the digital architecture is going to look a few years down the line and how their role is going to be within that. So I’ll come back to the issue of stretch capacity maybe in the final question. But one of the questions around review and follow-up on any commitments that are reached in the GDC is to what extent governments and others can participate in that. So I’ll come back to that point.

Moderator:
Thank you very much for that, Quentin. And now you, Olga.

Olga Cavalli:
Thank you very much. Most of my thoughts are already addressed by my colleagues in the table. But I would like to build upon what Serena said that I don’t find it totally fair to compare the IGF with the GDC. I find some commonalities in between the two processes. I think one of the beauties of the IGF is the equal footing. That it may be this chaos that you can find, Vint Cerf walking in a corridor and take a picture with him, or you can find colleagues from other countries that you didn’t have the opportunity to meet before. So that beauty, I think, it’s remarkable from IGF. Other meetings are more structured, which is true. And perhaps this variety of activities, and we run from one meeting to the other one, trying to find a room, makes us find what we didn’t think we were going to find. So that is something which I find interesting. What I like from GDC is that it seems to be a bottom-up process. What I have seen lately is kind of a tendency of establishing more closed multilateral processes, and I think that the way forward is multi-stakeholder. It’s the only way to solve all the problems related with digital economy, the impact of digitalization in developing countries or in the whole countries or cross-data flow and all the problems or things that we have to think about is in a multi-stakeholder way. So all the processes that are multi-stakeholder, I think they are the way and not multilateral. Whether the delegations could be prepared for that, I’ve been advisor to the minister for the first 20 years, so I know how the dynamics in the different delegations work. And sometimes there is a gap in between what happens in the ground of the country and what goes to United Nations in, for example, a multilateral meeting. So also, the fact that we can contribute in a bottom-up process as the GDC is the opportunity that it brings is to reflect on things and think about in deep in all the seven different issues that it establishes. So I think there is value there. No problem will be solved, but we will think about how to solve them.

Moderator:
Thank you very much for that contribution. Specifically from a SIDS perspective, what are the real benefits these vulnerable countries can derive from the GDC and is the GDC a duplication of current processes and should the IGF process and GDP, GDC be kept separate or should they be an evaluation, an evolution of one to the other? I know that’s a lot, but I’m going to start with you, Rodney.

Rodney Taylor:
Thanks. Right, so we’ve heard that it’s not fair to compare the two. But okay, so let me try to dissect. So the benefits. The reality is that there’s still a lot of global inequality in the digital space. We talk about this, not sure what the latest figure is, but 2 point something billion people not connected. I’m sure the majority of those are in developing countries. Some certainly are in small island developing countries. So there is an opportunity to focus on this issue a bit more in global digital compact and help in the connectivity and infrastructural issues and sits by drawing greater attention to this issue globally and giving it priority within a body such as the United Nations. And that’s good for us, like I said, because we tend to play stronger. That is my assessment within the multilateral processes and within spaces like the UN and so on as sovereign states. The GDC though, it’s not a duplication of the process because it is meant to be a compact, like Tracy said, a global handshake. This is how we’re going to move together globally on some of these key issues like cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and so on. Now, it might lead to a process and I think there’s been some discussion about the digital global form or something of this sort. So sort of an expansion of the role of IGF or maybe even a parallel process altogether if you can imagine showing up for another one of these, perhaps the following week in Australia or someplace, it’d be very difficult for us to follow. So let’s hope that it doesn’t evolve that way and that there is, and clearly there’s synergies. Even though we talk about internet governance, clearly the issues go beyond the internet itself. There are issues that are being discussed of human rights and artificial intelligence. So there’s not just the internet that we’re talking about. And therefore we don’t need to create a whole new process for people to follow and more meetings just to add the word digital to a process, frankly. speaking. So it is not quite a process yet. It is leading towards the summit of the future. We are actively participating, and we think there is an opportunity for us to lend our voices to ensure that there isn’t – we talk about Internet fragmentation, but Internet governance fragmentation, so that, again, we go off on two separate tracks to deal with this. Thank you.

Moderator:
Too many mics around. Sorry for that.

Sorina Teleanu:
No, I agree with Rodney. We shouldn’t probably look at the GDC as a duplication because, well, the goal is to come up with a compact. I was reading the other day the compact for migration. That could be an interesting example for the GDC to look at. You know, it has clear commitments, clear actions to implement those commitments and then a follow-up process. So no duplication there. There are models to follow. The discussion, as Rodney was also saying, I think we’ve been seeing again over the past few days at the IGF about whether we can use the IGF as some sort of follow-up mechanism for the GDC itself. And this whole idea of new forum, I think it was in the UN Secretary General Policy Brief, the digital cooperation forum. It has been discussed quite a lot over the past few days, so I won’t go into that. As Quentin was saying earlier, whatever decision is made, I think a few things should be kept in mind. Are people, countries, governments, other stakeholders having the resources available to follow multiple processes that more or less would be tackling similar or complementary issues? Are there resources to fund more than one process looking into these issues? And then at the end of the day, what would happen with the outcomes of all these processes? Do we bring them together at some point somewhere? Just a few things to consider as a discussion on the Global Digital Compact Advance. So ideally, we do find ways for things to work together rather than create competition for resources. Thank you.

Moderator:
Tracy?

Tracy Hackshaw:
Thank you. So I did ask bot and Chattopadhyay this one because I don’t know as well. And they agreed. They agreed. They said that the way they used it was complementary. So that’s interesting that they’ve agreed on that together. So that it seems as if the AI models seem to agree that this is going to work well. So that’s useful. In my own opinion, though, again, I’m trying to, there’s something in the Caribbean called plain talk, bad manners. So at the IGF, in unfair comparison, the voice of SIDS is not very loud and the volume is also not very loud. So in terms of numbers and in terms of representation, even when there are attempts to actually, you know, to request representation, it seems to be that we get lost in the crowd. So to a large extent in the Latin American Caribbean space, Caribbean is silent in the LAC space. Pacific is silent in the AP space, Asia-Pacific space. And Indian Oceans are silent in the African space. Not for lack of trying. Larger countries dominate and that’s the way it works. So in the IGF space where that seems to be happening, in the SIDS discussion, I think the GDC might actually improve that. This kind of getting back to Rodney’s idea of the one country, one vote process. So again, being very, very plain talk, bad manners here, I do think that there’s an opportunity in the GDC process to get SIDS points across more specifically because we have a more equitable voice there. I can’t seem to fix it in the IGF. I’ve been trying for years. Can’t seem to fix it. So let’s fix it with the GDC. Simple as that. I think that’s something. I will want to see happen. And if the IGF process sees that happening, maybe they may also wish to bring the SIDS along in their process and not have the same voices, the same countries, and the large groups of people dominating the smaller voices every year. So I think that’s something I want to say. I’m saying it here. It’s good for them to say it in. And I hope that we’ll fix that with the GDG process. Clean talk, bad manners. Thanks.

Moderator:
Thanks a lot, Tracy. I’m going to ask the panel for their indulgence. Ms. Carol Roach from the Bahamas, she is with us in the room. And she has to leave. So I want to give her an opportunity to say a few words before she has to go. Carol?

Audience:
Good morning, everybody. And I suppose early, early afternoon or late afternoon in different countries. Thank you for indulging me. Carol Roach from the Bahamas, new MAG chair. Keywords that I heard here is the word action. Action, action, action. So we need to put pen to paper, as one of the speakers said, and say what we want. Write a letter. If you want me to present it to the high level panel, I will do so. They are actually looking for input, especially on why you come here every year, even though it seems like SIDS not being heard, but you come every year. Why is it that you come every year? What you would like to be, what you wanted to be seen more, what you want improvements on, what’s your take on the GDC. And they want this in writing so that they could forward it to the co-facilitators. So I encourage you to do so. The second thing is capacity building. If we’re going to have our parliamentarians or whoever, our missions, go forward to make a vote or to negotiate, they need to know what they’re negotiating. I gave an example. Let me not use my country, because next thing I might not get back in. But I think that a lot of times, persons in missions, they go to meetings, they take notes. technology person or a human rights person or so on, sometimes those notes mean nothing to people. You would find that those notes come to the relevant department when it’s time for your government to make a decision and to give their input and to sign. It’s not fair. We have to start now in preparing our parliamentarians, our missions. So somehow we need to get funding, we need to push the IGF to get some capacity building at that level. So those are just the two things that I have to say and I am definitely here for you. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you so much for that, Carol. I’m not sure if you’re going off to another meeting. Yes, I know how it goes. Okay, thank you very much. Still continuing with question three, I come to you now, Quinton.

Quintin Chou-Lambert:
Yeah, so what can be the real benefits of a GDC? And maybe I can pick up this question around review and follow-up. So obviously, again, it’s speculative, but if there is an ambitious GDC with commitments and actions, then how is it reviewed and followed up? And maybe I can just take a moment to explain the proposal by the Secretary General for creating a space for that to happen, because that then speaks to how the IGF might relate to that space, how other forum might relate to that space. And it was named Digital Cooperation Forum. The name doesn’t matter that much, but the concept is that it’s a space for review and follow-up, and this could address three different issues. The first is the issue of gaps in the existing digital governance landscape for considering issues like… AI governance, human rights, things like mis and disinformation. And what this central place could be is a place for pooling all of those issues. So internet governance issues that emerged through the IGF could then be injected in there. In fact, the Secretary General created this IGF leadership panel to serve as a bridge or a channel from the IGF into the UN processes. And then other initiatives like the HR Human Rights Advisory Mechanism or the AI advisory body can also feed into this kind of space for review and follow-up. So it addresses some of the gaps. The second thing this would address is this issue of capacity and fragmented governance. And actually having one place where countries can come together to look at issues defragments the governance. By bringing all the strands into one place, it allows countries to focus in a holistic way on digital governance issues instead of running around the world from meeting to meeting, chasing off all these different discussions, some of which may or may not lead to decisions. And then the third thing it does is I would say it kind of preserves and protects the special characters of these different areas. I was, I did not come, but Chengatai showed me the video of the music night here on, I think it was day one or day two. And it seems to me, I’ve heard the word creative chaos associated with IGF. It does seem as the first time at IGF, there is a special spirit to IGF where there is this feeling where there’s an organic feeling to it, where free discussions can be had on being impolite, but saying what we feel. And those are very important, especially when it comes to technical discussions of the technical community where it really needs to solve problems quickly. And one risk and concern of bringing these politicized discussions around hate speech, misinformation, human rights, AI. governance into places like the IGF, you know, data protection and exploitation, is that it can suddenly change the feeling of the discussion and, you know, change the spirit of IGF. And so for these three reasons, you know, this new proposal to have a space to review and follow up GDC actions and commitments, addressing the gaps that the existing fora do not meet because of technological developments, defragmenting the governance so that countries who have limited resources can concentrate them on the central place where they can see everything and participate with a strong voice in everything and preserving the unique character and the spirit of IGF. This is possible, but it’s only possible if there is ambition and unity among the member states, those countries who have an interest. Perhaps SIDS sees itself as one of those kind of groupings. And if so, it would be very good to see those voices being, you know, raised loud in the GDC process so that those interests can be reflected in the outcome document. Thank you.

Olga Cavalli:
Okay, very interesting what you said. So you missed the music. You didn’t see me singing. You didn’t see me singing. That’s remarkable. It’s a joke, I’m joking. I did sing, but okay. I think it’s very, I love music and I think the music is really a way to bridge any gap. And it’s interesting what you mentioned that bringing gaps, bridging gaps in between the different process is very challenging for, especially for developing countries, having human resources to follow all these processes. What we have done at the Argentina level in my times of working for the government and as an academic is trying to arrange meetings where we all gather together with the delegates that then will participate. But at the same time, these processes are multiplicating and sometimes the delegations are overwhelmed, especially countries that don’t have bigger delegations. So that is challenging. What we have also found as useful is working at the regional level, for example, in between countries of Mercosur, which is Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Brazil, working with associations, internet association, or different associations for telecommunications or technical bodies. It is challenging, but as far as I understand, the process is towards some coordination or concentration of all these processes. So that would be beneficial, even though I think the beauty of the IGF should be preserved.

Moderator:
Thank you for those comments and that contribution, Olga. I now go over to Michelle and our online panelists. Yes, thank you. Otis, can we hear from you first on the same question, and then Shernan, please?

Otis Osbourne:
OK, thank you, Michelle. Orange, I’m going to begin by cautiously saying that no one can dispute the power and influence of UN directives, and that since governments will follow through eventually, especially since the digital economy has been touted as a means of realizing the 2030 SDGs. However, discussions at the UN level are exclusive, a level so high and out of touch that a startup entrepreneur or a university student, unless, of course, it’s a research paper, an assignment, would not say to themselves, let’s see what’s being discussed and proposed. at the UN today. The objectives of the IGF are still relevant, though duplicated by the GDC. The IGF is in a unique position to reach everyone from grassroots people and businesses to corporations. IGF is more relatable as internet governance forms part of its name. In fact, at the University of the Commonwealth Caribbean, first-year students conduct research and write their reports on internet governance topics as their first assignment in their Introduction to Computer Essentials course. And one of those topics include generative AI, such as ChatGPT. The importance of internet governance can become real for these students because they, in addition to civil society and businesses, and I’m talking about small, medium-sized businesses, can join a national IGF chapter and become part of the process, rather than become mere mentions in a mass of texts in the GDC policy paper. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thanks. Shannon, please.

Shernon Osepa:
Yes, I think by now we have been discussing IGF. We know, more or less, what is the IGF after, let’s say, 18 years. The GDC is still something that needs to be developed, so we’re not sure, we’re not certain what it is as yet. But I think it’s very important for us to, whatever process we would like to focus on, the people must become better of what we’re trying to do. And with the people in this particular case, we are focusing on the SIDS. So SIDS must become better. So whatever direction we are heading, our people in the region, small island development states, they must become better of the process that we are going to focus on. And I think at the end of the day, if we can focus on, let’s say, economic, especially economic development, that is very important. We know that, for example, the GDC will be focusing on the SDGs 8, 9, and 10, focusing on jobs, economic growth, and infrastructure. So these are the areas that we should be focusing on, because these are the needs that we are having in our jurisdictions. And not to forget, let’s say, the big challenge that we’re seeing nowadays with respect to climate change, natural disasters, hurricanes, and so on, because it doesn’t make sense if we continue to build all these infrastructures and we don’t, I mean, we cannot fight against nature to a certain extent. But while we are trying to build infrastructure, and then climate change can just destroy everything in just a few seconds. So we need to find the right balance, how we can, while we are still trying to focus on the SDGs. SDGs 8, 9, and 10, to focus a bit on climate change as well, and not to forget, let’s say, collaboration, partnership, which is the SDG 17 that I haven’t heard being mentioned today, but I think it’s also very important for us to focus on. And in addition to that, what I already did mention, we know more or less what our problems are. Let’s start focusing, identify them, and to see how we can bring solutions in collaboration to others for our very specific problems that we are facing. So that’s basically what I wanted to share. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. Back to you, Joel. Thank you very much, Michelle. We’re now going to open the floor for questions and comments from those in the audience and those online as well. For those on site, please go to the microphone, state your name and the organization you represent, and make your contributions.

Audience:
Good morning. My name is Mahesh Perra from Sri Lanka, a small island in the South Asia region. Actually, we have been doing our digital – I mean, this forum is all about equitable framework for developing countries on digital transformation. So, I mean, now when it comes to Sri Lanka, now we have been doing many digital strategies over the last 20 years, two decades, but the country is yet to achieve many things. But now we see IGF, CD, the digital – what you call global digital compact, and WSIS. Even – I mean, many other international platforms are trying to set standards, you know, what to achieve to make citizen satisfied, I mean, in terms of citizen-centric – to build citizen-centric governments, citizen-centric nations, to leapfrog from where we are to the next level. Now, when you see these standards, they talk about on what aspect, but hardly they talk about – to who and how aspect. So when it comes to my suggestion and the request from the esteemed panel, is there any way that we could talk more on who aspect as well as how aspect? Who is supposed to do these things? Because the government, if you take my government, the government is busy with fighting the status quo, I mean, the operational activities. I mean, who should drive these initiatives? Because now when it comes to Sri Lanka, we already have a new digital strategy, digital transformation strategy. But now over the last two decades, we implemented, but there are many gaps. Now who should drive these initiatives? Is it one government organization or multiple organizations who should drive? Can’t we have sort of frameworks or best practices into these guidelines? And then when it comes to the how aspect, how we should do it, whether we should do it with the local parliaments, whether local parliaments should get involved in monitoring and evaluation on these measures, or how we should establish. Now when it comes to SDGs, now how we are going to make these initiatives sustainable over the long run and to bring the citizen in the forefront and keep citizens satisfied, fulfilled in all these initiatives. So my concern is who and how aspect. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. Nigel?

Audience:
Thank you, Jewel. I’m Nigel Kasimir, Deputy Secretary General for the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. I rushed to follow the gentleman from Sri Lanka because the comment I wanted to make, I think, would fall straight into the issues that he’s raising. I heard comments about identifying shortcomings of the IGF and so on. But there’s also some good from the IGF. think is good from the IGF was the outreach and the development of this network of national and regional initiatives. Because maybe some issues might be global, but many issues are regional or national, as the case might be. So in terms of the what and the who and the how, it’s not a one size fits all answer. So I would suggest as well, Quinton talked about the GDCA establishing some sort of a coordination mechanism. I’m going to suggest that there should be some outreach in that as well, and maybe some encouragement of national and regional type of initiatives in the same vein, so that these groups can share with one another, and maybe find some common principles, and maybe find some special principles that might not apply globally. But I think that particular aspect of the outreach is a key point, a key benefit out of the IGF, and we should keep that in mind in any of the implementations coming out of the GDC. One last thing I’ll say, since we’re focusing on SIDS, is that one might say SIDS is an interest group, and it is, because there are these special things. But even within SIDS, it’s not all one size fits all. Because one thing is about the Caribbean, the Caribbean, small islands, and so on. One thing is about the Pacific, small islands spread out. But the scale is not comparable. Whereas we might have populations that might be comparable, the distances we’re talking about are not. It’s a lot easier to make a business case in the Caribbean for something like submarine cable than in the Pacific. So the local aspects of the problems and solutions need to be taken into account and we need to structurally build that into whatever we’re doing. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much for that, Nigel. Yes, please, and please keep it short. We’ve got like five minutes left and I still want to get some takeaways from the panel.

Audience:
Very quickly, I’m Samir from Sri Lanka, working for the largest telecom company, so we see what’s going on on the data side. So I was going through the digital compact policy brief, I caught my attention, something caught my attention, very interesting. It’s data divide. It says data flow will grow by 400% by 2026. The negative side of it is developing countries risk becoming mere providers. Maybe seen as a telco, you know, telecom company sitting in the data, we see to some extent as well. My question to the panelists is the experts views on the GDC, what are the kind of interventions you see to handle this data divide, what’s mentioned in the policy brief?

Moderator:
Rodney, I’m gonna let you take it and I’m just getting my wrap up. We’ve got three minutes.

Rodney Taylor:
Okay, I think there may be more verses specifically on the provisions of the GDC with respect to the last question. So I would like to say in relation to the previous question that I think he’s saying is you think global and not local. So, I mean, at the end of the day, we talk about global cooperation, but it is really for national parliaments to go back and where necessary and trying these things into law. Or just mentioned, for example, the mutually agreed norms for routing cybersecurity. This has to be implemented, not even just locally, but at the level of city operators and the internet service providers. So I think the point is that while we talk, we discuss, we agree on global agreements and so on, it is really for us to go back and do what we need to do to implement. So, I don’t know if you want to ask.

Otis Osbourne:
Yeah, exactly.

Moderator:
I don’t think we have enough time because I just got a three minute wrap up. So I really want to thank everyone for coming. A special thanks to our panelists, Mr. Rodney Taylor, the Secretary General of the Caribbean Telecommunications Union, Ms. Olga Cavalli, Co-founder and Director of South School on Internet Governance, Mr. Quentin Shulambert, Office of the Secretary General’s Envoy on Technology, Tracy Hackshaw, President Trinidad and Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group, Serena Teran, Director of Knowledge at the Diplo Foundation, to our online panelists, Mr. Otis Osborne, Department of Information Technology at the University of the Commonwealth Caribbean, and Mr. Shernan Osepa, Internet Governance and Cybersecurity Policy Advisor, and also our online moderator, Michelle Marius. Thank you so much. The things with conversations like this is they always leave you wanting so much more. And we’re all here for today’s the last. So please make sure you exchange numbers and contacts so that we can keep these conversations going. I’m Jo Ford, your moderator. Thank you to everyone. Thank you.

Audience:
Thank you.

Changfeng Chen

The concept of culture lag refers to the delayed adjustment of non-material aspects such as beliefs, values, and norms to changes in material culture, such as technology. This concept aptly describes the situation with generative AI, where technology changes faster than non-material aspects such as regulations. The rapid evolution of generative AI presents challenges in adapting legal and ethical frameworks to address its potential risks and implications.

While some argue for a moratorium on generative AI to allow time for comprehensive regulation and understanding of its implications, this approach is deemed drastic and unlikely to be effective in the long term. The field of generative AI is constantly evolving, and a blanket ban would hinder progress and innovation. Instead, flexible and adaptive regulatory frameworks are needed to keep up with technological advancements and address potential risks holistically.

China has emerged as a leader in the development and regulation of generative AI. Companies like Baidu, ByteDance, and iFlight Tech are at the forefront of generative AI applications, with their technology being installed on mobile phones and laptops to assist users in decision-making processes, such as choosing a restaurant. China has released interim administrative measures for generative AI services, which demand legitimate data sourcing, respect for rights, and risk management. This highlights China’s commitment to responsible AI development and regulation.

However, there are concerns about the fairness of the regulatory framework in China. Some argue that the heaviest responsibility is placed on generative AI providers, while other stakeholders such as data owners, computing power suppliers, and model designers also play critical roles. Allocating the majority of responsibility to providers is viewed as unfair and may hinder collaboration and innovation in the field.

Generative artificial intelligence has the potential to significantly contribute to the education of young people and foster a new perspective on rights. By harnessing the power of generative AI, educational institutions can create dynamic and personalized learning experiences for students. Additionally, young people have the right to access and use new technologies for learning and development, and it is the responsibility of adults and professionals to guide them in leveraging these technologies effectively and ethically.

Efforts have already been initiated to promote these rights for young people, such as UNESCO’s Media and Information Literacy Week, which aims to enhance young people’s skills in critically analyzing and engaging with media and information. This reflects the international community’s recognition of the importance of digital literacy and ensuring equitable access to information and technology for young people.

Promoting professionalism in the field of artificial intelligence is crucial. Professionalism entails adhering to a set of standards and behaviors such as reliability, high standards, ethical behavior, respect, responsibility, and teamwork. By promoting professionalism, the field of AI can operate within ethical boundaries and ensure the responsible development and use of AI technologies.

It is also important to have a professional conscience towards new technologies that respects multicultural values. While it is necessary to respect and consider regionalized values and regulations, there should also be a broader perspective in the technical field to promote global collaboration and understanding.

In conclusion, the concept of culture lag accurately describes the challenges faced in regulating generative AI amidst rapid technological advancements. A moratorium on generative AI is seen as drastic and ineffective, and instead, flexible and adaptive regulatory frameworks should be established. China is leading in the development and regulation of generative AI, but concerns about fairness in the regulatory framework exist. Generative AI has the potential to revolutionize education and empower young people, but it requires responsible guidance from adults and professionals. Efforts are underway to promote these rights, such as UNESCO’s Media and Information Literacy Week. Promoting professionalism and a professional conscience towards new technologies is crucial in ensuring ethical and responsible AI development.

Audience

The debate surrounding the responsible usage and regulation of AI, particularly generative AI, is of significant importance in today’s rapidly advancing technological landscape. The summary highlights several key arguments and perspectives on this matter.

One argument put forth emphasises the need to utilise the existing AI tools and guidelines until specific regulations for generative AI are developed. It is acknowledged that constructing an entirely new ethical framework for generative AI would be a time-consuming process. Therefore, it is deemed wise to make use of the current available resources and regulations until more comprehensive guidelines for generative AI are established.

Another argument draws attention to the potential risks associated with the use of generative models. Specifically, it highlights the risks of inaccuracy and unreliable sources that are made up by these models. Of concern is the fact that many individuals, especially young people, are inclined to utilise generative models due to their efficiency. However, they may be unaware of the potential risks involved. Thus, it is suggested that raising awareness among the public, especially the younger generation, about the potential risks of generative AI is crucial.

Advocacy for the importance of raising awareness regarding the use of generative AI models is another notable observation. It is argued that greater awareness can be achieved through quality education and the establishment of strong institutions. By providing individuals with a deeper understanding of generative AI and its potential risks, it is believed that they will be better equipped to make responsible and informed choices.

The responsible coding and designing of AI systems are also stressed in the summary. It is essential to approach the development of AI systems with a sense of responsibility, both in terms of coding practices and design considerations. Implementing responsible practices ensures that AI systems are developed ethically and do not pose unnecessary risks to individuals or society as a whole.

One perspective questions whether self-regulation alone is sufficient for responsible AI or if an official institution should have a role in examining AI technologies. The argument here revolves around the idea that while self-regulation may be important, there is a need for external oversight to ensure the accountability and responsible usage of AI technologies.

It is worth noting that AI systems are no longer solely the domain of big tech companies. The accessibility of AI development has increased, allowing anyone, including criminals and young individuals, to develop AI models. This accessibility raises concerns regarding the potential misuse or irresponsible development of AI technologies.

The feasibility of regulating everyone as AI development becomes more accessible is called into question. It is argued that regulating every individual may not be a practical solution. With the ease of developing AI models without extensive technical expertise, alternative approaches to regulation may need to be explored.

Regulating the data that can be used for AI, both for commercial and official usage, is seen as a possibility. However, regulating the development of AI models is deemed less feasible. This observation highlights the challenges in finding a balance between ensuring responsible AI usage while still fostering innovation and development in the field.

In conclusion, the expanded summary provides a comprehensive overview of the arguments and perspectives surrounding responsible AI usage and regulation. It underscores the importance of utilising existing AI tools and guidelines, raising awareness about the potential risks of generative models, and promoting responsible coding and design practices. The debate surrounding self-regulation versus external oversight, the increasing accessibility of AI development, and the challenges of regulating AI models is also considered.

Moderator – Yves Poullet

UNESCO has made significant strides in regulating AI ethics. In November 2022, it published a recommendation on AI ethics, demonstrating its commitment to addressing the challenges posed by artificial intelligence. This recommendation has already been applied to CHAT-GPT, indicating that UNESCO is actively implementing its ethical guidelines. The director of the SIH UNESCO department, Gabriela Ramos, is leading the implementation efforts. Despite her absence at an event, she sent a video expressing support and dedication to ensuring the ethical use of AI. Generative AI systems, which include foundation models and applications, require attention from public authorities due to their unique characteristics and potential risks. There is concern about potential biases and inaccuracies in the language used by generative AI models, which deal with large amounts of big data, including language translation and speech recognition. The future of generative AI is seen as potentially revolutionary, but there are also risks associated with these systems, such as the manipulation of individuals and job security concerns. Generative AI systems also pose risks to democracy, as they can spread misinformation and disinformation. Public regulation or some form of regulation is necessary to address these risks, with discussions on the feasibility of a moratorium and different approaches taken by leading countries. The ethical values set by UNESCO are widely accepted worldwide, but the challenge lies in their enforcement. Standardization and quality assessment are proposed as effective mechanisms to reinforce ethical values. The idea of AI localism, where local communities propose AI regulations aligned with their cultural values, is appreciated. Concerns are raised about language discrimination and the poor performance of AI systems in languages other than dominant ones. Efforts to address these issues, such as Finland’s establishment of big data in the Finnish language, are encouraged. In conclusion, UNESCO’s efforts in regulating AI ethics and the need for public regulation and enforcement mechanisms are highlighted, along with the challenges and potential harms associated with generative AI systems.

Dawit Bekele

Generative AIs are advanced artificial intelligence systems that can generate human-like content. These models are built on large-scale neural networks such as GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer). By learning from extensive amounts of data, generative AIs can produce outputs that closely resemble human-created content. However, they may also perpetuate or amplify existing biases if the training data contains biases or unrepresentative samples.

Despite these concerns, generative AI technology presents significant opportunities for innovation. Researchers and public authorities are actively working to address the ethical issues inherent in generative AI, with discussions taking place at UNESCO. Regulatory frameworks are needed to ensure transparency and accountability in the development and deployment of these models.

Generative AI systems also have the potential to impact the education system negatively. They can provide answers to learners immediately, potentially replacing the need for human assistance. This raises concerns about the displacement of human workers and disruption of traditional job markets.

It is crucial to have local responses tailored to the specific needs and values of each society when implementing generative AI. Societies should have the autonomy to decide how they use the technology based on their specific contextual considerations. However, certain countries may face challenges in handling generative AI due to a lack of resources and knowledge. Organizations like UNESCO should empower and educate societies about AI, providing necessary resources and knowledge to ensure responsible use. Big tech companies also have a responsibility to financially support less-resourced countries in adopting and managing generative AI technology.

In conclusion, generative AI offers significant opportunities for innovation, but also raises ethical concerns. Regulatory frameworks, local responses, and support from organizations like UNESCO and big tech companies are necessary for responsible and equitable implementation of generative AI technology.

Gabriela Ramos

The analysis reveals potential negative implications of AI that necessitate effective governance systems and regulation. Concerns arise from gender and racial biases found in generative AI models, such as Chat GPT-3. This emphasizes the urgent need for ethical guidelines and frameworks to govern AI development and deployment.

UNESCO has conducted an ethical analysis of generative AI models. This analysis underscores the importance of implementing proper governance and regulation measures. The impact of AI on industries and infrastructure aligns with Sustainable Development Goal 9. However, without appropriate guidelines, the risks and consequences associated with AI deployment can be detrimental.

To mitigate these risks, UNESCO recommends the implementation of ethical impact assessments. These assessments foresee the potential consequences of AI systems and ensure adherence to ethical standards. Considering the rapid advancement of AI technology, ethical reflection is crucial in addressing questions and concerns related to AI risks.

In addition to ethical considerations, the concentration of AI power among a few companies and countries is a cause for concern. The impressive capabilities of generative AI raise worries about negative social and political implications. Furthermore, legal actions have been taken regarding potential copyright breaches by open AI. It is important to make AI power more inclusive to reduce inequalities, as emphasized by Sustainable Development Goal 10.

Moreover, countries need to be well-prepared to handle legal and regulatory issues pertaining to AI. UNESCO is actively collaborating with 50 governments globally to establish readiness and ethical impact assessment methodologies. Additionally, UNESCO, in partnership with the renowned Alan Turing Institute, is launching an AI ethics observatory. These initiatives aim to support countries in developing robust frameworks for managing AI technologies.

In conclusion, the analysis emphasizes the need for effective governance systems and regulation to address potential negative implications of AI, such as biases and concentration of power. Implementation of UNESCO’s recommendations on ethical impact assessments and ensuring a more inclusive distribution of AI power are crucial in mitigating risks. Collaboration with governments and launching the AI ethics observatory demonstrate UNESCO’s commitment to harmonizing AI technologies with ethical considerations on a global scale.

Marielza Oliveira

The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFAP) has a crucial role in advocating for ethical, legal, and human rights issues in the realm of digital technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI). They recognize that advancements in AI, specifically generative AI, have significant implications for global societies. As a result, IFAP emphasizes the importance of examining the impacts of AI through the lens of ethics and human rights to ensure responsible and equitable use of AI.

IFAP is committed to ensuring access to information for all individuals. They endorse a new strategic plan that highlights the importance of digital technologies, including AI, for our fundamental right to access information. IFAP aims to bridge the digital divide and ensure that everyone can benefit from the opportunities presented by these technologies.

Additionally, IFAP focuses on building capacities to address the ethical concerns arising from the use of frontier technologies. They recognize the potential of inclusive, equitable, and knowledgeable societies driven by technology. To achieve this, IFAP supports and encourages research into the implications of these frontier technologies. They assist institutions in making AI technologies accessible and beneficial to everyone, while also raising awareness about the risks associated with their use. By examining and understanding these risks, IFAP aims to develop effective mechanisms and strategies to address them.

Another important aspect of IFAP’s work is the promotion of the implementation of recommendations on the ethics of AI. They actively engage in discussions and collaborations with stakeholders to design and govern AI based on evidence-based frameworks. IFAP recognizes that a multi-stakeholder approach is essential to create responsible policies and guidelines.

In addition, IFAP actively participates in global dialogues and forums to address digital divides and inequalities. They function as a platform for sharing experiences and best practices in overcoming these challenges. Through these dialogues and forums, IFAP aims to foster collaboration and partnerships to build sustainability and equality across all knowledge societies.

In conclusion, the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFAP) is at the forefront of promoting ethical, legal, and human rights issues in the context of digital technologies, especially AI. They emphasize the need to examine the impacts of AI through ethical and human rights lenses, while also ensuring access to information for all individuals. IFAP supports research into the inclusive and beneficial use of frontier technologies, along with raising awareness about the associated risks. They actively participate in global dialogues and forums to address digital divides and inequalities. Through their collective efforts, IFAP strives to shape a digital future that upholds shared values, sustainability, and equality across knowledge societies.

Fabio Senne

The summary is based on a discussion among speakers regarding the ethical, legal, and social implications of generative AI. They agree that a global forum is necessary to address these issues. Additionally, promoting digital literacy and critical thinking skills among young people is seen as crucial for responsible use of generative AI.

One speaker, Omar Farouk from Bangladesh, emphasizes the need for convening a global forum to discuss the ethical, legal, and social implications of generative AI. This indicates an awareness of the potential risks and challenges associated with this technology.

UNICEF also voices concerns about digital literacy and critical thinking skills. They argue that young people need to be educated about generative AI to be informed users. This highlights the importance of ensuring that individuals understand the potential implications and risks of generative AI, especially as it becomes more prevalent in society.

Another area of concern raised by UNICEF is the impact of generative AI on child protection and empowerment. They express worries about the unknown effects of AI on children and the need to protect and empower them in an AI-driven world.

The importance of more investigations and data in the field of AI is suggested by a speaker working in Brazil with CETIC.br, a UNESCO Category 2 centre. This indicates a recognized need for further research and understanding of AI, as it continues to rapidly develop.

Global digital inequality is identified as a major issue in the discussion. Inequalities in accessing the internet and digital technologies can affect the quality of training data, and languages may not be properly represented in AI models. In addition, there are inequalities within countries that impact the diversity of data used. These concerns highlight the need to address digital inequalities to ensure more inclusive and human-centred AI.

The need for improved AI literacy and education is emphasised. Data from Brazil reveals an underdevelopment of informational skills among children, with many unsure of their ability to assess online information. Therefore, raising awareness and literacy about AI in educational systems is crucial.

There is a call to monitor and evaluate AI, recognising the importance of assessing its impact and making informed decisions. Mention is made of international frameworks from OECD and UNESCO, highlighting the need for global cooperation and collaboration in understanding and regulating AI.

In conclusion, the discussions highlight the need to address the ethical, legal, and social implications of generative AI through a global forum. Promoting digital literacy and critical thinking skills, protecting children, conducting further investigations, addressing digital inequalities, improving AI literacy and education, and monitoring AI are all seen as crucial steps in fostering responsible and inclusive AI development.

Stefan Verhulst

The discussion surrounding Artificial Intelligence (AI) has shifted towards responsible technology development rather than advocating for an outright ban or extensive government intervention. OpenAI, an AI research organisation, argues for closed development to prevent potential misuse and abuse of AI technology. On the other hand, Meta, formerly known as Facebook, supports an open approach to developing generative AI.

Maintaining openness in AI research is considered crucial for advancing the field, despite concerns about potential abuse. AI research has historically been open, leading to significant advancements. Closing off research could create power asymmetries and solidify the current power positions in the AI industry.

Another important aspect of the AI discourse is adopting a rights-based approach towards AI. This includes prioritising principles such as safety, effectiveness, notice and explainability, and considering human alternatives. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has taken a multi-stakeholder approach to developing a Bill of Rights that emphasises these aspects.

In the United States, while there is a self-regulatory and co-regulatory approach to AI governance at the federal level, states and cities have taken a proactive stance. Currently, around 200 bills are being discussed at the state level, and several cities have enacted legislation regarding AI.

Engaging with young people is crucial in addressing AI-related issues. Young people often provide informed solutions and in many countries, they represent the majority of the population. Their deep understanding of AI highlights the need to listen to their preferences and incorporate their solutions. It is believed that engaging with young people can lead to more legitimate and acceptable use of AI. Additionally, innovative methods of engagement aligned with their preferred platforms need to be developed.

The importance of data quality cannot be overlooked when discussing AI, particularly in the context of generative AI. The principle of “garbage in, garbage out” becomes crucial, as the quality of the output is only as good as the quality of the input data. Attention should be focused not only on the AI models themselves but also on creating high-quality data to feed into these models.

Furthermore, open data, open science, and quality statistics have become more important than ever for qualitative generative AI. Prioritising these aspects contributes to the overall improvement and reliability of AI systems.

Overall, the discussion on AI emphasises responsible technology development rather than outright bans or government intervention. Maintaining openness in AI research is seen as crucial for the advancement of the field, although caution must be exercised to address potential risks and abuses. A rights-based approach, proactive governance at the local level, meaningful engagement with young people, and attention to data quality are all key considerations in the development and deployment of AI technology.

Siva Prasad Rambhatia

The analysis explores different perspectives on the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on society. One viewpoint highlights that AI has contributed to the creation and exacerbation of inequalities in society. Specifically, it has had a significant impact on marginalized communities, especially those in the global South. The introduction of AI technologies and applications has reinforced existing social, cultural, and economic barriers, widening the gap between privileged and disadvantaged groups. This sentiment is driven by the assertion that AI, particularly in its current form, creates new types of inequalities and further amplifies existing ones.

Another viewpoint revolves around the negative consequences of generative AI models. These models have the potential to replace various job roles traditionally performed by humans. This phenomenon has raised concerns regarding the social and economic implications of widespread job displacement. In addition, the advent of generative models has been associated with a growing disconnect within societies. As AI takes over certain tasks, the interaction and collaboration between humans may decrease, leading to potential societal fragmentation.

Conversely, there is a positive stance arguing for AI to adopt local or regionally specific approaches and to preserve local knowledge and traditional epistemologies. This perspective highlights the potential benefits of embracing context-specific AI applications that address unique regional challenges. Advocates argue that these approaches can contribute to building more inclusive and equitable knowledge societies. By utilizing local knowledge and traditions, AI can help identify appropriate solutions to complex human problems.

Inclusivity and multiculturalism are also emphasized as essential aspects of AI design. Advocates argue that AI systems must be designed with consideration for marginalized and indigenous communities. By incorporating inclusive practices in AI development, it is possible to mitigate the potential negative impacts and ensure that the benefits of AI are accessible to all.

Additionally, the analysis underscores the importance of documenting and utilizing local knowledge systems in model building. By incorporating local knowledge, AI models can be more effective in addressing local and regional issues. The accumulation of local knowledge can contribute to the development of robust and contextually sensitive AI solutions.

Overall, the analysis highlights the complex and multi-faceted impact of AI on society. While there are concerns about the creation of inequalities and job displacement, there are also opportunities for AI to be inclusive, region-specific, and leverage local knowledge. By considering these various perspectives and incorporating diverse viewpoints, it is possible to shape the development and implementation of AI technologies in a way that benefits all members of society.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks also for the remote audience, it is quite clear that you have the floor too during the question and answer and we hope that you will intervene. So perhaps just to start, as you know UNESCO has taken a certain number of initiative and we must underline the importance of this initiative as regards AI ethics regulation. You know that they have published in November 2022 a recommendation on AI ethics and definitely more recently perhaps you have seen that they have published a report about the application of the recommendation to CHAT-GPT and that’s why it is an honour for us to host Gabriela Ramos. Gabriela Ramos is definitely very well known, she is the director of the SIH UNESCO department which is in charge of the AI ethics recommendation implementation. So Gabriela Ramos was unable to join us because of the time difference between Paris and Kyoto but she has sent yesterday a video in order to be present with us. So perhaps you might launch the video.

Gabriela Ramos:
The compass for our work on AI is the recommendation on the ethics of AI that was adopted by 193 countries back in 2021. visual intelligence technologies need to be well aligned with human rights, human dignity, fairness, inclusiveness. And these values that are the ones that we put together for the technologies translate then into principles, principles of accountability, transparency, the rule of law, proportionality, but we do not stop there because all this framework then is translated into very concrete policy recommendations. We have 11 policy chapters that go into the gender issues, data issues, environmental issues, and many more. And those policy areas instruct member states, for example, I’m gonna give you an example, to develop data governance strategies that ensure the continual evaluation of the quality and the training of data, promote open data and data trust, and call members to invest in the creation on gold standards data sets, and ensure that when there is harp, compensation is given related to this information. And the recent release of foundational models, AI models have been meteoric, which had GPT gained 100 million users within the first month of operation. And we have seen a huge amount of excitement around the capabilities of this generative AI. It’s impressive what they can do and what they can offer in terms of the service to the world. But these models have also foregrounded major concerns about potential negative ethical, social, political, and legal implication, and highlighted the urgent need for robust and effective governance systems and regulation. We have conducted our own analysis of generative AI models through the lens of the recommendation and found that a range of ethical concerns related to fairness and non-discrimination and reliability, misinformation, privacy, data protection, the labor market, and many more. anymore with this accelerated pace of issues that we already have identified before. The systems replicate but also massively scale up many of the same ethical and governance challenges of previous generations of AI systems. For example, we have known about the potential of gender and racial biases in AI systems for many years now and we see that the same kind of stereotypes being massively reproduced in the latest systems. For example, narratives generated by GP3 were shown to reinforce gender stereotypes depicting female characters as less powerful and defining them by their physical appearance and family roles. And just last week a researcher at Oxford John Hopkins found that it was impossible for Mid Journey, a commonly used AI image generation tool, to produce a picture of black doctors treating white children. Whatever variation of the prompt used, the system will only produce a picture of a white doctor treating black children. But there are also new and pressing challenges, for example, around issues of authorship and intellectual property rights, as the platform does not quote these sources and lacks transparency on how it works. Legal actions are currently underway to determine, for example, whether open AI breached copyrights by training its model on novels without the permission of the authors. And on the other hand, to decide whether an output of a generative AI model can itself be copyrighted. This is another area where the incredible concentration of economic and now cultural power in the hands of a small group of companies and the small, of course, group of countries need to be addressed in a determined manner to make it more inclusive and more representative of the very diverse world. world in which we live. And then the way in which these current experimental AI tools have been unleashed in the public provides a primary example of why it is imperative for member states to implement the recommendation of UNESCO to ensure that actors identify, clarify, and mitigate some of the risks of harm from such models before rushing them to deploy them in the markets. And to address this challenge, UNESCO has developed an ethical impact assessment. And this assessment facilitates the prediction of consequences and mitigation of risk of AI systems via a multi-stakeholder engagement before a system is released to the public. And allowing those developing and procuring AI systems to avoid harmful outcomes, but at least to think about them, to have a tool by which we can understand what the systems can do, and what needs to be enhanced, and what needs to be corrected. And the ethical reflection by itself is a vital tool to comprehensively address the questions that everybody has in their minds right now about the risk of AI systems and how we can identify them. And we are currently piloting the ethical impact assessment as well as another tool that we were asked to produce in the recommendation when this was adopted by our member states, the readiness assessment methodology. This is to see how much countries are well prepared to deal with the legal and regulatory and governance issues related to AI. And we’re now working with 50 governments around the world to deploy this tool. The results of this assessment will be made public on the AI ethics UNESCO observatory that we are launching with the Alan Turing Institute, but also with the ITU. And this is going to be an online platform to share information and good practices of implementation efforts across the globe, while creating an inter-governmental partnership. space for people working on this domain to collaborate and actually to raise awareness, to understand better, to look at what works and what doesn’t, and then to translate that into actions on the ground to equip ourselves, the governments, the people, civil society, to deal with these technologies better. And in this sense, I’m also glad to share with you that we started a path-breaking project with the Dutch Digital Infrastructure Authority that is supported by the European Commission DG Reform to enhance the competencies and capacities of the Dutch and European competent authorities to supervise AI, and this, above all, considering that the European Commission is going to be implementing soon their AI acts, and they need institutions that are well equipped to deal with the issues. And here again, the large language systems and generative models are more broadly are high on everyone’s agenda, and the detailed data and analysis from this project will form the empirical basis for our development of a model governance framework, bringing together the different elements of an ethical AI ecosystem to help guide governments in developing robust governance systems aligned with the recommendation. We will present this framework at the Global Forum on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence that is going to take place in Slovenia in the spring of 2024, and I’m looking forward to see you all there to continue learning together and to continue building together the capacities to deal with these technologies. Thank you very much.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks Gabriela for this marvellous introduction. I think this introduction will help us to fix exactly the scope of our discussion, and as you have seen, there are a lot of… challenges raised by the AI generative system. Just the first question, perhaps it would be quite interesting to see among the person present who has already used AI generative system, like Chai Tripathi, like Bert, like Rernie, like Coco, that’s a Korean generative system, who has already used a generative system. Rézeant? I told everybody has already used it. You remember in November 22, Sam Alkman, OpenAI CEO, put into the market for the general public certain Chai Tripathi services. Perhaps it is quite interesting to remember that three years before, Sam Alkman said that Chai Tripathi must be reserved for professional users only because it was too dangerous for large public. He has modified his mind. It’s his business, that’s normal, but perhaps it’s quite interesting to recall it. This initiative was a full success, 1 million users, less than five days after the launching. Since this moment, we assist to a multiplication of applications supported by what we call foundation models, like Google Bart, Chai Tripathi, definitely, the Baidu Rernie, the Korean Co-GPT, the Meta Open Pre-Trained Transformer, and another. What is quite interesting is that all these foundation models are general purpose models and they are not used for a specific purpose, but it is quite clear that apart from this foundational model there is a lot of application developed by the same companies or by other companies. And now we are using this application. For instance, my students are used to chat GPT for preparing their hands to the memory definitively and it is quite clear that if you feel alone, please find with companion chatbots like Replica, Chai and others, which understand you like your best friends or friends. If as company you need to develop a marketing strategy, it is very easy to use Jasper as an application for finding the right slogan and definitively the right logo. If you are work seekers, if you want to write a successful letter of motivation, please use a generative AI application. So generative AI systems are more and more used. I would like to give definitively the floor to David in order to answer to a certain number of questions and my question would be the following. First, generative AI systems, I mean both foundation models and generative AI applications are definitively AI systems. Could you please in a few minutes explain the peculiarities of this system among the other AI systems and definitively link it with the peculiarities. Is that possible to explain why these generative AI systems are used? system need a specific attention distinct from that afforded to the other AI system, including for our public authorities. I have another question. The application of language model, large language models, are diverse, include text compression, text-to-speech conversion, language translation, chatbots, virtual assistants, speech recognition. They are working with big data. Which ones? Is there a problem with the language used within this big data? And last one, how do you see the future of this genuine TVI? Is that a revolution? Mr. Beckley, you have the floor.

Dawit Bekele:
Thank you very much. So generative AIs are advanced artificial intelligence systems designed to generate human-like content, including text, images, and even multimedia. You have probably heard and I’m sure used applications such as Chaptivity that answers to your questions, almost as if there is a human being at the other side, at the other end of the line. There are also applications that change photos into artwork, translate people’s speech into another language in real time. For example, you have heard probably the news recently, the Secretary General of the UN speaking in a language that he doesn’t speak. So there are so many applications that generative AIs have already shown us. These models are built on large-scale neural networks, such as GBT, and are trained on vast data sets to learn the patterns and structures of human language and other forms of data. The key peculiarity of the systems lies in their ability to generate coherent and contextually relevant content on their own, based on input they receive. Unlike search engines, for example, that we have been using for quite some time now and that provide useful responses, but that are often not in the form that you would expect from a response from a human being. Generative AI responses are very much like what you would expect from another human interlocutor. This has, of course, numerous benefits since the output of generative AI applications can be used almost directly by humans, unlike what you would get from search engines that require human interpretation, filtering, formatting, and often rewriting. But it also brings, as it has been already said by the previous speakers, many challenges that public authorities will have to deal with. One significant aspect that requires specific attention is the potential for biases and ethical concerns with the generated content. These models learn, as it has been said, from diverse and sometimes biased data sets, reflecting societal prejudices present in the training data. Consequently, the output of these models may inadvertently perpetuate or amplify existing biases, such as race biases, race concerns about fairness, and the reinforcement of harmful stereotypes. Already, the use of AI systems in law enforcement raised so much concern that some authorities banned the use of AI, at least for the time being. Another important consideration is the misuse of generative AI for malicious purposes, such as the creation of deepfake content that are indistinguishable from real content. In particular, the technology’s ability to mimic human-like communication poses risks to the integrity of information and has implications for issues like misinformation, fake news, and online. manipulations. An aspect that I believe should also be a concern is that it renders many societal tools obsolete. For example, as a former teacher myself, I’m concerned by how generative AI affects education. Learning, at least as we understand it today, requires personal work from the learner that needs to be further evaluated by our instructor. Generative AI can now provide an answer to the learner immediately and without effort. And the answer is so much indistinguishable from what a human being would give that it is almost impossible for the instructor to know whether the student has given the answer or it is generated by AI. This will have a major and negative impact on the quality of education and create major frictions within schools and universities. Generative AI can also render many jobs obsolete, probably more than any technology in the past. There’s almost no industry that has at least a few of its jobs replaced by generative AI. Generative AI can do the work of computer programmers, content creators, legal assistants, teachers, artists, financial advisors, and so forth. This can create a major havoc in societies like we are currently seeing in the movie industry in the US, where writers are on strike, in most parts, for fear of losing their jobs to AI. So public authorities need to pay attention to these systems for several reasons. First, there is a need for regulatory frameworks to address ethical concerns, as has been said by the keynote speaker, and mitigate potential misuse of generative AI. Second, public authorities play a crucial role in ensuring transparency and accountability in the development and deployment of these models, and I’m very happy that there are already discussions at UNESCO around this. Third, there is a growing need for public policy that addresses the impact of generative AI on various sectors, including jobs, privacy, intellectual property, and cybersecurity. In general, the peculiarities of generative AI and its massive impact on our societies demand specific attention from public authorities to establish ethical guidelines, ensure transparency, and address the broader societal impact. applications of these powerful technologies. I don’t think we can stop AI’s progress, but I also do not believe that we should let it develop without setting any boundaries. To your other questions on language models, there are many language models like GPT-3, and they are indeed applied across various tasks in different applications, such as text completion, text to speech conversion, language translation, et cetera. These language models, especially large ones like GPT-3, are trained on vast data sets of human language using languages coming from a broad range of texts from internet, books, articles, and various sources. Of course, these sources are not representative of the whole world, and they have biases and so on. So there are some concerns. One significant issue, as indicated earlier, is biases present in the training data. If the training data contains biases or unrepresented samples, the model can inadvertently produce biases outputs, reinforcing existing societal prejudice, raising many ethical questions. There are also concerns about potential misuse of these models or generating deceptive or harmful content. We have already seen how social media can create chaos in our societies by spreading misinformation. I come from a country that has been hardly affected by this misinformation. And I’m very afraid of what can happen with AI. Many people have difficulty to distinguish between the truth and the fake news. fake since they trust what they see in writing. Generative AI is taking this problem to a new high with deep fake where it is possible to make anyone say anything blurring even more further the line between the truth and the false. This will have an impact on our society that might be catastrophic if not mitigated well in advance. So for the future of generative AI, despite the many dangers of the generative AI, I believe that there are immense opportunities ahead. I believe that we can expect the development of even more powerful and sophisticated generative models. Moreover, future generative AI models may be fine-tuned to specific industries or domains, allowing for more specialized applications such as in healthcare, finance, law, and more. I also believe that the researchers and public authorities will attempt to address the concerns such as the ethical issues. And I’m happy to hear that UNESCO has taken this issue very seriously. We have already seen almost unprecedented attention from authorities such as the U.S. Congress, EU Commission, and UNESCO to understand and establish a framework for the development of a generative AI. UNESCO, for example, have done a number of work and developed a number of recommendations on the ethics of artificial intelligence that has been adopted by all its 193 members that has been indicated by the keynote speaker. My personal hope is that we learn from the cost of our inaction on social media, and researchers as well as public authorities will act as fast as the development of AI so that the risks are mitigated. and the opportunities outweigh the risks. Thank you.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks a lot, David. It was very clear. Your presentation was very nice and develop what we have in mind. It means that generative AI system are multiplying the risk already linked with AI system. And you have developed a certain number of this risk and you have appeal to a public regulation or at least to a regulation. It is quite clear that generative AI application are bringing a lot of benefits for all of us, citizen and perhaps societies. But at the same time, as you have said, as you have underlined it, their development are source of arms, individual arms as regard definitively financial arms as regard definitively also physical arms. I would like just to mention a Belgian case, a recent Belgian sad case. In my country, definitely an engineer, civil engineer, perhaps a bit depressive has decided after nice and nice discussion with a company on chatbots to commit suicide. I think it’s a risk of manipulation we might fear from AI generative system. And perhaps we have to create a new right, the right to mental integrity. There are other, definitely there are other risk, there are risk of privacy as regard intellect property. And if we think about human rights. As you have noticed, it is quite clear that we must also speak about the problem of the right to job. And right to job is definitely compromised when you see the problem of the translator, when you see the problem of certain social artists. Definitely, it’s not only a question of individual arms. It’s also a question of collective arms. And the second part of our discussion after the QA time will develop the problem of discrimination, discrimination between countries, between regions, between definitively certain communities. We will come back on that issue. But you have also mentioned, and that’s very important, the problem for our democracy, and especially as we have the problem of multiplication of misinformation and disinformation, especially with the possibility for all people to create deepfakes. How to face all this risk? And I come now to the following speakers. How to face this risk? It is quite clear that you have already mentioned a certain number of initiatives from UNESCO. But it is quite clear that we have also to turn our attention, to pay attention to what happens in the two leader countries of AI. I mean China and definitively US. And to speak there about, I will ask to Changfen Chen from Tsinghua University in China and Stefan Verhulst, which is professor at the New York University and the director of the governance laboratory and editor-in-chief of Data and Policy, to comment. And on this point, I have a certain number of questions. Perhaps you remember that there was. a very important open letter signed by more than 35,000 people, including a very important CEO of a high-tech company like Elon Musk, asking for a moratorium. Is that a good solution? Do you think this moratorium is feasible? They have asked to stop the development of generative AI systems during six months. Do you think it’s a good solution? Another problem is definitely the question to know to what extent we need a regulatory, a public regulatory answer. And on that point, Changfen, it is very interesting to know a bit more about the China’s initiative – China was the first to elaborate administrative measures, what they call administrative measures – and I would like to know a bit more what does it mean, administrative measures as regard generative artificial intelligence services. They have done that, and definitely the EU has also decided to have legislation, not administrative measures, but to have comprehensive legislation about AI, and more precisely, with the recent European Parliament amendments about generative AI systems. So I would like to see what China’s position is. And as regards definitely the US, they have adopted another approach. The US has published the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy in October 2022, a blueprint for the AI Bill of Rights. This blueprint is definitely very interesting, but it is more a sort of co-regulation discussion and negotiation between public authorities and the big tech sector, definitely perhaps. And in that blueprint, there are a certain number of recommendations about how to build up, how to build up AI. AI system and which ethical values we have to follow. So, Changfen first, and perhaps after that, Stephan, take the floor on those issues. Changfen, you have the floor.

Changfeng Chen:
Thanks. Thanks for Professor Yves Pollard’s efforts. Nice to see you all, friends. It’s my honor to attend this session. Before discussing the question, I would like to mention a concept, a concept about culture lag. Culture lag is a term coined by sociologist William Alban to describe the delayed adjustment of non-material culture to changes in material culture in the 1920s. It refers to the phenomenon where change in material culture, such as technology tools, occur more rapidly than changes in non-material culture, such as beliefs, values, norms, including regulation. I think culture lag is describing the situation when generative AI appears. We are excited, and meanwhile, we are panicked. The capabilities for these new technologies break through the scope of traditional legal regulations. So first, I just said we need a regulation for generative AI. It is a powerful technology with the potential to be used for good or for harm. But generative artificial intelligence is still developing, and even the scientists and the engineers who created it cannot fully explain and predict its future. Therefore, we need to regulate it prudently rather than nip it in the cradle through regulation. So it’s the reason because after I introduce some policies and regulations, I can’t judge something. So I just speak this kind of thing first, and at the beginning of a new thing, we need to be more inclusive and have the wisdom to calmly deal with the mistakes it causes that only shows human civilization and self-confidence. So the question is, monitoring on generative AI would be a temporary ban on the development and the use of this technology. This would be a drastic measure, and it is unlikely to be effective in the long term. Generative AI is a powerful technology with the potential to be used for good, and it would be unwise to stifle its development entirely. And then I think a global regulatory model for generative AI would be ideal, but it will take time to develop and implement. So just talking about in China, artificial intelligence, including generative intelligence, is developing very rapidly in China and has been widely used. Generative AI applications from Baidu, from ByteDance, from iFlight Tech, and other companies installed on my mobile iPhone, mobile phone and laptop, while using GPT, BARD, and BIN at the same time. When I choose something in my life, like when I choose restaurant in Beijing or in Shanghai for a party with my friends, these applications always help me. In the field of education, the artificial intelligence applications developed by iFlight Tech are already helping teachers update their curriculum, correct students’ homework, and provide personalized teaching guidance. So China has been At the forefront of developing and regulating generative AI, in 2022, China released the interim administry measures for generative artificial intelligence services. These measures require providers of generative AI service to source data and foundation models from legitimate sources, respect the intellectual property rights of others, process personal information with appropriate consent or legal basis, establish and implement risk management systems and internal control procedures, take measures to prevent the misuse of generative AI services, such as the creation of harmful content. The interim measures to regulate generative AI services are just a start. China’s first artificial intelligence management measures are more realistic than the previously released draft four comments. On the day the measure was published in the afternoon of July 13, the share price of the CGBT concept stock in the Hong Kong stock market rose. Perhaps, yeah, some legal experts believe that the current regulatory framework in China cannot effectively address regulatory challenges. Its main content focuses on regulating providers of AI products or services, and it still belongs to the traditional responsibility models of AI governance. Generative AI involves diverse titles in multiple circuits, such as data owners, computing power suppliers, and model designers. It is unfair for regulations to allocate the heaviest responsibility to providers of generative AI. That’s some, the resource of this is from some legal experts who published the article in China, in Chinese, and also, it is also unable to deal with some social issues, and I said it’s just a

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
start. Thank you. Thanks a lot, Feng Chen. It was a very interesting point you are underlining. I retained from your intervention first a certain number of keywords. You say the famous cultural lack, I think that’s very important. You call for what you call a prudent regulation, not to go too fast, and definitely you ask for what you call an inclusive procedure in order to have the participation of all stakeholders. As regards the content of the administrative measure China has taken, it is quite proximate with what EU regulation is proposing. I’ve seen that you are quite, you pay attention to the intellectual property questions, you pay attention to the privacy question. I was very surprised because it’s very important in your regulation, and definitely you propose for solving the risk to have internal risk assessment, risk assessment which must definitely identify the risk, not only individual risk but also societal risk, and definitely which is proposing a certain number of mitigation of this risk. So I am quite comfortable with this approach because this approach is quite proximate of the EU regulation, and now I turn to Stefan, and I give the floor to Stefan because you have at US taken another option, and it is perhaps quite interesting to see to what extent, even if US has taken a co-regulation approach, the same principle, some ethical principle might be developed, and the same procedure might be implemented. Stefan, you have the floor. Yeah, thanks so much, and I hope you can hear me.

Stefan Verhulst:
Thanks Yves for having me, and I wish I was there in person myself in this beautiful room you have there, which looks like a really adequate place for having a conversation like this. And so just to cover the questions you posed, the first question seems to me was really about the moratorium, and I think the discussion from my point of view did open up a broader debate whether a moratorium is even feasible, or whether we should wait. focus on a responsible technology development as opposed to banning or even having government intervene in how innovation is being facilitated. And I think it was an interesting conversation, but at the same time, I think in addition to this tension between a moratorium and a responsible development approach, the underlying tension was also to what extent should the development of AI and in particular case here, the development of large language models and generative AI be open or closed? Because that was the other big discussion from my point of view, which from my point of view was actually more interesting because it really identified the interests behind the moratorium and also the interests that are currently being proposed. Because on the one hand, you have organizations like surprisingly open AI advocating for closed development, quite often with the argument that if you would open up the development of large language models or generative AI, you would have the potential for abuse. But then on the other hand, you have Meta, for instance, which has been advocating for an open approach to the development of generative AI, which from my point of view is actually most in sync with how AI has been developed till recently. Most of the research as it relates to artificial intelligence was always open. And as a result, I would argue, has actually been able to make massive advances because it was open and because you had a whole army of actually developers, researchers working on improving existing models, including GPT models. If we start closing it, then on the one hand, we actually will create new power asymmetries between those that actually have the closed models versus those that have the open models. But from my point of view, it would actually be undermining a core principle of research in the artificial intelligence space, which always has been open. And by making it open, you will also be far better in a position to actually identify the weaknesses, the challenges that might be out there. And I think that is another layer that I think needs to be addressed, which is not just about regulate or not regulate. It’s really about to what extent should you make the technology open so that you actually can really examine what are the vulnerabilities. And of course, the argument here is that if you make it open, others will use it. But that does not, from my point of view, validate a closed approach because a closed approach, from my point of view, will actually solidify the current power asymmetries that you have in the market that actually, from my point of view, are equally challenging and important to be addressed than just a potential abuse of the technology itself. So that’s as it relates to the first question, Yves, which is a more kind of sophisticated, we need a more sophisticated way to have a conversation about a moratorium. It’s really about how do we actually develop technology in a responsible way. I don’t think a ban will automatically make it responsible and actually will solidify certain kinds of power positions. And then the second element is really to what extent can we sustain the kind of culture of openness as it relates to artificial intelligence research that has made tremendous strides till date. Now, of course, you asked what’s the approach from the U.S. as it relates to AI and then specifically as it relates to generative AI. And as always, it’s more complicated than just one approach. And I think there are multiple approaches currently being tested out. And from my point of view, I would just touch on kind of six approaches that we can see within a U.S. context. And indeed, Yves, as you rightly said, many of the approaches might be somewhat or feel like they are different, but many of the principles that underpin those approaches are actually very much in sync with, for instance, the UNESCO recommendations and also very much in sync with emerging other principles, such as the ones that have been advocated within Europe as a result of the AI Act as well. And also, before I delve deeper in, it also suffice and it is perhaps important to state that the U.S. is again a member of UNESCO and that that also provides a new opportunity to actually bring the U.S. within the conversations as it relates to the implementation of the UNESCO recommendations, which, as you know, the U.S. was absent until recently. And I think having the U.S. again being a member provides an opportunity to also perhaps create more approaches that are in sync also at the international level as well. Now, the six approaches, the one approach that already was mentioned by Yves is more kind of a rights-based approach. And indeed, OSTP has tried to convene kind of a multi-stakeholder approach in order to develop this kind of bill of rights, which was really an effort to set out a set of principles, a set of rights that need to be enshrined in a voluntary way. Because indeed, Yves, as you already said, this is not about kind of hard regulation. This is more kind of co-design of some kinds of frameworks that subsequently will need to be implemented in some kind of a self-regulatory, voluntary. kind of way. But the Bill of Rights was interesting because it did specify a set of principles and a set of areas of concern, such as, for instance, the need to really focus on safety and effectiveness of the systems that are being provided, focusing on algorithmic discrimination, focusing on privacy. And of course, as you know, the US does not have a national privacy legislation, but I think the Bill of Rights was important to emphasize the need for perhaps a more national cross-sectoral approach as it relates to privacy in order to deal with also AI, but also issues of notice and explainability, which, again, is not unique to the US, but is coming up everywhere. And then, of course, also the need to think about human alternatives as opposed to automated alternatives in actually making decisions. And so these were kind of the areas that the Bill of Rights addressed and subsequently also provided the framework for additional commitments, because I think that’s the second big element that what has happened within the US is that the White House, through, for instance, the Bill of Rights, but also through other means, have been able to engage all the large tech companies in making commitments for responsible development of AI, which includes commitments to test their systems, to what extent they are aligned with an assessment tool that interestingly was developed in a collective manner during DEF CON 31, which in itself was kind of an interesting exercise, because here where they tried to tap into the collective intelligence of expertise in order to come up with actually a framework that then subsequently was recommended by the White House to be the framework to assess, if you want to view it. Just a remark, perhaps it would be needed to conclude in one or two minutes, because we have a lot of older discussion. I know, I know. So yeah, I can go on the wall here. The other element that I will briefly emphasize some aspects, the other element is, of course, that we also have seen the creation of methodologies to assess risk, similar to what has happened in Europe. I think NIST, or the National Institute of Standards and Technology, developed its risk assessment framework, where it really tries to define what is trustworthiness, and how do we know whether systems are trustworthy, and I think it’s definitely a worthwhile exercise to look into it. And then the other element, which is always important, is not only regulation, but quite often the shadow of regulation, given the fact that we are relying on self-regulation. And so what has happened is that Senator Schumer, who leads the Senate, ultimately has held a set of hearings, and as you know, hearings is actually a very valuable tool in actually regulation, because it does provide for oversight, and it does provide for a discussion. Last thing I will say, Eve, and then I will shut up, is that while all this has happened, and while a lot of this is actually co-regulation, in most cases self-regulation, what we have seen happening is that the states in the US have actually become far more active than the federal agencies in regulating, which refers again, Eve, to my other area of interest in AI governance, which is of course AI localism. And what we have seen is that states and cities have actually been really active in AI governance in the US. There were about 200 bills at the moment being proposed at the state level, and multiple cities have started legislating AI as well. And I think that’s also worth noting at the international level that states and cities are actually in the forefront of coming up with frameworks and legislation.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
And I’ve got to stop here. Definitely. Thanks, thanks, thanks, Stefan. I think your proposal to complexify the discussion, notably as we gather the question of the open AI, is definitely a very interesting thing. And I think we have to come back during the question and answer time. Another question I think is that you said that you have repeated are the same ethical values than the ethical values asserted by China. And I think we have a sort of common agreement about the fact that ethical values are fixed by the UNESCO in a very clear way, and that we might accept that. So I don’t think there is really a problem of three unethical values. The problem is more how to enforce these ethical values. And you have proposed to pay attention not only to public or self-regulation, but you mentioned a certain number of things like standardization, like definitively, like quality assessment. And I think that’s very, very interesting. And you finish by this marvelous point about AI localism regulation. And I think that’s very powerful. I think we need also the fact that communities, local communities are taking that very seriously and that they are proposing solution which are totally in accordance with their culture and with the habits of these people. Okay, so now we have a question and answer discussion. I know that Fabio, thanks a lot for being the moderator, has already certain questions. Please.

Fabio Senne:
Thank you. So we have two questions and comments online, more or less connected. One of them is from Omar Farouk, a 17 years old boy from Bangladesh. Who sent some very nice contributions. I won’t read all the contribution because we’re using the chat. But just to mention, regarding the question too, the comment from Omar is, convene a global forum on generative AI to discuss the ethical, legal, and social implication of these technologies. Support research on the impact of generative AI on everyone, including children and young. young people and promote digital literacy and critical thinking skills among children and young people so that they can be informed users of generative AI. And also Stephen Voslo building on Omar’s point, Stephen from UNICEF, say that they are also concerned that there is no known, they don’t know yet the impacts of generative AI, positive and negative on children’s and social, emotional and cognitive development. Research is critical, but take time. So how is the best way to navigate the reality that the tools are out in the public and we need to protect and empower children today, but we only fully know the impacts later. So how to deal with the need for research, but at the same time that things are out there.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks a lot for this first question, perhaps I ask to the different speakers and not only the speakers who have already taken the floor, but also to Siva and perhaps you Fabio, if they want to answer to these questions. Definitely, I have a look at the audience, I see the micro are there, so perhaps if you have other questions, perhaps it would be interesting to raise now these questions. No, there is nobody. Okay, I come to the two first questions and it’s quite interesting to see that there are questions raised by young people, very interesting and there is a specific need for being educated in the use of this generative AI system. It is quite interesting, I think I had in mind, Stefan has spoken about the fact that you must have responsible people using AI generative system and when you think about responsible people, it is not only the tech companies which are developing this AI system, but also the users. So perhaps it might be quite interesting in that line to answer to the questions. Another answer, function, Stefan, Siva, Fabio, no?

Stefan Verhulst:
Yeah, happy to briefly reflect on that and I fully agree with Omar is that we do need to engage with young people in a far more sophisticated way to really figure out A, what are their preferences, B, what are their solutions, because I think it is not just about listening to young people, they actually might have solutions that are far more informed because of their… being digital natives in many countries as well. And so we just finished actually last week, we had six huge solutions labs in six regions together with UNICEF and with the Lancet Commission focusing on adolescent wellbeing. And one of the questions that we posted them was actually about data and artificial intelligence. And the responses were extremely sophisticated and it shows that young people really have a sense on what is happening and what their preferences are as it relates to AI as well. And so we need a lot more of those conversations, especially in countries like in low and middle income countries where the majority are actually young people. So we need to actually engage the majority in order to really become more legitimate on how to go about AI as well. So I fully embrace that. And I think we actually also need to do a lot more innovation in how we engage with youth, which is why perhaps, anyway, good that Omar joined today, but not many youth are joining sessions like the ones that we have, which is still kind of based upon anyway, how we’ve done conversations for the last 50 years. And I think they have moved on and are having conversations in different platforms where we as, and I talk about myself, kind of the aging population are not used to have those conversations. So we need to really innovate in that way as well.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks, Stephan. I think Feng Chen has anything to say, something to say.

Changfeng Chen:
I think generative artificial intelligence is conducive to educating young people and it creates a view of rights. In fact, there’s a theory of rights for children in the media literacy, that young people have the right to use new technologies, to learn and to develop themselves. And adults and the profession. should have the obligation to guide the young people. And yeah, it’s a long process to young people to get this right. But I think the efforts has begun, has start. UNESCO has a Media and Information Literacy Week in this end of the month, in the last week of this month, in Judan. Judan, how do you say, Judan? Yes. Many people is worried about the young people who are in this kind of situation. And I think we should give young people the right. And also for the technology company, they should create some special help for the young people.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks, Lotte. I’m quite interested by this new right for children to use technology for their own development. That’s a very interesting point. Yeah? Okay, I think we have a question from remote audience. Doha, you have a question? Please, two minutes no more because we have other things to develop. Doha, you have the floor.

Audience:
Thank you, I hope you can hear me. No, I’m Doha, I’m a program specialist at UNESCO working with Gabriel. I actually wanted to react to the previous questions, if that’s okay, very quickly and briefly. I think the questions are very important and pressing because it’s true, as very rightly pointed out, that even if we would think about a new ethical framework or a new regulation for generative AI in particular, it would take a lot of time. And it would be indeed more wise to utilize the tools that we currently have, like the recommendation and other guidelines on AI to be used. But until we have more concrete takes, so what can be done in practice? I think it’s important to also go back to the essentials of awareness raising. Most people that I know, and especially I think young people, it’s very tempting to use those models, right? Because it shortens a lot our time, our efforts, but not too many are actually aware of the risks that are rightly pointed out by all the panelists. Usually only if people would try to use generative models to ask questions that you already kind of know the answer in advance, you would see the pitfalls, you would see the challenges, the inaccuracy, the references to sources that are made up and things like that. So I think being aware, raising awareness-

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
I’m sorry, I think we have understood what you mean. Thanks a lot for your intervention, but I must restrict you, I’m sorry, okay?

Audience:
No worries.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks a lot, thanks a lot. There is a question in the room? Yeah, two questions.

Audience:
Yeah, thank you very much. As a child rights researcher from Germany, I appreciate really that we have questions about- the rights and interests of young persons in this room, but for me, it’s not just a question of the responsible usage of young people, persons of AI. It’s a question of the responsible usage of us all and much more important for me is that it’s not that it’s also a question of a responsible coding and designing and I’m wondering if this could be evaluated in a process of self-regulation or if it it’s not necessary to have a kind of official institution to give a permission if such an AI technology should be come come into force or distributed to us all. So maybe I’m not familiar with the proposed bills and laws but maybe we can hear something about that. Is it the right way to self regulate it by the private sector these responsible technologies or do we have an maybe official institution to give a kind of certificate or permission to roll it out? Thanks.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks a lot for your question. It is quite clear that we have already a certain labeling institution and your question might refer to the use of the standardization process as a solution for a responsible AI which must follow the standards. The problem is that there is not a lot as we get the AI generative system of standards and the company must work on that issue very actively. Okay, there is another question I think. Thank you.

Audience:
I’m Tapani Tatvanen from Electronic Frontier Finland and it seems to me that we are already talking about the past. The AI systems are no longer the purview of big tech companies only. When you can run a large language model on your own laptop and the cat or let’s say the llama is already out of the bag in that respect. Basically everybody is not only AI actor in the sense that the UNESCO document but effectively will be developer as well. I predict this will happen in about two years. It will be easy to develop your own models without serious technical expertise. Everybody can be doing that and you cannot regulate everybody. It would be nice if all developers would be responsible as it were, but if everybody’s a developer, I can’t see how you can make everybody responsible. Maybe someone can. I’d be happy about that. I don’t see how that works. So think about the implications of people, all people, criminals, young people, anybody developing AI models for themselves to do whatever they want them to do. Not just using the existing things developed by someone we can regulate. So what can be regulated is the question. You can regulate commercial usage, official usage, the data perhaps that can be used, but the development, no, I don’t think you can. Thank you.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks a lot for your statement. I am afraid we have to go to the second part of our session and to give the floor to Fabio and Siva. Siva is present remotely and I have two questions. A recent OECD report on a large language model has clearly demonstrated in the poor performance of these two in many languages other than predominant language in AI system like English or Chinese. Notwithstanding and that notwithstanding the effort of certain states to establish big data in their own language, I mean for instance, the Finland has taken a certain number of measures to drop data repository in Finnish language. More important is the fact that the generative AI system are promoting cultural inference. How do you see solution to that discrimination denunciated by the UNESCO recommendation? A second question is also the fact that the use of most of the generative AI application contrary to the traditional internet service are based on a business model which requires payment for the proposed service. Once again, there is a risk to see a certain number of persons excluded from the benefits of this innovation according to an inclusive scenario. How do you see that risk and which solution are you envisaging to solve it? Siva, you have the floor.

Siva Prasad Rambhatia:
Thank you, thank you for the opportunity. I have benefited from listening to previous panelists presentations and all of the questions. Basically, when you see because UNESCO document really is aware of the kind of issues that we are discussing but at the same time, they are more of a generalistic kind of solutions that offers. And we all know how technology.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Siva, is it possible to increase the volume? It seems that there is.

Siva Prasad Rambhatia:
Yes, I’m audible now.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Is it okay for you? Please. Go for it.

Siva Prasad Rambhatia:
Is it okay?

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
I think.

Siva Prasad Rambhatia:
Is it okay?

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
It’s okay for me.

Siva Prasad Rambhatia:
Okay, okay. So what is important for us is generally any technology. Technology discriminates between those who are better off and those who are not better off. Those who are in terms of education, in terms of resources and I think will control would not control. control. This is one thing that we must remember. That’s where discrimination begins. And that is the big discrimination lies in that source itself. And that’s, in fact, what artificial intelligence has done is it has created new kinds of inequalities, new kinds of divides. That’s what we call digital divide, or in fact, the digital divides are, actually, they co-exist or they accelerate the existing socio-cultural and other kind of inequalities. And that’s where, when we are talking about the technologies, technologies by themselves are creation of the companies or individuals or anybody else. But then they have their motives, they have their kinds of ideas. And that doesn’t really affect, they may not be very concerned about the other inclusivity and other kinds of problems, because it’s a profit is more important for them. And this, in fact, has been established very widely by scholars. And in fact, what we find is the artificial intelligence has affected the societies in multiple ways. And it has also affected the societal relations. In fact, it has affected the socio-cultural ecosystems, whether it is through, you know, using fake news or other kinds of kinds of things or breaching the privacy or any, you have a number of things that are discussed already. And given this, we must also remember that, because these generative models are also a challenge for ethical issues. In fact, we need to focus. and ethical and well-being issues of artificial intelligence and the intergenerative AI, specifically reflecting on the marginal communities or the indigenous communities or those who are poor and illiterate, especially more from the global south. And in fact, this is where most of these generative models are general in a sense. In fact, as Stephan was talking about, the kind of layers, some of them are larger in terms of their applications, they are more in terms of homogenous in the kind of models. But when we are talking about societies, when they are plural societies, multicultural societies, multilingual societies, the problems are compounded. And even within that, the gender and other issues also become more problematic. So, which means that when we are talking about any kind of guidelines, any kind of restrictions or any kind of controls, one has to be sensitive to all these kinds of layers of hierarchies. And in fact, what we find is the generative models have, in fact, dispensed with to a larger extent, many sections of it. We don’t need the writers, somebody can replace them. And we also have the kind of issues, especially, let me not waste much of the time because of the paucity of the time, I will just touch upon that what the AI as well as generative models are doing is they are creating a kind of a disconnect between the humans and within the societies and also between humans and nature. So, what we need to do is basically, we must focus on more the local or regional specific approaches in generation. We must also try to, you know, use or develop a database from the local knowledges, traditional epistemologies, which are more usable for building better knowledge societies and for also finding solutions to the human problems that we have. This can be really a good contribution to humanity and also the nature in order to build a sustainable and equal society and that is what I would like to briefly touch upon. I can answer, elaborate your question, because the time is very short. Thank you.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks, Siva. Thanks. Thanks a lot. I like your expression, when Bill of Rights for every citizens, everybody in the world, but plural society and you come back to the idea developed by Stefan about localism. I think this is very, very important to hear that from you. Fabio, you have the floor. Thank you. Just a question. Is that possible to have 15 minutes more? I’m turning to the technicians. Is that possible to have 15 minutes more now? No. I think we will do this later. Is that okay? Okay. 10 minutes is okay.

Fabio Senne:
Okay. Thank you. I’ll try to be very brief and it’s very easy to speak after such a great contribution that we have. I’ll just highlight a few points from my perspective. I work in Brazil in CETIC.br, which is UNESCO Category 2 center and is also connected to the Brazilian multi-stakeholder internet governance model represented by NIC.br and CGI.br. And that’s producing research and data in the future. field, we need to say that we don’t know yet and we don’t have enough data on this issue, so there’s a need for more investigations in this area. But we do know some things that I think it’s important to understand in the possible risks and the possible influence of the scenario. First of course, the global digital inequality, such as the inequalities among countries and regions and how they access the internet and the digital technologies, how this can impact the quality of the training data that these models have, such as issues like languages, so how such part of the languages are not represented or well represented in these models. But also the inequalities within countries that also affects much the diversity of the data used, so in the case of Brazil we know that there are persistent patterns of inequalities, digital inequalities, connected to race and gender, rural versus urban population, income, level of education, age, and so on. So from the perspective of the diversity and inclusiveness of the process, I think digital inequality is something very important. But also from the perspective of the use of these tools, of this type of generative AI tools. So these also can be affected by or correlated with other aspects such as poverty and other vulnerabilities, so we know from other technologies and disruptive technologies that early adopters tend to benefit more when a new application is available, and the impacts tend to be more disruptive in the early phases of dissemination of the tool when a few can access and benefit from it. So from a perspective of fairness and non-discrimination, I think this is also important. And finally, I think also when we talk about digital inequalities, we are not talking about just access and use, but also about skills, what are the differences between the abilities have in terms of using this, so we know from the data we have in Brazil, we know that, for instance, when we research children use of the internet and their skills, we know that although operational and social skills are very widespread among this population, informational skills, the skills that are related to the critical understanding of content, for instance, is underdeveloped among the population that we interviewed in the case of Brazil. For instance, 43% of children 11 to 17 years old in the country agree that the first result from a survey online is the best result, 51% agree that every person find the same content when searching online, and 42% are unsure about their ability to check online information. So we are talking about, in this case, about children and the need for raising awareness in literacy and AI literacy throughout the educational systems is also an issue. So just to finish, I would like to call the attention for, of course, the need for data production and for research and to understand better this process, but from the data we have, we already know that we need to face digital inequality as a matter of having an AI that is more inclusive and human centered. So this is my perspective for

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
now, and thank you. Thanks a lot to Fabio for this very short but definitely very interesting remarks. I think you have given very concrete indicators about what happens and the inequalities we are facing with this new technology. So we might go now to the question and answer time. I don’t know if there are questions, and after that we will have a tour of the table. among the person, the panelists, in order to have from them, in one minute, a recommendation to address to the IGF about generative AI systems. So please, as we have the question and answer online, there is no questions. Perhaps Mr. Barbosa, no? No? Okay. So, I turn my hat, no? Okay, so we might go directly to the recommendation, and perhaps I will start with Siva. You have finished with a very strong recommendation, so perhaps you might repeat it, and so Noemi might write what you had exactly in mind. Siva, you have the floor, for one minute.

Siva Prasad Rambhatia:
Yeah, yes. My recommendation would be that when we are designing the AI generative models, we should concentrate more on the local and regional kind of issues, so that we can think in terms of multicultural aspects, and also inclusivity. Only then they will be able to participate, otherwise we will be excluding all sections of them, which are majority, they don’t form minority. Thank you.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks a lot for the recommendation. We are not presently in that sort of situation, because it is quite clear that if you want to create big data, you need a lot of data, you need definitely a very complex algorithmic system. You know that most of the large language model are using more than one billion of parameters, so how to develop all that, that’s very, very difficult.

Siva Prasad Rambhatia:
Can I add to it?

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Yeah.

Siva Prasad Rambhatia:
where I was suggesting that the local knowledge systems need to be documented, so that that can help in building this kind of models. Thank you.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Okay, thanks. Thanks, Losiva, for this precision. Function, have you a recommendation?

Changfeng Chen:
Yes, the discussion, the question were very interesting and inspired me to bring up a relative thinking, professionalism. I think a kind of a professionalism in artificial intelligence should be promoted. Professionalism is a set of standards and behaviors that individuals and organizations are expected to adhere to in the workplace. It involves demonstrating certain qualities and characteristics that contribute to the positive and effective work environment. Just as the justice to law and the fact to journalism, key aspects of professionalism include reliability, high standards, ethical behavior, respect, responsibility, teamwork, and so on. So for artificial intelligence, human needed to have a real professional conscience on the new technology, rather than regionalized values and regulations. Of course, we still needed to respect multicultural values, but at the same time, in the general technical field, we needed to have a general thinking. So I think AI journalism can, AI professionalism can have the effect of the regulation.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks, Frank. Mr. Beckley, have you certain ideas regarding recommendation?

Dawit Bekele:
Thank you. I agree with most of the things that have been said and in particular on the importance of having local responses to the question. I believe that generative AI shouldn’t be imposed on any society. Societies have to choose how they use it. But I see some challenges, particularly resources. Some countries don’t have the resources to deal with these kinds of problems. And also, you know, the knowledge. I think it’s important for organizations such as UNESCO to make sure that everyone is empowered. Everyone understands the issues and has the possibility, you know, to address the issues at the local level. And also, I think the big companies also have the responsibility to support, even financially, poorer countries so that they decide what they take from this important revolution. Thank you.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks a lot, David. And Stefan, perhaps?

Stefan Verhulst:
Yeah, sure. So very shortly, I think we need to pay more attention to the fundamental principle of garbage in, garbage out, as it relates to generative AI, which means that we actually have to focus on not just the model, but really on thinking about how do we actually create quality data and be more focused on the data side and then being focused on unlocking quality data, which means that the whole agenda of open data, open science, and quality statistics has actually got more, has become more important than ever. Because if we want to have qualitative generative AI, we actually need to have the infrastructure.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks. Fabio, you are the last one.

Fabio Senne:
Thank you. Just to highlight also the need for monitoring and evaluation, I think we have to foster both international frameworks. indicators from UNESCO, there is the OECD Observatory on AI, I think those tools can be very useful for nationally and internationally, create ways of fostering research, monitoring and understanding the impacts of those tools that

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
are already emerging. Thanks for you, I think it was a marvelous transition to you, Marielsa. Marielsa, thanks a lot for joining us. I know that it is very, very early in the morning and definitely thanks a lot for being with us. Marielsa, you are the director of the IFAP program, so perhaps a few words. You have heard the expectation of a certain number of persons from UNESCO, so perhaps you have the floor.

Marielza Oliveira:
Thank you very much, Yves, and hello everyone. I’m really pleased that I can join you, even if it’s only part of this very important Internet Governance Forum session on generative AI. Unfortunately, I had a previous commitment, but in my capacity as the Secretary of the UNESCO Information for All program, let me first warmly congratulate Yves and the IFAP Working Group on Information Ethics, which is the convener of this fascinating discussion on generative AI. This is a new technology which holds profound implications for our societies. It’s crucial that we examine the impacts that it has through the lens of both ethics and human rights. IFAP is an intergovernmental program that supports member states in fostering inclusive knowledge societies, and our mission is fostering universal access to information and knowledge for sustainable development. Information ethics is, of course, among our top priorities, and IFAP has recently endorsed a new strategic plan for the period for 2023-2029 that emphasizes the implications of digital technologies, including AI to our right to access to information. And one of the areas of work that we have is to build capacities for and convene reflections on ethical, legal, and human rights issues that arise out of frontier technologies. And this session, this marvelous session, is an example of the excellent contributions being made by the IFAP working group dedicated to this topic. And the application of frontier digital technologies that go from artificial intelligence, including generative AI, blockchain, internet of things, artificial reality, and new technology are profound over information ecosystems. And we need to really grapple with these implications. And so what IFAP does is support and encourage a series of actions. For example, we work on promoting research into these implications to the inclusive, equitable, and knowledge societies, raising awareness of the sustainable development opportunities that these technologies bring, but also, you know, of the risks and the mechanisms to address these risks, including the impact, for example, on privacy, on the environment, and so on and so forth. Following the endorsement of UNESCO’s 41st General Conference on the Recommendation of the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, which is the first global instrument on artificial intelligence, IFAP promotes the implementation of the recommendation and supports regional and international cooperation, research, exchange of good practices, and development of understanding and capabilities to respond to these ethical impacts over information ecosystems. IFAP also promotes applying evidence-based frameworks and a multi-stakeholder approach towards designing and governing artificial intelligence, and we certainly use the principles of the internet universality realm that Fabio just mentioned, which says that digital systems must be human rights-based, open, accessible, and multi-stakeholder governed. IFAP also serves as a platform for member states, academia, civil society, private sector, to share experiences and best practices that overcome digital divides and inequalities, including these different capacities to work with technologies such as generative AI. We assist institutions in ensuring that AI technologies are accessible and beneficial to everyone, including marginalized communities and groups such as women, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and so on. And we participate in global dialogues and forums across the globe that trigger discussions among all stakeholders to share the challenges, best practices, and the lessons learned on this technology. And this is why I’m calling upon all stakeholders that are here today to amplify the call for human-centric approaches to AI. Not only it’s a common collective effort that we need to shape a digital future that upholds shared values and build sustainability and equality across all knowledge societies. And for that, I want to congratulate again, the working group on information ethics and particularly Yves, which has been taking this critical conversation forward to a series of major global and regional workshops on this topic. And I hope that you can all join the next events and disseminate the outcomes of this discussion. So thank you very much for your insights and commitment to shaping a really more informed and ethical digital future that leaves no one behind. Back to you, Yves. Thank you.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks Marietje for this marvelous concluding remarks. That’s a pity we have to finish this workshop so early. I think we need more than one day for discussing all the topics we have mentioned today. But definitely, it would be a common collective effort to address all these issue and to find solution to all these issues. So I would like first to thank the technicians for their nice support. I think that’s very important. And thanks a lot for their comprehensiveness as we are the fact that we have 10 minutes more. I would like to thank the audience, the remote audience and definitely the person who have the courage to stay here. And definitely, I would like to thank very, very strongly the panelists for their nice input to the discussion. I see Marietje that you raised your hand, no. Okay. Oh no, that was an applause. Okay, so I think we need applause, definitively. Applause. Thank you.

Audience

Upon analysing the provided statements, it is evident that there are several concerns and inquiries raised by the speakers. These concerns are centred around various issues related to TikTok, platform APIs, engagement with overseas countries, fake news and disinformation, algorithm transparency, and online content moderation.

One of the main concerns is regarding TikTok’s censorship and user information “bubbling.” This refers to a situation where TikToks from certain countries, such as Russia and Ukraine, cannot be viewed by users in other countries, even with a direct link. Instead, videos from these links are replaced with unrelated content, such as videos of cats and dogs. This has triggered negative sentiment among users and raised concerns about the control over user information.

Additionally, there is an inquiry about the regulation of TikTok’s policy and mechanism for controlling viewer access. The speaker seeks clarity on how TikTok manages and controls viewer access to its platform. Although no supporting facts are provided, it reflects a neutral stance and highlights the need for understanding TikTok’s policy regulation.

Another concern raised relates to platform APIs and data access. The de-emphasis of CrowdTangle, restrictions on APIs, and expenses for research organizations are mentioned as supporting facts. These issues have generated negative sentiment among users who worry about the limitations and costs associated with platform APIs and data access.

Furthermore, the speakers express curiosity about engagement with overseas and partner countries. While one speaker mentions work done with these countries, no details are provided about the nature and extent of this engagement. Nonetheless, this topic is approached with a neutral sentiment, indicating an interest in learning more about the engagement process.

The increase in the manifestation of fake news and disinformation in Taiwan raises concerns. It is highlighted that private sector platform providers play a crucial role in enforcing regulations and dealing with such information. This negative sentiment reflects worries about the impact of fake news and disinformation on society.

The desire for algorithm transparency in content recommendation is another argument put forth. However, no supporting facts are mentioned regarding this issue. Despite this, the neutral sentiment reflects a general interest in making the content recommendation algorithm more transparent.

There is also a speaker who wants to understand how online content moderation systems work. While no supporting facts are provided, this neutral stance suggests a curiosity about the mechanisms and processes involved in content moderation on platforms like TikTok.

Lastly, there is an inquiry if it is possible to retrieve a post or video once it has been removed by the content moderation system. No additional information is provided on this topic, but the neutral sentiment implies a desire to explore the potential of content recovery.

In conclusion, the concerns and inquiries presented in the statements cover a wide range of topics, including TikTok’s user privacy and information control, policy regulation and control over viewer access, platform APIs and data access, engagement with overseas and partner countries, manifestation of fake news and disinformation, algorithm transparency, online content moderation systems, and content recovery. These matters highlight various aspects of platform management, user experience, and the impact of social media platforms on society. The analysis helps identify the speakers’ viewpoint and concerns while emphasising the need for further insights and information on these subjects.

Paula Gori

The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) is an independent consortium of organizations that focuses on fact-checking, academic research, and media literacy. Although funded by the European Commission, EDMO operates autonomously. It aims to combat misinformation by providing a platform where experts can collaborate on addressing this issue.

One of the main objectives of EDMO is to provide tools and evidence to counter disinformation. The organization establishes networks of fact-checkers who work together to identify false narratives and share information with one another. This collaborative approach allows for quicker and more efficient debunking of misleading information, especially when done within the first 24 hours.

In addition to combating disinformation, EDMO also focuses on mapping and evaluating media literacy initiatives. It strives to thoroughly understand the impact and effectiveness of these initiatives, ensuring that efforts to enhance media literacy are productive and fruitful.

An important consideration for EDMO is data accessibility. They have produced a code of conduct for accessing online platform data and are working towards creating an independent intermediary body that handles requests for such data. EDMO recognizes the necessity of granting access to platform data for research purposes while fully respecting GDPR regulations.

However, there are challenges in accessing platform data, particularly for researchers from smaller universities and countries with minority languages. Data access is more readily available to well-established universities, which amplifies the inequality in research opportunities between larger and smaller educational institutions.

Paula, in her stance, advocates for the accessibility of platform data, especially for researchers from smaller universities and countries with minority languages. She points out the difficulty faced by these institutions in accessing data and emphasizes the importance of ensuring equitable research opportunities. Paula also acknowledges the need for proper infrastructures to effectively handle and manage data, highlighting that data accessibility is not the only concern; having the necessary infrastructure is equally crucial.

In conclusion, EDMO plays a significant role in addressing misinformation by providing a collaborative platform for experts in fact-checking, research, and media literacy. Their efforts to combat disinformation, map media literacy initiatives, and promote data accessibility are commendable. However, challenges remain in terms of accessing platform data, particularly for researchers from smaller universities and minority language contexts. It is essential to address these challenges and create a level playing field for all researchers to contribute to the fight against misinformation.

Erik Lambert

The European Commission is currently engaged in the process of regulating artificial intelligence (AI) with a specific focus on preventing the manipulation of public opinion. These regulations aim to curb coordinated activities by foreign powers or specific groups seeking to influence public sentiment. It is important, however, that these regulations do not impede freedom of speech.

According to Erik Lambert, an expert in the field, the younger generation’s trust in social media platforms is shifting. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter, which have traditionally dominated the digital sphere, are experiencing a decline in trust. Instead, younger people are turning to platforms such as TikTok that offer more personal experiences. This shift underscores the need for social media platforms to adapt and address the concerns of their user base.

Furthermore, Lambert emphasizes the importance of understanding and evolving our approach to public opinion formation in the 21st century. The rise of digital platforms, social media, and the rapid dissemination of information have changed the way public opinion is shaped. It is essential to recognize and adapt to these changes in order to effectively engage with the public and address their needs and concerns.

In conclusion, the efforts of the European Commission to regulate AI and combat the manipulation of public opinion are commendable. However, it is crucial to strike the right balance between preserving freedom of speech and preventing coordinated activities that aim to deceive or manipulate the public. Additionally, social media platforms must adapt to the changing trends in trust among the younger generation. Finally, understanding and evolving our approach to public opinion formation is essential for effective engagement with the public in the 21st century.

Esteve Sanz

Esteve Sanz highlights the crucial role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in discussing critical issues related to disinformation and internet governance on a global scale. The attendance of the Vice President of the European Commission further emphasizes the importance placed on the forum and the seriousness with which disinformation is being addressed.

At the IGF, countries exchange ideas and concerns about disinformation, demonstrating collaborative efforts to combat its spread and the need for international cooperation. Esteve Sanz emphasizes that the IGF provides a substantial and concrete platform for these discussions.

One specific concern raised is the increasing influence of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in amplifying disinformation. Policymakers are urged to be alert and proactive in countering this issue. The affordability and ease with which generative AI can produce disinformation campaigns make it a significant threat. The European Commission is considering measures such as watermarking AI-generated content to tackle this challenge.

Esteve Sanz also emphasizes the importance of a clear definition of disinformation within the European Union (EU). It is argued that disinformation is an intentional action carried out by specific actors. This aligns with the EU’s human-centric approach to digital policies and underscores the need for accurate understanding and identification of disinformation to effectively combat it.

In conclusion, Esteve Sanz’s stance on the IGF underscores its critical role in addressing global disinformation and internet governance issues. The attendance of the Vice President of the European Commission and the exchange of concerns among countries highlight the significance placed on the forum. The threat posed by generative AI in amplifying disinformation calls for heightened alertness from policymakers. Moreover, a clear definition of disinformation is deemed essential within the EU, reflecting its human-centric approach to digital policies. These insights shed light on the international and regional efforts to combat disinformation and ensure the integrity of online information exchanges.

Stanislav Matejka

The European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) plays a vital role in enforcing and implementing the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, with a strong focus on effectiveness. ERGA’s members have the responsibility of not only enforcing European legislation but also their own national legislation, ensuring comprehensive media regulation.

ERGA is particularly focused on political advertising, establishing rules for advertising in general and paying particular attention to political advertising. Since the creation of the first code of practice in 2018, ERGA has consistently directed its efforts towards this issue. Their aim is to ensure fair and transparent political campaigns.

ERGA also places significant importance on election integrity and transparency. They have introduced a code of practice that includes transparency obligations and commitments to publish transparency reports. ERGA emphasizes the effective enforcement of platforms’ own policies and closely monitors this aspect. Transparency is key to protecting election integrity and ensuring accountability.

To combat misinformation on online platforms, ERGA supports the establishment of reporting mechanisms. They propose the creation of functional reporting mechanisms for regulators, researchers, and anyone else who wishes to report or flag instances of misinformation. This initiative aims to address the spread of false information and provide a platform for accountability.

Access to data is crucial for ERGA in promoting public scrutiny through independent research. They recognize the significance of data for the research community in informing the enforcement of regulatory frameworks. ERGA supports the idea that independent research should have access to relevant data, enabling a more informed analysis and evaluation of media services.

In summary, ERGA is dedicated to effectively implementing the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. Their focus on political advertising, transparency in elections, reporting mechanisms for misinformation, and access to data for independent research are essential aspects of their work. By addressing these areas, ERGA aims to ensure fair and transparent media services in Europe.

Giovanni Zagni

The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) has recently established a new task force with a specific focus on addressing disinformation during the 2024 European elections. This task force aims to build upon the success of a previous one that focused on tackling disinformation during the Ukraine war. Comprising 18 members from various sectors, the task force is committed to understanding the nature of disinformation and disseminating valuable insights to combat its harmful effects.

One of the key objectives of the task force is to review past electoral campaigns, analyze their outcomes, and identify the main risks associated with the upcoming European elections in 2024. Through this process, they seek to develop strategies and frameworks to counteract disinformation and safeguard the integrity of the electoral process. Additionally, the task force plans to disseminate best practices from the media and information literacy world. By sharing successful approaches, they hope to enhance media awareness and empower citizens to critically evaluate and navigate the information landscape.

Giovanni Zagni, a strong advocate for democracy and inclusivity, fully supports this initiative. He emphasizes the need for a democratic and inclusive approach in addressing disinformation, ensuring that the diverse issues faced by each country are properly represented. Zagni highlights the task force’s role in facilitating the exchange of best practices and experiences in combating disinformation, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of efforts to promote peace, justice, and strong democratic institutions.

In conclusion, the establishment of the new task force by EDMO represents a significant step in addressing disinformation during the 2024 European elections. Building on the success of the previous task force, they aim to develop comprehensive strategies to tackle disinformation, review past electoral campaigns, and disseminate best practices. With the support of individuals like Giovanni Zagni, the task force aims to foster a democratic and inclusive environment where diverse issues are adequately considered. Through these collective efforts, they hope to reinforce media literacy, combat disinformation, and uphold the integrity of the electoral process.

Caroline Greer

TikTok actively participates in the Code of Practice on Disinformation, taking a leading role in developing structural indicators. They, along with other platforms, recently published their second reports on tackling disinformation. As a signatory of the Code of Practice on Disinformation, TikTok co-chairs the election working group, demonstrating their dedication to addressing disinformation during elections.

TikTok advocates for a multi-stakeholder approach to combat disinformation, promoting partnerships with fact-checkers, civil society, and other actors. They are part of a larger ecosystem that encourages collaboration in combating disinformation.

To ensure the integrity of elections, TikTok has a comprehensive global election integrity program in place. They work with local experts for each election and provide authoritative information about the election on their platform. Additionally, TikTok collaborates with external partners to gather additional intelligence.

TikTok has a strict policy against political advertising, which they have upheld for several years. They restrict the activities of political parties and politicians during elections, including campaign funding.

TikTok runs media literacy campaigns to promote critical thinking and verification of information. They sometimes partner with fact-checkers to enhance the effectiveness of these campaigns.

TikTok applies community guidelines globally, which help create a safe and inclusive environment for users.

In response to the Ukraine-Russian situation, TikTok has implemented special measures to mitigate the spread of harmful content and support peace and justice.

TikTok offers features to enhance user experience, such as the ability to refresh the content feed for a broader range of content. They have also introduced a second recommender system as required by the Digital Services Act, which presents popular videos based on the user’s location.

The Digital Services Act (DSA) plays a crucial role in promoting transparency in online platforms, including TikTok. Platforms must provide a detailed explanation of their recommender systems and reasons for any action taken. Users have the right to appeal platform decisions, and transparency reports are published to provide insights into content moderation practices.

In summary, TikTok actively engages in combatting disinformation, ensuring election integrity, promoting media literacy, and enhancing user experience. They adhere to policies and regulations such as the Code of Practice on Disinformation and the Digital Services Act, upholding transparency and fostering trust. Through collaboration and effective measures, TikTok creates a safe and engaging platform.

Albin Birger

The European Union (EU) is taking comprehensive action to combat disinformation. This includes implementing measures in three key areas: legislation, external actions, and communication. The EU institutions, such as the Commission and the European External Action Service, reflect these actions through their institutional architecture. The Director-General (DG) of the European Commission, Albin Birger, represents DG Connect, which is responsible for legislation regarding disinformation.

The EU is strengthening its regulatory framework with the introduction of the Digital Services Act (DSA), which mandates that online platforms be accountable for content moderation, advertising, and algorithmic processes. The Commission has been granted extensive investigatory and supervisory powers under the DSA.

Furthermore, the Code of Practice on disinformation, a voluntary and industry-based measure, plays a significant role in combating disinformation. Established in 2018 and strengthened in 2022, the Code aims to reduce financial incentives for those spreading disinformation and empower users to better understand and report disinformation content.

The EU is particularly focused on addressing disinformation related to electoral processes. To tackle this issue, a specific working group has been established. This group aims to exchange information and develop actions that can be implemented during elections to effectively counter disinformation-related risks.

The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) also plays a crucial role in the EU’s fight against disinformation. This observatory supports the development of a multi-disciplinary community of independent fact-checkers and academic researchers. EDMO operates as a central system, with national or regional hubs covering the EU territory and population. Additionally, EDMO has a specific task force for elections that carries out risk assessments ahead of European elections.

The DSA adds an additional layer of accountability for large online platforms, introducing mechanisms to audit the data and information provided by these platforms. Failure to comply with DSA obligations may result in enforcement measures and fines based on a percentage of the platform’s global turnover.

While signing the code of practice is voluntary for online platforms, it serves as a tool to demonstrate their compliance with DSA obligations. Even if platforms choose not to sign, they can still align their actions with the expectations outlined in the code of practice.

In conclusion, the European Union is taking comprehensive action against disinformation through legislation, external actions, and communication. The implementation of the Digital Services Act and the Code of Practice on disinformation provides a framework for accountability and empowers individuals to combat disinformation. The EU’s focus on tackling disinformation related to electoral processes, along with the support of the European Digital Media Observatory, further strengthens its efforts in this area.

Giacomo Mazzone

This town hall meeting focused on the upcoming European election in 2024 and the measures being taken to secure the elections and minimize interference. Representatives from the European Commission, the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), the regulatory body ERGA, TikTok, and civil society were present.

The European Commission, as the main proponent of this initiative, discussed the broader framework of the election and the role of independent regulators. They emphasized the importance of securing the elections and minimizing interference while enabling voters to freely express their views.

EDMO, responsible for tackling disinformation, addressed concerns from other regions about the creation of a “minister of truth.” They clarified that involvement of independent regulators, like ERGA, ensures a multi-stakeholder approach and prevents any monopolization of truth.

A representative from civil society questioned the effectiveness of self-assessment reports from big tech companies in preventing social harm on digital platforms. They discussed additional measures and actions that need to be taken for better results.

TikTok’s representative highlighted the platform’s commitment to preventing harm and maintaining a safe environment during the elections. They emphasized the responsibility of platforms like TikTok to proactively address harmful content and uphold the integrity of the democratic process.

The issue of what happens if large platforms refuse to comply with the code of practice was also discussed. The European Commission representative addressed this concern and assured that remedial actions would be taken to prevent significant harm.

Research in the field was another topic raised in the meeting. The EDMO representative acknowledged the importance of research in understanding and addressing election security and disinformation.

The meeting briefly discussed concerns about European citizenship modules and their impact on the election process. The need to address these concerns and provide clarity was mentioned, though no specific solutions were discussed.

Overall, the meeting aimed to provide valuable insights into securing elections, minimizing interference, and combating disinformation during the European election in 2024. The multi-stakeholder approach, involving the European Commission, regulators, platforms like TikTok, and civil society, demonstrated a collective commitment to ensuring the integrity of the electoral process.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Yes, okay. So thank you everybody for being with us. Thanks to the people in Europe that are with us even if they wake up not long time ago. Thank you for being with us. So this is a town hall meeting that is dedicated to a very specific topic, regional topic let’s say, but that we hope could be a learning experience for other region of the world. As you know this is dedicated to the European election 2024 that will take place in June next year and to the measures that has been put in place by the European Union and other stakeholders in order to secure these elections and make a normal process with not so many interference but at least where the interference that will happen will be reduced at the minimum in terms of impact on the freedom of the voters in order to express their views and their opinions. To discuss about this complex topic we have many actors that are those working this complex machinery to try to ensure the security of the elections. We have two representatives of the European Commission because the European Commission is the main actor that promoted this initiative. One is with us here in the room in Kyoto, Esteve Sands, and another one is in Brussels, is Albin Birger if he’s German or Berger if he’s French, we don’t know, this is the beauty of Europe. And then we have the chair of the task force that European Union through EDMO has put in place to deal with the disinformation issues during the elections, Giovanni Zagni. We have Paola Gori in Florence that is the person behind EDMO, that is the European Digital Media Observatory, that is the body in charge from the European Union to put in place this task force. Then we have a representative of ERGA, because as I said this is a multilateral effort, multi-stakeholder effort, so the regulatory body plays a very important role, so we have Stanislas Matejka from Slovakia that is with us, will explain the role of the regulator in that. And of course, last but not least, we have two other important components, the industry, represented here by Caroline Greer from TikTok, welcome Caroline, and civil society represented by Eric Lambert in Rome. So all European panel, but very composed, very multi-stakeholder. I would start giving the floor to the initiator of the process, the European Commission, because this initiative is not a stand-alone initiative, but is part of a larger framework that has been mentioned, by the way, the other day from Commissioner Jourova that was here at the opening, and Esteve was with her, please Esteve.

Esteve Sanz:
Thank you so much, Giacomo, for inviting the European Commission to this event, I will give the floor very quickly to my colleague Albin, who is a real expert on this information for the Commission, I’m the head of Internet Governance in DigiConnect as well, from the point of view of Internet Governance, of course the IGF is a critical institution for us of the multi-stakeholder system, and when it comes to this information which is such a crucial development in these societies that we live in, what we have seen precisely these days is how good the IGF is a platform to discuss these critical issues, and this testifies of the health of the IGF, how the IGF is really ready to discuss all these critical issues in ways that are very concrete and very substantial, and you mentioned that our Vice President was indeed here, which also testifies of how important the IGF is for the European Commission, and she had the chance not only of participating in this high-level panel on this information, but also to exchange with the multi-stakeholder community, with all stakeholders, including governments, about this information, and I can tell you that there seems to be an agreement that this is a very strong concern in every country that we have the possibility to exchange with. There are similar, very clear campaigns, there’s information campaigns going on that potentially relate to electoral processes, and really the IGF I think that provided the VP a very good venue to take the polls of this global phenomenon, which is for sure not only European, and that it’s really impacting across the globe. I would maybe just remind a bit what one of the things that the VP said during this high-level session on this information before Albin comes to more concrete aspects on how the Commission is tackling the phenomenon. The VP put a lot of emphasis in the definition of this information. She said very clearly that all that we do in policymaking process in the EU on this information starts with a definition, which is basically that this information has to be intentional. It’s something that happens because some actors engage intentionally in a disinformation action or disinformation campaign. And what she said as well, it’s something that has also been part of the overall discussion in this IGF, which is that with generative AI, these intentional elements of disinformation are basically amplified. Amplified up to a point where producing disinformation campaigns is increasingly becoming extremely cheap. And with that phenomenon, the alert of policymakers on the issue should be just higher as it is in the EU. In the EU, and she was very clear about that, there is of course a human-centric approach to technologies and digital policies, and this also is involved into this process. On the one hand, she said we don’t give rights to AI. We don’t give free speech rights to AI. We don’t give copyright rights to AI. But at the same time, we do give tools and rights to citizens in relation to this phenomenon. And she emphasized how positive it is, the European Commission, in considering measures, including in the AI Act, of watermarking AI-generated content to basically help the users and the citizens identify when content has been produced by these technologies. So overall, it was a very powerful presence to have here at the VP. Of course, she could only engage in general messages about our policymaking process. I think that my colleague Albin will provide you more concrete aspects of the framework in which the Commission is operating these days on the disinformation landscape.

Giacomo Mazzone:
So Albin, you have been put on thespot. We are pending from your mouth. Thank you very much. Good morning. Ask me for the slides.

Albin Birger:
I’ve here the tool for advancing it. Okay. Thank you very much. Indeed. Pleasure to be with you. Thanks, Estef. Thank you, Giacomo, for the introduction and having me. Indeed, we could move to the presentation. I cannot see it right now here, but leave it up to you. As you said, Estef, the idea is to set the scene on how the EU is addressing disinformation. Basically, in very broad terms, the EU is taking action in three different fields. And these are essentially reflecting also the institutional architecture of the EU institutions. On the one side, you have the Commission, but also the European External Action Service. Three fields, legislation, external actions, and communication. Again, in broad terms, and due to the division of tasks by policy of the European Commission, each Director General, DG Connect, whom I represent today, takes care of a different field. When I mention legislation, and I’ll come back to that in the next slide, probably, in more details, but that can come in a moment. I’d like to just give you an overview of the other aspects briefly. Regulation, legislation, or co-regulation, when it comes to the code of practice on disinformation. Regulation being the Digital Services Act and the Digital Market Acts. But also, in broader terms, when it comes to funding projects, we are also supporting the European Digital Media Observatory, EDMO, and Paola will talk about that in a moment, I suppose. When it comes to the EAS, well, for many years, the EAS has been addressing and tackling foreign information manipulation and interference. So, that is basically how external actors may affect the discourse or the public opinion in the EU. A number of tools are set up, putting in touch either the European institution and its member states, but also wider stakeholders at international level to ensure or seek for a more systematic information exchange with those stakeholders, be it the G7, be it NATO, and in other forums. The EAS also has a very operational aspect or division, STRATCOM, which then looks into more details into data analysis and media monitoring to identify and expose actually cases originating in media or covert influence operation by external state or non-state actors. Finally, from the Commission side, which is a bit more internally oriented, but worse to mention, is obviously also to address or pre-bank possible narratives that are developing in various policy areas and to put in touch the various responsible DGs per policy area, be it climate change, migration, we seek or the DG communication seeks to establish communication channels and possibly also pre-bank or debunk narratives developing. On the next slide, I’ll get into more of the DG Connect part that I mentioned. The Digital Services Act adopted and enforced currently is the new EU regulation establishing standard for the accountability of online platforms regarding illegal content, disinformation, and other societal risks. Accountability on how they moderate content on advertising, on algorithmic processes, and so through this, very large online platforms and very large online services, sorry, search engines, have to address the risks that are related to disinformation and the Commission is equipped with wide-ranging investigatory and supervisory powers. Linked to that, but in a sense not at all regulation as such, is the Code of Practice, which is a self-regulatory and voluntary tool that is not totally new. It was established, developed in 2018, but revamped, strengthened in 2022, and it really is the industry attempt to establish commitments and measures at a granular level to address various aspects that are pertinent when one aims to address the disinformation phenomenon. Here I mentioned a few areas or chapters of the Code. Demonetization, of course, the aim would be to cut financial incentives for purveyors of disinformation, so signatories in that field would take commitments to avoid, for instance, the placement of advertising next to disinformation content on their services or also to avoid disseminating advertising that contains disinformation or links to disinformation sources. Fact-checking, access to data for researchers, these are also important fields. You would add user empowerment through tools and initiatives to understand and flag disinformation for the users, to better understand and identify disinformation content. One could also mention integrity of services, which is basically what was already mentioned a bit earlier by Estef. For instance, prevent manipulative behaviors on their services in the forms of deepfake or AI-generated content. The core regulatory aspect, if you want, of the Code of Practice is an important innovation and that links to the DSA in the sense that for certain signatories of the Code, the major online platforms, the Code of Practice aims to become a code of conduct under the DSA, basically a possible means for them to demonstrate that they comply with their obligation to mitigate risks. And finally, last but not least, pillar of our approach is indeed the EDMO, the European Digital Media Observatory. Through EU financing, we support the development of a cross-border, multidisciplinary community of independent fact-checkers and academic researchers. This is comprising, if you want, a central system, digital platforms, combined with national or regional hubs covering the EU territory and population. But I think I will leave also Paula to get into that more specifically. Last slide, if you may. Getting more into EU elections, this is of course an important, we have an important calendar ahead in the EU that you already mentioned. National elections culminating with European elections in spring, and as part of the Code of Practice, but more generally as part of the enforcement of the DSA as well, we are seeking to, an important part will be to focus on countering disinformation related risks in these periods on elections. When it comes to the Code of Practice, this has prompted the signatories to strengthen the exchanging and setting out of all the actions that they are expected to take during elections. So we established a specific working group to tie also to what has been said earlier on regarding generative AI being a challenge, including in that particular context. There will also be work carried out on that in particular with dedicated subgroups. So this basically illustrates a little bit again our approach to a multi-stakeholders involvement as everyone has responsibilities and tools and needs to take up the fight on disinformation. The same applies, if you want, with Edmo taskforce on election which has been set out to carry out a risk assessment ahead of the European election and foster the participation at a more expert level on those aspects. And being mindful of time, I think I will leave it here, but happy to take any questions during the discussion. Thank you very much.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you very much, Albin. Now Stanislav Matejka, that I said before is the regulator, representative of the regulator, and in particular is within ERGA with a specific task that is linked to the election process. So Stanislav, one question just to introduce you. The question is, my colleagues from other regions of the world hear when they hear about this initiative, they say, but this will mean to create a minister of truth. And I say no, because we have on board other stakeholders and we have the regulators, independent regulators that are the arbiters of this process. So if you can explain better what is your role, because this is a key question for the other regions of the world. Thank you.

Stanislav Matejka:
Thank you very much, Arko. And thank you, Albin, also for setting the scene here so that I don’t have to go into details that you already described. First of all, I should say that ERGA stands for the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services, which is an expert body, a European body that focuses on effective implementation. Specifically, the body was created to enforce and implement in the most effective way the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. So this is our core mission of the whole group. And the members of this group are charged to enforce both the European and their own national legislation when it comes to media regulation. For several decades, audiovisual media regulators have been focusing on broadcasting, which basically everybody means television and radio. But for the last decade, we also entered the field of digital media. The media regulators cover rules for advertising in general, and political advertising in particular is something very important on the agenda of the media regulators in Europe. And building on this, we have started to look at election integrity protection, and we put it high up on our agenda as well. And we have focused on this issue ever since the first code of practice that came to existence, as Albin mentioned, in 2018. And ERGA has been tasked by the European Commission at the time to monitor the initial code of practice and publish several reports. And we focused a lot on political advertising because there’s a lot of interest and a lot of expertise on the side of the regulators. So those of you interested in the role of regulators and the assessment of regulators of the initial code of practice, you can go ahead on the ERGA website and read all the findings that we have come together to. Now, since, as Albin mentioned, the code has been revamped in 2020, ERGA has taken a very active role in both providing expertise to the Commission in negotiations of the code of practice, and coming together with the industry and other stakeholders, fact-checkers and researchers, with a newly created task force under the code of practice in this information. And I feel that this is a very important step in actually making the multi-stakeholder approach to this a reality. So we are sitting around the table as regulators together with EDMO, with the European Commission, with the industry, and with the fact-checkers and researchers. And so you can see in this multi-stakeholder approach that there’s a lot of independent bodies, independents from the government, from the industry, like regulators, researchers, and fact-checkers, that have a say in how the code of practice, first of all, should look like in the first instance, and then how it should be understood, interpreted, and kind of implemented, not necessarily enforced, is its self-regulation, as Albin mentioned. So our approach to protection of integrity of elections, as ERGA, is, and this is my interpretation of the code of practice, is through transparency. So code of practice introduces transparency obligations, basically commitments, at least, to publish transparency reports on the measures taken by the platforms to protect elections or to fight misinformation and disinformation in general. One more area that we focus on a lot, I hope you can hear me, my video just froze. Yes, we can hear you. You are frozen, but we can hear you. I’m not sure why, let me just check. But I wanted to say, I wanted to talk a bit also about the upcoming regulation on targeting of political advertising, that this is upcoming, this is not yet enforced, it’s still in the legislative process, but ERGA is taking an active role in providing the expertise there as well. And so when it comes to the measures that, as ERGA, we would propose when it comes to protection against misinformation, and specifically in the context of elections, we very much focus and appreciate the focus on transparency and this new regulation, together with the code of practice, focuses on this aspect very much. For example, the regulation introduces obligations to publish transparency notices next to political advertising so that users and citizens in the EU can be informed that the advertising they’re seeing on online services is actually the political advertising. Other area or measure that we focus on is monitoring the effective enforcement of the platform’s own policies on something that is called, in certain areas, TTPs, which is tactics and techniques. So, manipulative behavior, coordinated inauthentic behavior, or contents, all of these areas are very well covered by most of the very large online platforms actually now in their terms of service, and our role within this whole context is to oversee and monitor how effective they are in enforcement of their own policies. Then what we’re proposing as a measure to protect elections against misinformation and manipulation is, we want to see functioning reporting mechanisms for regulators and researchers, or anybody actually, citizens, to report or flag to the platforms that there is a misinformation happening at the moment, and we want you to look at it and enforce your policies in place. This is relevant very much for regulators. Another, maybe it’s a bit technical but still very important issue is of course effective repositories of political advertising to be scrutinized then by the regulators and independent researchers as well. One very key area, and I think Paola will probably also touch upon this, is access to data. This also has a link to DSA, the Digital Services Act. Access to data is crucial for public scrutiny through independent research, and I think this is key for us as regulators as well to have the input from the research community to inform enforcement of the regulatory framework that we have in place. I will stop here and apologize for no camera. Apparently, I can’t connect the camera back. Sorry for that.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you, Stanislav. So, you’re denied to be the Minister of Truth in this case. Very much. If it’s not you, then probably it will be Paola that has to play this role. She’s now our next speaker. Can you hear me well? Yes, and we can see your slides. Super.

Paula Gori:
Thank you very much. Spoiler, I’m not the Minister of Truth, and I’ll tell you why. Hello, everybody. I’m Paola. I’m the Secretary General of EDMO, which was mentioned already by my colleagues in this panel. So, the European Digital Media Observatory. Why do we need this observatory? There is agreement, and it was also mentioned previously, that when it’s about this information, it’s about a multi-stakeholder and disciplinary approach. There is no one solution, single solution. There are many different approaches and solutions that together actually build, if you want, a macro solution. And let me just mention some key words that show how it is important to have this approach. Some of these concepts were already mentioned by the other colleagues. Think of human rights, research, AI, fact-checking, content moderation, media literacy. But I’m adding here also other stuff. For example, the role that is played by emotions in sharing this information, or the impact that actually visuals have compared to text. And the fact that, of course, we have to analyze the data. I mean, these are just a few key words to show you how many expertises we need. Because when I go back, for example, to emotions, I mean, I have a legal background. I cannot give you evidence of the role played by emotions, but neuroscientists can do. And the fact-checking organizations, and later on you will talk to Giovanni, they don’t work in silos. They work with other experts. And what they do actually, what they produce, is very important for citizens. It’s important for research and so on. So as you see, it’s many different fields and many different experts and many different expertises. So that’s basically behind EDMO. So the idea is that we have a platform, which is EDMO, which is funded by the European Commission. As it was previously said, it is acting completely independently. And the platform gathers the stakeholders and the expertises that I was mentioning previously. And when possible, actually provides also evidence and tools. So basically, think of a big platform, a big both, where all the experts come together and where tools are offered to those experts to work in the best way. These are the partners of EDMO. So we are a consortium of different organizations. And our main activity basically focuses on fact-checking, on academic research and on media literacy. How do we do that? We basically have secure collaborative platforms for this community. So this is a secure online place where they can gather, where they can share best practices, where they can work together. We do work on maps and repositories, for example, scientific articles, or we map the media literacy initiatives in the EU member states, so that basically the experts can have comparable data, for example, or can access evidence that is of their interest. We are working, and I get back to that, on a framework to access the data of the online platforms for research purposes. We have a training program. Actually, our trainings are all online and for free. On specific topics, on disinformation, we carry out policy analysis, we have specific task force, and so on. Let me now focus on the main activities. For fact-checking, here is just a couple of examples, but let me say that we have a network of fact-checkers that apply to join the network and respect a given number of criteria that we identify. And these fact-checkers, this network, is really something very precious, because, I mean, probably it looks like something very obvious, but when you have a network, you can really advance to the second, if you want, level, which is that, let me just mention, for example, it is actually still about the war in Ukraine. The moment the war started, the fact-checkers were united in sharing information, in sharing this information that they were detecting in their countries, and they were informing the other fact-checkers in the other countries. That helped us a lot. I have to say here, my colleagues from Pagela Politica are doing an incredible work in coordinating, so in gathering the disinformation narratives that are detected in the member states and in sharing it also with others. And considering that we know that fact-checking is most effective when it is done in the first 24 hours, the fact that you can count on a colleague in another member state saying, you know what, here in my country, today we discovered, I mean, we realized that there is this disinformation narrative, be prepared, it may arrive in your country as well, you can understand, actually, how important such a network is. Here you see, actually, our database that is regularly updated with this information, which is debunked by the fact-checkers in our network. And out of the work that they are doing, we also publish monthly briefs in which we basically recap the main disinformation narratives that were detected in a given month in the EU. On media literacy, for those who are familiar with media literacy, this is a very large field because it involves many different actors, it has different target audiences and so on. So here what we are trying to do is try to put some, if you want, some order, precisely because it is implemented by so many different actors and with different techniques and with different approaches. We started by mapping the main media literacy initiatives in the various countries and what we are working on a lot now is to, for example, work to understand how to assess the impact of a media literacy initiative. So not only a media literacy initiative that is implemented, trying to understand if actually it had an impact, so it was, if you want, useful for society. And then there is research and Stan already mentioned the importance of accessing data. For those who are less familiar, we are talking about data that the online platform has on the behaviours, not on the behaviours but on the users, that could actually be accessed for research purposes to understand, for example, various behaviours or trends or how basically this information spreads and is spread by whom and so on. So, of course, this needs to be done in full respect of GDPR and this is why Edmo had a working group that actually released a report that includes a code of conduct on the basis of which this access could be given. And what we are doing now, we are basically thinking on how we could structure, an independent intermediary body that would on one side vet the researchers that are asking the access to those data and on the other side of course ensure that this access is given and that everything is going as it should. This whole work is chaired by Dr Rebecca Trumbull and it is indeed something that when we also talk to international stakeholders is seen with very much interest because it looks like something that is quite new actually in the sector and we really hope that this is helpful, the work that we are doing especially considering that as it was saying by Albin, this is now something that is in digital services act, the fact that this access needs to be given. And then you see here for example the repository that I was mentioning previously on that includes scientific articles on this information. Here again it’s multidisciplinary so we have many different approaches to the topic. And then as I was mentioning the policy debate so EDMO of course as it is part of this whole European strategy to tackle this information we are also part of the task force within the code of practice together with ERGA for example. The aim of the task force is basically to make sure that the code of practice keeps being aligned with the developments and also to if you want to work on some implementation parts of the code and one of the main tasks within the code of practice for EDMO is actually to propose structural indicators. Structural indicators are indicators that help us understand if the code is having indeed an impact on the information ecosystem and in part or reducing or not this information. And then we also produce of course policy analysis. Here I mentioned some example. Last but not least and it was also mentioned, our hubs. So we are lucky enough to have hubs in all members covering all member states. These are either national or multinational and those are really the doers in the sense that they implement media literacy initiatives in their countries, they do their local research, they are in contact with the national regulatory authorities, they do local fact checking. So really we at more you as a platform gathers what they are doing and this is really what we think is the added value of such a platform because as we know this information has no borders but there are clearly local specificities related to this information, how it spreads, messages that are more impactful or not and so on. So having the possibility of having on the ground experts in all member states is really a plus for a platform like Edmo. And I think that I will now pass it over to Giovanni because as it was already mentioned we have established a task force in view of the European Parliament elections next year and Giovanni is the chair of this platform and will tell you more about that. Thank you very much.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you Paola.

Giovanni Zagni:
Thank you. Let me start by introducing a similar effort that was conducted in the context of the war in Ukraine and this effort was already mentioned by Paola before me. I’ll give a couple more details. On March 3rd, 2022 the European Digital Media Observatory, Edmo, established a task force on disinformation and the war in Ukraine. It was chaired by Dr. Claire Wartel and the task force included 18 members representing academia, journalism, media and civil society. The task force has met weekly for three months to discuss developments and trends in relation to disinformation in the context of the war in Ukraine and to design and steer different projects. Some of them were just mentioned before me. Considering the mission of Edmo, the work of the task force did not focus primarily on the security or foreign interfering aspects of disinformation related to the war but rather on understanding the phenomenon more generally, for example by focusing on the analysis of content that was circulating those weeks, by examining the role of public interest journalism and by researching efforts to build resilience across societies. The task force published three statements about urgent issues related to the war in Ukraine and those were about cyber security, foreign propaganda, disguised fact-checking and finally mental well-being on investigators as well as a final report that listed 10 recommendations for policy makers, technology companies, newsrooms and civil society based on the observations, the research activities and the discussions carried out in the previous three months. In addition, the task force facilitated the circulation of other content, for example monthly briefs on detected disinformation and specific cooperative investigations that were produced by the Edmo fact-checking network and were very much appreciated by many stakeholders including institutional ones. With the 2024 European elections approaching, Edmo has decided to replicate in some sense the experience and in January 2023 its executive board established a new task force, this time with a focus on the elections. The task force composition, and this is a partial difference from a previous one, reflects closely the network of national and regional Edmo hubs with one representative from each plus three members from the advisory council. The total number of components is again 18 and it reflects Edmo’s role as a multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholders platform to support and coordinate activities between relevant experts communities. Among the members there are representatives from the media, fact-checkers, academics, policy and media literacy experts. This task force is carrying out one line of activities focused on the past, one on the present and one on the future. About the past, we have been reviewing the electoral campaigns that took place in the past year around Europe, which were about a dozen, in order to understand the most relevant disinformation narratives at the national level and the dynamics of what happened then. We hope that these insights will be useful ahead of next year’s elections since the European elections can also be interpreted and in many countries are actually perceived as the sum of 27 different national ones. Secondly, about the present, the Edmo hubs representatives in the task force were asked to contribute with an overview of the main risks they see stemming from their own country or region in relation to the elections. The result of this ongoing exercise will be a preliminary risk assessment report to be published by the end of the year that will point out the main issue we can reasonably foresee ahead of the elections. But the European parliamentary elections are still eight months ahead after all, so a good deal of what the task force will be called to do is in the future. To better prepare, the Edmo fact-checking network is starting to collect information on the mise and disinformation trends regarding Europe, and at the same time, the task force is engaging in a challenging round of consultations with other stakeholders that are monitoring the elections in Europe, including institutions and civil society organizations. With this idea, it plans also to facilitate the dissemination of best practices and useful experiences from the media and information literacy world. The goal overall is to tackle the issue in a democratic and inclusive way, giving proper representation to the diversity of issues on the ground. For that, we will need the cooperation of the expert community, but also of technological platforms and civil society organizations. And this is a nice segue to who’s coming after me. Thank you.

Giacomo Mazzone:
So, we are still looking for the Minister of Truth, apparently we cannot find it. Eric, you represent civil society, and I see that you put some questions in the chat. But before to give the floor to you, I want to read one question that is in the chat from Kete Van, that says, new and upcoming EU regulation focus more on preventing potential social harm when it comes to digital platform, but still mostly depend on self-assessment report from big tech companies. Do you think that this approach will be effective? What could be more done in this direction? So, probably this is a question that is near to what you want to say.

Erik Lambert:
Yes, thank you. Giacomo, a word about Eurovisioni, Eurovisioni, which I’m representing. Eurovision is an association of Italian origin, European in scope, mostly interested in the idea of public service in the media, starting from television, but now looking at what the meaning of public service in the era of internet and social platforms. One question I have, which is regulation, because I’m listening with great interest to the presentation, is that, as I said at the beginning, the European Commission looking at the regulation is looking not at, especially in terms of artificial intelligence, not in limiting freedom of speech for individuals, but limiting coordinated activities from a foreign power or specific groups that try to influence and manipulate the public opinion. But we are confronted with a phenomenon that seems to be very strong among the younger generation, if you follow what’s the result of the Reuters Institute survey, is that younger generations don’t trust the social media platforms as we knew them, the old Twitter, for example, or Facebook, any more than the old media. They do trust much more the new forms like TikTok, which is based on personal experience, where it doesn’t seem at the moment any actor has been able to create, strictly speaking, coordinated and authentic activities. If this trend continues, many of the approaches there could be insufficient to form, how to say, waves of disinformation, waves of false narratives, if those narratives come from the direct perception of the users uploading those short recordings of their own life, of their own perception. So this is the problem of the necessary evolution of the view of how public opinion is formed. We are no longer in the 19th century, the 20th century, the 21st century seems to change the way the public opinion is formed.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you. Thank you very much. You put some of the questions on the table, but now let’s go to the last speaker of the session, that is Caroline Greer. You have been put on the spot by many. Everybody refused to take the role of Minister of Truth, so this means that I’m the platform, the Minister of Truth?

Caroline Greer:
Absolutely not. So I’m sorry, I’m not TikTok, so I’m not sure who to pass that one to after me, but no, no, of course we’re not the Ministry of Truth. But yeah, good afternoon everyone, good morning from Brussels, really sorry not to be in Kyoto. Really interesting discussion, maybe just a couple of words on the kind of the infrastructure and the environment that was described by institutional colleagues. So TikTok is a signatory of the Code of Practice on Disinformation. We’re a very active signatory. We’re actually co-chairing the election working group that was mentioned, and we took a leading role in the work on structural indicators. And we, well, all platforms published their reports, their second reports a couple of weeks ago. You will find them on the Transparency Central website, disinfo-code.eu. TikTok alone has more than 2,000 data points, 2,600 data points, many, many pages. So there’s a lot of meat there, and if anybody wants to deep delve into how we tackle disinformation and elections as part of that, that report is there for the reading. But all to say, we really appreciate this ecosystem, this infrastructural model that has developed around disinformation, because as was said, I think, by the first speaker, we really think that this is a multi-stakeholder effort. It’s a really dynamic, complex area to tackle, and certainly we have a big role as platforms, but we can’t do it alone. We need the support of fact-checkers, of civil society, of other actors within the ecosystem. So really important that we’re coming together under the auspices of the Code. I thought I would just say a few words about how we tackle elections as TikTok, since that’s the subject of the panel, and just to let you know what sort of happens at a grand level, as it were. TikTok has a global election integrity program, but we also add in a layer of local flavour to that. So we work with local experts for each election, because we really feel we need the expertise. While there is a template, if you like, of things that we do in each election, obviously each election comes with its own flavour, its own nuances, its political sensitivities, cultural sensitivities, etc. So that local approach is really important. Planning for any election begins many, many months in advance. We have an election calendar, obviously elections are happening globally, so we’re just working around the clock, basically, and always moving on to the next election. So we have the Polish ones coming up this weekend, we’ve just been through the Slovakian ones. So there’s always an election, and obviously next year is going to be a huge year. The EU elections, 27 countries all at once, UK, US elections, so it’s going to be a very busy year. So what do we do as TikTok? We have election policies, number one, we have our community guidelines, which set out the rules of TikTok, if you like, what you can post, what you can’t post, what is appropriate behaviour on the platform. The election policies are a subset of that, and for example, we don’t allow political advertising as TikTok, so that was a decision that we took some years ago, and we’ve stuck with that. We restrict the activity of political parties and politicians around elections, so campaign funding, for example, is something that we put the brakes on. The external partners that I mentioned are really important, so we work with third party organisations that might give us additional intelligence around threats or trends or narratives. We have our fact checkers, who are really important partners for us in this work, so we make sure that we’re fully staffed up and resourced with our fact checkers. We have authoritative information about the elections that we put on our platform, so for every election we have an election hub, which has information about how and where to vote, and we typically link to the national authority that has that authoritative information. We typically run a media literacy campaign, sometimes partnering with the fact checkers, and our trusted flaggers are really important as well. faceted approach, a local approach for elections and a cross-functional approach internally. We’ve more than 40,000 staff working on trust and safety within TikTok and a large part of them are also working on elections. So I’ll pause there, I know we’re getting close to time, so thank you very much.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you very much to you. So we are still looking for the Minister ofTruth. I would ask the room to be ready to raise questions and to take eventually the microphone that is on our back. I start with the question that is in the chat, that is quite direct and probably is for the EU representative. What happens if one of the large platforms refuses to follow the code of practice or even to sign it? Do you have remedies swift enough to prevent substantial harm to be done? Albin, I think that this is for you and there is not a name, not a name, but we can imagine who we are talking about.

Albin Birger:
But indeed the code of practice is a voluntary instrument. I mentioned the fact that under the DSA it may become a code of conduct which very much links then to the enforcement regime of the DSA, but even under the DSA the code of practice or adhering to a code of conduct for those very large online platforms will still remain a choice of theirs. Of course it is one mean for trying to demonstrate their compliance with their obligations under the DSA. If they choose not to sign to the code of practice slash code of conduct they will still be able to demonstrate that the actions they are taking are in the range of those expected or able to mitigate those risks. Of course then monitoring and transparency is key for the code and for the DSA. This is not an instant tool but the reporting is regular, the assessment is being done and the kind of exchanges that take place, these are on a regular basis within the code and so bringing together under the umbrella of the code task force a number of relevant actors is precisely the objective of making a decisive step towards possibly addressing emerging risks or discussing it. Again it is not about being a ministry of truth, we are not there to discuss what is true, what is false, but it’s all about bringing this information into a context. This might be a risk, how is it addressed and that’s possibly the role of the fact checkers who essentially provide context and try to make it understood that this might be a risky narrative evolving and then from there indeed if it has to be enforced under the DSA regime for some of the signatories the way to address it would be under the DSA enforcement tools which again provide for additional, the commission to ask for additional information and possibly open cases of investigation in more specifics about certain observed possible failure or concerns. And then to just mention a little bit or try to answer also a bit the second questions, of course this is self-reporting under the code, it’s also to a certain extent self-reporting under the DSA which is also, transparency is also very much under the DSA key objective. The DSA adds a layer to auditing the data and information provided by the very large platform search engine, so there you can also expect some additional tools to what is a legislation basically. Thank you very much. So this means that you have tools that could, under the DSA, the code of practice is something that is a voluntary subscription, so there are the limits of the code of practice, but DSA is mandatory, so especially for the seven platforms that are under observation from the European Commission, they have to respect a certain number of rules. If they don’t respect, they get a warning, and if the warning is not, doesn’t produce any effect, then you can enforce through what? Fines? Closing the platform to the European citizen? What are the tools that you can use? The teeth that you can use in this battle? In broad terms, indeed, there might be measures proposed or asked to be implemented by the platforms to address specific identified risks or concerns. In all eventuality, this could also lead to potential fines which represent, and there I would turn to Caroline maybe to know more about exactly the amount of what, but it’s a percentage of the global turnover of a platform, possibly 5%, but I would leave that to other informed colleagues of the panel. Okay, thank you very

Giacomo Mazzone:
much. We have a question from the room, so if we can give the mic to the person there.

Audience:
Can you hear me? Yeah, I see, okay. So we are actually talking, we are searching for Minister of the Truth here, I guess so, and my question will be posed directly to TikTok, because I know there is a mechanism of user bubbling in some kind of information bubble. So how it works? Basically, the situation is that if you are in Ukraine, you cannot view TikToks from Russia, and vice versa. If you are in Russia, you cannot view TikToks from Ukraine, even if you have a direct link, because if you follow the direct link, basically you will see some cats and dogs video instead of the real content which was posted by some different country user. So somebody can call it censorship, I’m not discussing that, because there are certain pros and cons in this mechanism regarding the context of Russian-Ukrainian relations, but there is still plenty of shadow Thank you. Can you please give us some light on that? in public about how this mechanism is being, and this policy is being regulated by TikTok.

Giacomo Mazzone:
So I guess this is a question for Caroline,

Audience:
but there is another question in the room, please. Yeah, hi, Dan Arnato from the National Democratic Institute. I’m curious, particularly from Edmo’s perspective, but maybe others on the panel, how you are thinking about approaching issues with platform APIs and data access. Generally, you’re seeing kind of de-emphasis of CrowdTangle, you’re seeing restrictions on APIs, X is becoming essentially unaffordable for ordinary research organizations. So I’m curious about that, and also if particularly Edmo has any engagement with accession countries or potentially future partner countries, because we do a lot of work with them and would be interested to hear if you have any coordination or programming there. Thank you. So the first is for Caroline,

Giacomo Mazzone:
the second is for Paul, I guess, unless somebody else wants to intervene. Please, Caroline.

Caroline Greer:
Yes, certainly. So for TikTok, the Bible, as it were, are our community guidelines which are applied globally. You’ll find those on our website. I will say that the Ukraine-Russian situation is quite unique. There’s a war going on, so we do have some measures there to ensure that we are protecting our users and making sure that the content is appropriate. But this is a very unique situation. So ordinarily, our community guidelines and our policies are what apply. You mentioned filter bubbles. We have a couple of mechanisms to try to push through that. So you can actually refresh your feed with TikTok. So you can just, if you feel you’re starting to see more and more of a particular type of content because the algorithm is seeing that you’re engaging with that content and delivering more, you can hit refresh and simply reset, if you like, almost start again. We’ve also introduced a second recommender system which was required under the DSA. And this is a recommender system that is a non-personalized feed. So it’s basically popular videos in your local area. So these are mechanisms where we try to push people away or at least nudge people away from, you know, if they’re falling into a bit of a rabbit hole with content. I hope that answers the question.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you. So, Paola, what you can answer to our request about research?

Paula Gori:
Yeah, that was a very good question because indeed when Idid my presentation, I focused on the personal data access, which is still if you want something, it is not happening yet and should happen soon. While on public data, indeed, the platforms, they have different approaches. And indeed, as you mentioned, unfortunately, there is one elephant in the room, which is charging quite a lot of researchers. And of course, this cuts all the research projects because, I mean, the research budget cannot afford that. Another issue there is the fact that we learned that they very often actually access is like even more easily to the big famous universities rather than to universities in smaller countries in minority languages and so on. So definitely we are aware about that. What we are doing is, of course, we are having regular meetings, I have to say, and we really appreciate the platforms as well, because we are doing trainings that are actually accessible online with the platforms we already started. And they explain to the researchers how to access their data, which are the requirements and so on, they show how it works and so on. We did it also with Meta with a new user, I think it’s user interface or something, product. So Edma has a good collaboration with the signatories of the code and in general with the platform. And this is something that we offer for the research community. Clearly, what is often said is that it’s not only about accessing the data, but also having the infrastructure to manage that. And this is also something that was an outcome of the task force that mentioned Giovanni earlier, that in the EU, we need to be like have the research community more equipped to be able also to really technically speaking to work then on this data and with this data. So what concretely and to sum up what Edma is doing, we are organizing activities with the researchers to gather their feedback to understand how it works. We are actually also working now on a map that basically on a table that recaps how you access the data of the various platforms. And then we ask our community if they had troubles or not in following that procedure. And then in parallel, of course, the work that I was saying on private data.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you, Paola. There is one more question in the room.

Audience:
Yes. I’m Chen from ISOC, Taiwan chapter. As everyone see, the information manipulation some situation is getting very worse in Taiwan right now. We’re facing more and more fake news and disinformation are happening on our online discourse environment. So I think the private sector, those platform service provider is a very key player in this kind of situation right now because they are the one who’s enforced this kind of regulation and deal with this information right now. I got two question. That is, first, is the way that can make the content recommendation algorithm more and more transparent so that we can know about what this kind of information or this short video is get on my own feed? And second one is, is there anything like the online content moderation system or the team are working? Is there any way that can reveal how this will work? What’s the process you are doing the online content moderation? And if there’s anything happened, like if my post or video got deleted, is there any way to get through, to get my thing or my post got deleted, like I can get it back? So that’s my question.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you. I think that mostly for Caroline, but I don’t know if even the Commission want to add

Caroline Greer:
something. Please, Caroline. So yeah, thanks for those very good questions. I will say the Digital Services Act is here to provide all the answers that you need. So on content moderation and questions that you might have on decisions that were taken on content, number one, you can number one, you can appeal any content decision. Platforms need to provide you under the DSA with a full statement of reasons, outlining what action we took, why we took it, the basis for taking it. And again, you can appeal that if you don’t like the information that you see. Not only that, but we need to send that statement of reasons to a European Commission database that is publicly available. So all that information is there. There must be millions of reports in that database about every single content moderation decision that was taken by a platform. It’s all open there. So information provision and the ability to appeal is in the DSA. Also at the end of October, we need to publish transparency reports, which will outline how we moderate content. So giving much more detail around that, including language capabilities, et cetera. So this is for the EU region, of course. But, you know, maybe other regions are inspired by this. So more information coming on that. Recommender system. Again, it was in the DSA. We were asked to provide more information around the parameters of the recommender system. So really explaining in a lot of detail how the recommender system works. TikTok has a European online safety hub. You can find that from our website. You’ll find the link. But we post all that information there. So we want to be as transparent as possible. There’s a lot of information that’s being made available under the DSA. We hope folks take the time to read it because, you know, I think the DSA has done a great job really in setting up the rules of transparency and facilitating these transparency efforts by platforms. So your suggestion to our speaker in the room is that he has to move to Europe to be more protected. Well, you know, that’s a question for, you know, Brussels effect. I think, you know, the influence that, you know, some EU regulation has on other global pieces of legislation is also an interesting topic. But yeah, the DSA in the first instance is, of course, EU and EEA.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Okay. He’s got getting to the modules for applying for European citizenship. Thank you to the speakers. We are very late. We are beyond the schedule. So unless any of you has some urgent thing that need to share with the world, this is the last occasion. If not, I would thank all the speakers and the people in the room, even if they were hiding far away from the camera so that you cannot see them, but you’ve seen at the mic. Thank you very much. And I hope that you have learned some interesting information through this session. Thank you.

Audience

The analysis explores various aspects of AI development and its relationship with compassion. It underscores the significance of engaging in philosophical discussions and ethical considerations during the AI development process. The speakers argue that such discussions are essential to ensure that AI development aligns with ethical principles and human values.

One crucial aspect is the need to establish the limits of AI and what is considered compassionate for AI to undertake. Concerns are raised about whether AI actions are enhancing our humanity or pushing us further away from it. The speakers propose that AI that promotes human development and preserves our humanity can be deemed more compassionate.

The ethical complexity of employing AI for genetic manipulation in healthcare is also a topic of discussion. The speakers delve into the question of whether it is ethical to modify the genetics of animals, like sheep, to cure human diseases such as cancer. They argue that this issue challenges us to consider the bounds of AI’s compassion within the healthcare context.

Child safety in the era of AI is a pressing concern, with speakers highlighting the capability of generative AI to produce materials related to child sexual abuse. They stress the importance of including children’s voices in AI development to ensure their protection and well-being. Additionally, the significance of strong guardianship to prevent exploitation and abuse of children is emphasized.

The analysis also touches upon the necessity for appropriate incentives for for-profit corporations. It suggests that regulations and incentives are essential to promote responsible consumption and production.

Furthermore, there is a call to redefine intelligence by recognizing compassion as a fundamental aspect of it. The speakers argue that authentic intelligence should encompass compassion as a crucial characteristic.

The possibility of sentient machines is another area of discussion. The speakers mention the perspectives of David and Ray Kurzweil, who suggest the potential for machines to achieve sentience. This raises questions about the future development and implications of AI.

Overall, the analysis highlights the multifaceted nature of AI development and its impact on compassion. It acknowledges the importance of philosophical discussions, ethical considerations, and the inclusion of diverse stakeholders in shaping the future development of AI. Additionally, it raises crucial concerns about child safety, ethical boundaries, and the need for responsible practices in AI development. The discussion concludes with an optimistic outlook on the future of compassion in AI.

Robert Kroplewski

The discussion surrounding the ethical considerations and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) highlights a significant gap between theoretical ethics and practical implementation. The utilitarianism approach, which prioritises the greatest overall benefit, remains prevalent in the deployment of AI despite ethical concerns.

In response to these concerns, several policy recommendations and acts have been proposed by various organisations. The OECD, UNESCO, and the European Union have all put forth guidelines, recommendations, and acts aiming to promote responsible and trustworthy AI. These efforts reflect a growing recognition of the need to address the ethical implications of AI.

Furthermore, there is a strong emphasis on ensuring that AI benefits both people and the planet. The OECD’s primary principle regarding AI is to ensure benefits for both humanity and the environment. To achieve this, there is a call to democratise AI, allowing the participation of all sectors, including small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and academics. This inclusive approach aims to avoid the concentration of AI power in a few dominant entities and to ensure that its benefits are widely distributed.

The development of AI is an ongoing process, and there is still much work to be done. It is believed that the Compassion AI approach can fill the remaining gaps in the ethical considerations of AI. Compassion AI refers to an approach that upholds human dignity, promotes well-being, avoids harm, and strives to benefit both people and the planet. This approach is seen as promising and necessary to address the multifaceted challenges of AI deployment.

Robert Kroplewski, in his advocacy for prioritising UNESCO ethical recommendations over the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) agenda, highlights the need to have a strong impact on how ethical recommendations are prioritised. He proposes a call for action to produce an AI Compassion Bridge Charter and engage in a network for the implementation of a compassionate approach to AI. His viewpoint stresses the importance of understanding and appreciating compassion as a guiding principle in AI development.

Overall, the discussions and arguments on AI ethics and deployment reveal the complexity and ongoing nature of the AI development process. It is essential to bridge the gap between ethical considerations and practical implementation to ensure that AI benefits both people and the planet. The Compassion AI approach and prioritisation of ethical recommendations over the SDG agenda are put forth as potential solutions to address these challenges.

Marc Buckley

The analysis highlights the role of technology in historical transformations. Throughout history, technology has played a pivotal role in shifting from one age to another. Examples such as the steam engine, printing press, and computer demonstrate how transformative technologies have shaped human history. The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and technology in the present era is seen as another transformational point in human history.

The argument put forward is that innovation is essential to guide humanity towards the right direction in this transformational period. The development of technology that can provide knowledge, wisdom, and training is necessary to avoid making significant errors. This argument acknowledges the importance of leveraging technological advancements to positively impact society.

Moving on to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), it is evident that they are a globally agreed-upon roadmap for the future. Proposed by 197 countries, the SDGs are seen as the first-ever global moonshot or earth shot. They aim to address pressing challenges and provide a plan for humanity’s protection and insurance. However, the analysis highlights that there is debate and controversy surrounding the SDGs due to a lack of collective intelligence. This points towards the need for better collaboration and cooperation on a global scale to effectively achieve the goals outlined in the SDGs.

The SDGs also represent a new economic model. They propose a budget of 90 Trillion US dollars by 2030, indicating substantial financial support and a clear path for achieving the targets. This economic model aligns with the goal of promoting decent work and economic growth (SDG 8) while also considering environmental sustainability.

Another argument raised is the importance of programming AI to uphold values of compassion and ethics. This notion suggests that AI should be capable of negotiating and resolving conflicts between AI systems or cultures, acting as intelligent beings rather than adding to divisions among humans. The positive impact of AI is emphasized when it is programmed to make wise decisions when confronted with situations that may harm life or humanity.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the potential of AI as a tool for positive change in transitioning from the Anthropocene to the Symbiocene. By instilling ethics and compassion in AI, there is a belief that a symbiotic relationship between all life beings on Earth can be achieved. Harnessing technology to make history and creating a harmonious coexistence between humans and AI is seen as a key pathway towards the Symbiocene.

In conclusion, technology has always played a significant role in historical transformations, and the emergence of AI and technology marks another pivotal point in human history. The Sustainable Development Goals provide a roadmap for the future but need greater collective intelligence to overcome challenges. The SDGs also introduce a new economic model with substantial financial support. AI can be a powerful tool for positive change when programmed with compassion and ethics, while also helping humanity transition to the Symbiocene. This analysis underscores the need for responsible and innovative approaches to harness the potential of technology for the betterment of society and the environment.

David Hanson

The discussions revolve around the multifaceted aspects of artificial intelligence (AI) and its potential implications. There is an overall positive sentiment towards AI, acknowledging its ability to potentially become sentient and its role in driving technological advancements.

One aspect of AI’s development highlighted in the discussions is the influence of the corporate sector. It is argued that advancements in AI technology are largely driven by corporations, which take risks and raise funds to propel AI technologies forward. This highlights the significant role that companies play in shaping the future of AI.

Compassion and appreciation for all life are emphasized as important values that should be integrated into AI development. It is highlighted that appreciation extends to life in all its diversity and the interdependence of humans on the web of life. Additionally, the concept of compassion is shared across many traditions, reinforcing the importance of incorporating these values into AI systems.

The broader picture of sustainable economics is brought into perspective, noting that corporate activities need to consider long-term implications for sustainable economic development. The discussions stress the need to look beyond the present and consider the economic impact on future generations. By taking a more holistic approach, corporations can contribute to sustainable and inclusive economic growth.

An interesting point raised in the discussions is the human ability to filter their sense of compassion. It is observed that humans possess the neural architecture of chimpanzees and can desensitize themselves to certain situations. This raises questions about the potential impact of this filtering ability on compassion and ethical decision-making.

Another noteworthy argument is the aim to enhance human caring through creations like AI robots. It is acknowledged that current AI models, like GPT-4, do not actually care. However, the aim is to develop AI that can assist and enhance human caring, potentially benefiting various domains such as healthcare and social services.

The need to democratise AI technologies and prioritise the greater good is emphasised. It is argued that technologies should be accessible to all and not be driven solely by the interests of a select few corporations or governments. The Global Artificial Intelligence Alliance (GAIA) is highlighted as an entity that aims to democratise AI access by encouraging collaboration and participation from individuals, corporations, governments, and NGOs.

Data is viewed as a commons, and the discussions advocate for individuals to have the ability to license in and benefit from their own data. Market dynamics and crowdsourcing are seen as potential mechanisms that can benefit a democracy of action. This approach is believed to empower individuals’ voices and provide access to valuable information.

Inclusive and transparent AI development is considered crucial. It is stressed that people from developing nations should be included in the development process, and leadership should involve individuals from indigenous communities and children. This reflects the importance of diverse perspectives in creating AI technologies that address the needs and aspirations of different populations.

Ethical considerations are highlighted throughout the discussions. Regulations are mentioned as a means to protect animal rights in research, and ethics review boards are acknowledged for weighing the costs and benefits of research involving animals. The use of technologies like simulations is proposed as a way to make smarter decisions without sacrificing ethics or causing animal suffering.

Notably, the discussions also recognise the potential for technologies to enhance human compassion. While specific evidence or arguments are not provided, this observation suggests that AI and related technologies have the potential to positively impact human emotions and empathy.

In conclusion, the discussions on AI and its implications focus on the need for inclusive and transparent development, incorporating compassion and appreciation for all life, sustainable economics, ethical considerations, and the democratization of AI technologies. The insights gained from these discussions highlight the potential benefits and challenges associated with AI, as well as the importance of considering diverse perspectives in its development.

Marko Grobelnik

Regulation of AI by international organisations began prior to the recent advancements in AI. However, the rapid development of AI, particularly with the emergence of Chat GPT, has caused confusion among regulators. This accelerated progress has posed challenges for policymakers as they try to keep up with new technologies and their potential implications.

The competition for market control in AI is intensifying, with Western companies such as Microsoft, AWS, Google, and Meta vying for dominance. This competition extends beyond companies and extends to a geopolitical level, with the United States, Europe, and China being the main players. The strategic positioning and control of AI technologies have become crucial in shaping global power dynamics.

To address the balance between the power of AI and public trust, an innovative approach suggests the establishment of a voluntary conduct between big tech companies and the government. This approach aims to ensure responsible and ethical use of AI, addressing concerns surrounding data privacy, bias, and algorithmic decision-making.

China is recognised as a rising power in the field of AI. While the country has made significant progress in AI development, it currently faces a challenge in terms of lacking the necessary hardware infrastructure.

The concept of developing compassionate AI is gaining traction. The current AI technology allows for AI systems to understand and mimic text to a certain degree, which opens avenues for the development of compassionate AI. Large language models like GPT-3 can reflect the knowledge fed into them and exhibit a form of “text understanding.” However, it is important to note that AI’s inferencing and reasoning capabilities are still limited.

Interestingly, proponents argue that elements like empathy, positive human values, and societal understanding can be ingrained into AI systems mathematically. By incorporating these elements and leveraging a reflective human knowledge base, AI has the potential to exhibit compassion, further expanding the horizons of AI applications.

Additionally, an additional layer of compassionate AI can be integrated into existing AI and IT systems to guide their decision-making. Some companies have already started implementing forms of compassionate AI by blocking negative queries, highlighting the potential for improving AI systems’ ethical decision-making.

The development of AI is currently dominated by a few big tech companies, giving them significant control over the direction and advancements in the field. This concentration of power raises important questions about accessibility, diversity, and fair competition.

Despite the existing limitations, there is optimism about the progress and future of AI. The past year has witnessed unexpected advancements in AI technology, pushing the boundaries and inspiring confidence in its continued growth and potential societal benefits.

In conclusion, the regulation of AI has a history preceding the recent AI progress, but it now faces challenges due to the accelerated development caused by technologies like Chat GPT. The competition for market control in AI is intensifying on a global scale. An innovative approach to strike a balance between AI power and public trust is advocated through voluntary conduct between big tech companies and governments. China is emerging as a major player in the field of AI, although it currently lacks necessary hardware. The concept of developing compassionate AI is gaining traction, with the potential to integrate empathy and positive human values into AI systems. The development of AI is currently concentrated in the hands of a few big tech companies. Despite limitations, optimism about the progress and future of AI persists due to witnessed advancements in recent times.

Edward Pyrek

During the discussion on artificial intelligence (AI) and its potential impact, the speakers focused on several key points. One area of importance was the concept of compassionate AI, which involves developing AI systems that possess empathy and understanding. The speakers argued that compassion should be considered a common thread across religions and cultures and can, therefore, serve as a foundation for the development of compassionate AI. They mentioned the creation of the Gaia Global Artificial Intelligence Alliance in 2020, which aims to concentrate on creating decentralised and compassionate AI. This alliance can potentially contribute to the development of AI systems that have a positive impact on society.

Another crucial aspect discussed was the need for collective action and interdisciplinary approaches in shaping the future of AI. The speakers stressed the significance of involving various fields, including technology, spirituality, psychology, arts, and more, to ensure a well-rounded approach toward AI-driven advancements. They highlighted the formation of the Virtual Florence group, consisting of experts from diverse disciplines, who work collaboratively to explore the potential of AI in creating a better future. The inclusion of AI in discussions regarding its future was highly emphasised.

The speakers also acknowledged the potential of AI in addressing global challenges such as climate change, combating illnesses, and reducing wars. However, they cautioned against the dangers posed by AI if it lacks ethics or compassion. The GPT-3 model, created by OpenAI, was referenced as an example of AI systems without ethics or compassion, which can potentially be dangerous. They mentioned Edward’s support for the AI Impact Summit in March 2024, which aims to address these challenges and encourage the development of AI with compassion and ethics.

Furthermore, the speakers emphasised the importance of asking the right questions when working with AI, suggesting that it may be more vital than seeking answers. By framing proper questions and exploring various possibilities, the speakers believed that AI can be utilised more effectively and ethically. They also argued that ethics and personal values should form the foundation of AI development, emphasising the need to prioritise these aspects when creating AI systems or any technology.

The potential of AI in understanding human nature and enhancing compassion was also a significant point of discussion. The speakers posited that AI can be leveraged to understand humans better, ultimately leading to the creation of “super compassion”. This understanding of human nature can contribute to various aspects of human well-being.

Overall, the speakers expressed both positive and negative sentiments about AI. While recognising its potential to address global challenges and enhance compassion, they also highlighted the risks that AI without ethics or compassion can bring. Through this discussion, it is evident that thoughtful and responsible development is crucial for ensuring the positive impact of AI on society.

One noteworthy observation from the discussion was the recognition that the future of AI is an arena where imagination is lacking. The speakers noted that imagining the future we want, with AI playing a beneficial role, is a challenge that needs to be overcome. This highlights the need for creative thinking and envisioning the possibilities of AI in a way that aligns with human values and aspirations.

In conclusion, the conversation on AI and its potential impact covered the importance of compassionate AI, the need for collective action and interdisciplinary approaches, the potential of AI in addressing global challenges, the significance of ethics and values in AI development, the value of asking the right questions, and the exploration of AI’s potential in understanding human nature better. By considering these insights, it becomes clear that responsible and ethical development of AI is vital for a future where AI can bring positive contributions to society.

Emma Ruttkamp-Bloem

Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology is advancing rapidly and has the potential to significantly impact human agency and autonomy. AI can process and analyze vast amounts of data in ways that exceed human capabilities, leading to both positive and negative outcomes for individuals and society as a whole. Therefore, it is essential to consider the ethical implications of AI and ensure that it benefits humanity.

The UNESCO recommendation on the ethics of AI is a significant development in this field. Its focus is on promoting technology that prioritizes humans and establishing a responsible framework for AI systems. The recommendation emphasizes the importance of global and intercultural dialogue in shaping ethical guidelines for AI. It aims to enable all stakeholders to share responsibility for the development and application of AI technology, aligning it with human values and societal well-being.

In November 2021, the recommendation was adopted by 193 member states, indicating a global consensus on the need for ethical guidelines in AI. This recognition highlights the importance of addressing the potential implications and consequences of AI technology on a global scale, particularly in relation to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) such as SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, and SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.

Moreover, the recommendation underscores the translation and actualization of ethical entitlements, such as the right to privacy, to promote positive liberty through AI ethics. This approach places positive obligations on all AI actors, including developers, policymakers, and users, to respect and protect individual rights and well-being. By prioritizing ethical considerations and facilitating meaningful interaction between technology and society, this approach aims to promote individual flourishing and maintain the integrity of technological processes.

In conclusion, the rapidly advancing AI technology requires a comprehensive and ethical approach to ensure its alignment with the well-being of humanity. The UNESCO recommendation on the ethics of AI is a significant milestone in the promotion of responsible AI systems. By prioritizing human-centered technology and fostering global dialogue, the recommendation aims to ensure that AI technology works to the benefit of humanity, while promoting positive liberties and preserving the integrity of technological processes.

Tom Eddington

The analysis explores the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on businesses and the environment, with a focus on several key points. It begins by mentioning Amazon’s recent $4 billion acquisition in the field of AI, which raises concerns about companies prioritizing commercialization over ethical considerations. This suggests that businesses may be driven solely by profit and neglect the potential negative consequences of AI.

However, an alternative viewpoint is presented, arguing that businesses should be guided by an AI charter to ensure ethical decision-making. This aligns with the principle that businesses need a clear framework to address the ethical challenges posed by AI. An example is the Earth Charter, created in the 1990s, which provides guidance for decision-making with regard to environmental concerns.

Another positive aspect highlighted in the analysis is the potential of AI to address the problem of resource overshoot. It is noted that on August 22nd, World Overshoot Day marks the point when the planet’s resources are used up faster than they can regenerate. The analysis suggests that AI offers the potential to manage resources more efficiently and mitigate this issue.

Moreover, the analysis emphasizes the need to manage ourselves and our ethics as generative AI rapidly evolves. Nicholas Robinson at Pace University warns that generative AI is advancing faster than our ability to adapt and cope. This serves as a reminder that ethical considerations and responsible management are crucial as AI progresses.

Regarding AI business models, the analysis argues that compassion and decentralization should be incorporated into their creation. It mentions that the effects of centralization and decentralization have been observed in the power generation sector. By incorporating compassion and decentralization, AI business models can ensure a more human-centric and sustainable approach.

Furthermore, the intentional design of AI is essential. The analysis states that AI should not be allowed to evolve without intentional design and emphasizes the importance of enabling it to exhibit compassion. This reinforces the need to consider ethical aspects during the development of AI technologies.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the necessity of ethical and responsible approaches to AI. It acknowledges the potential benefits of AI while emphasizing the importance of avoiding potential negative consequences and ensuring that AI is developed with intentional design and compassion. Additionally, it underscores the need for businesses to have clear guidance, such as an AI charter, to make ethical decisions in the rapidly evolving AI landscape.

Robert Kroplewski:
Okay, good morning. Welcome to the Town Hall, the special panel dedicated to impact the future under the challenge Compassion AI. Personally me, it’s Robert Koplewski, I’m a plenipotentiary of Minister of Digital Affairs in Poland, responsible for information society. I’m engaged in many international expert group designing the artificial intelligence approach to policy and some law and recommendations. I have a very special guest in our Town Hall. Some of them are in present here, some of online. With us here in the room, we have David Hanson, Hanson Robotics, so you know him probably from the robot Sophia. With me on the right side is a host of Gaia Foundation, what is a reason of our meeting today, Eddie Perek, a visionary and even a good time creator of approach to the Compassion AI. With me is my co-moderator, Damian Ciechorowski, and online, the chief, the president of the board, the Gaia Foundation, and online we have Tom Eddington from, yes, and we have a other guy, Mark Buckley, and also Marco Grubelnik from the Josef Stefan Institute. Online could be, but it could be also difficult to participate, Emma Rundkamp, professor from the University of Pretoria. We had her intervention by recording video, what we would like to present during our sessions. On the beginning, I would like to present as a first thoughts of overview worldwidely, some outputs. delivery of international engaging to produce some recommendations for artificial intelligence. But first of all, we need to say why we organized that meeting, that town hall. Words produce many papers to artificial intelligence, to recommendation, how to responsibly implement it, and how to define the best ethical approach to the artificial intelligence. But still, we have a competition run. It’s some asymmetry between the ethical approach, what was developed as a trustworthy artificial intelligence approach, to practical and deployment of artificial intelligence. We still, from the ethical point of view, are in the utilitarianism, what means we can exploit any resources and scale our business model. It’s the theory goes to the practice from the ethical perspective, but we’re still in the process. The landscape of policies and recommendation comes from the OECD policy recommendations, UNESCO ethics for artificial intelligence, also European Union with the guidelines for trustworthy artificial intelligence, and Artificial Intelligence Act, what probably will be the first binding instrument around the globe from the legal perspective, how to empower the ethics and the implementation of ethical dimensions to the artificial intelligence system and organizations. Next binding instrument will come from the Council of Europe, what is the first organization around the globe, what would like to promote the first treaty in the domain of human rights, democracy, rule of law, and artificial intelligence. But serious talk is still continuing. I mean, among the Transatlantic Technology Council and experts, when in that, the teams is discussing the topic of value chains, of course, microelectronics, and also the approach to the artificial intelligence trustworthy or responsible. This is very, very important. NATO is also engaged, but from the standardization point of view, how to share data, how to share the artificial intelligence algorithms among the members of the NATO. But we must say that the road from artificial intelligence, from the scientist perspective to today, it’s still not finished. We started a deal from HALES, anybody could do anything with artificial intelligence from the technical point of view. We got the trust as the main element of any recommendations, what was shifted and convergenced to the trustworthy artificial intelligence. But we still feel and know that some gap over that recommendations are like a compassion approach. And because of that, we invited the Gaia Foundation to say about this a bit more. And as experts and as policy makers, we get some difficulties how approaches to find to solve problems and to deal with benefits of artificial intelligence and how to manage the risk. And the stage started from the control perspective and supervisories, especially the human oversight, to the very good approach, which is something more than governing, stewardship. We’re still before the care approaches. And finally, maybe this is a good point now on IGF. IGF to talk about the compassion approach to artificial intelligence. And from that perspective, we would like to underline some values, what is in the loop of our discussion today, coming from the many papers what I would like to underline. And the main compass for solving any conflicts among values was produced by UNESCO recommendation. It’s a special triangle between the human individual dignity, well-being, and no harm. This is a compass for everything. We of course, as policymakers, started to deal with asymmetry of access to knowledge, computing power, experience and participation from the democratization point of view and from the informative point of view and educational point of view. But still, it’s a very beginning stage of flourishing the ecosystem, engaging the SMEs, engaging the scientists, engaging even the policymakers to build a solid ecosystem, not for only ones, for giants, but for everybody who would like to participate in producing benefits for planet and benefits for people. That conjunction is very important. That conjunction was developed in the OECD that we must see not only benefits of people, not only benefits of planet, but in that conjunction. That kind of approach is the main of the principle of OECD recommendation. And because of that, we try to look for how to find the new approaches, what could cover the gaps. The gaps is still oneness in diversity. This is the beginning base of developing the Compassion AI on my approach. And because of that, we have our guest today. And now I would like to give the mic to my co-host. Edip to present the roadmap. What is the Gaia Foundation? What was your work since some years today?

Edward Pyrek:
A few years ago, we understood very well with David Hansel and my friend Pion Traisch that we are on the crossroad. Every decision we take, it can change everything. I mean, just we didn’t have the time to make the mistakes, not only because of the climate changing, the war and pandemics, etc., but mainly because of the artificial intelligence. We already know that before we started creating the Internet, we didn’t ask ourselves how dangerous can be the Internet. And now we have time. We still have the time to decide how the future of AI will look like. First, we come to the conclusion with David and Piotr that we should create a global and ethical AI. At first, the question was ethics. What kind of ethics we can have? Polish ethics, Russian ethics, Chinese ethics, Buddhist ethics, Muslim ethics. The ethics depends on the culture and depends on the religion. But when we started to study different religions and different civilizations and different cultures, we understood that each of these religions, each of these philosophical systems have one thing in common. Without these things, we have no religion. It’s compassion. Without compassion, we have no Buddhists, no Muslims. Without the compassion, we didn’t have civilization and evolution. Because we evolved, because we know how to cooperate. Without the compassion, we have no evolution. And because of this, in 2020, yes, we created Gaia Global Artificial Intelligence Alliance. We decided to concentrate on the creating decentralized and base of the compassion AI. And in 2021, during the preparation for AIGF, we announced Gaia to the public. And we started talking about the compassion, about the things which we would like to achieve. One year later, in Warsaw, during the virtual Florence, the first meeting on virtual Florence, and now I’d like to explain what is the virtual Florence. Virtual Florence, it’s an international group of experts from different fields. We split them for four groups. First, business, but not only business, the politics and media. Second, technology, science, and the fourth one, spirituality. But spirituality not only meaning the spiritual teachers or religion leaders, but spirituality, it means psychology, it means arts, and it means spiritual teacher too. And why we do this? Because we are thinking that we couldn’t create AI of future just based of the IT guys. The AI of the future should be created by the people from different fields. Because AI, it is our future. It couldn’t be created by just one group of the people who decide in which direction we should go. Especially when you are looking at our civilization and religion, each civilization have mix of the amazing geniuses, amazing ideas. And during our first virtual Florence meeting, first of all, we develop a special tools for collective creativity. We collect these experts from different fields and give them the tools to create the idea in which direction we should go. First, we create the definition of the compassion because if you would like to create compassion AI, first we should know what is compassion. Second, we create a special IP. It is compassion AI models where we understood that if you would like to create AI of future, we should use the loop in which we have not only human and AI, but when we have the two very important things which always appear, especially this is what we understood our workshop that the biggest things which we are facing now it’s a. Fear, fear because we are afraid of AI. We are afraid of the future. And when we are afraid, we couldn’t do anything because the fear is stopping us. Then we understood that we should not only with compassion, but we should work with the fear of the humans too. Then this is our compassion AI models which help us, which we believe it’s help us later in future to teach AI compassion or compassionate. On the first, on the second, yes? If I can intervene, because that is interesting. Please. What I see in that model, you think is the proposition how to deal with fear and convert this on compassion, one approach, and how to deal with humans and to redesign the artificial intelligence system, be able finally to deal and to express the compassion experience. Exactly. Thank you very much, Robert, for your explanation. You do it better than me. During the second virtual Florence in Salzburg in March 2023, we tried to put our idea into the product. And after the one day or two days of workshop with this expert from different field, and we have physicists like Professor Krzysztof Meissner in the right hand of Roger Penderel, the best physicist in Poland. We have David Hanson, but a part of this amazing people we have with us, the Android with AI. And we have the Android with AI, because again, if we are talking about the future of AI, we should include AI into this conversation, into this work. And during the workshop, we come to the conclusion that all what we can do, we can create the tool where we can with the AI, but we can teach people compassion. Because we think if we will. would like to create a compassion world, compassion AI. First, we started thinking how we can be compassionate, how the human be compassionate. And yes. And now what I understood from our conversation offline, the output of that virtual forensic is a call for developers. Yeah, it’s a call for developers. It’s a competition. How to create an environment or a platform, a solution, which use gamification, the flow state, to teach in psychological safe way the things like positive behavior, how to take care about nature, how to teach the people about our arts and development. And it happened during the 2023, in March, during the conference in Salzburg. Our next step, it was Geneva AI Conference, AI for Good. But during this conference, we might have the kickoff, the meeting about Gaia Guardians. Gaia Guardians, it’s a platform. But during this kickoff, we had such amazing people like David Hanson, but Ben Gertzer, the creator of General Artificial Intelligence concept, and Stephanie Baraki, the creator of AI for Good in UN. And together with them, we started working on the platform or organization who will create decentralized AI in future. Our idea was to collect all people who would like to create this decentralized AI and going the same and show them the direction and going the same in the same direction. And now we are in Kyoto because we are here because we are here to present our idea to the policymakers and to remind them that if you would like to have the really big change, we couldn’t work only from the top to the bottom. we should work from the up to the bottom. It’s amazing that we can work on the law, on the regulation, but at the same time, we all, the AI guys, the spiritual teachers, the mothers, the fathers, the cook, we all should work together to create this AI of a future. What I understand from this, you try to propose that talking about the law, recommendation, policymaking, principles, it’s the one thing, but we need some very concrete product, some special technical environment as a sample. Yes, of course, because it’s not enough to talking. I mean, just sorry, but quite often I am using the words intellectual masturbation, but this is the things which I have too often I witnessed during all kinds of the conference. We have amazing conversations. Everybody thinks that I am the best, we know how to save the world, and everything is ending after the conference. We need to product, we need to call to action, we need to have the impact, and this is why another milestone, it will be this March 2024 in Salzburg, we are making AI Impact Summit, that we would like to attract all guys, all people who are working with AI and with the impact, and show them that we are not creating AI for fun, to watching porn and watching cats, and have better cars. We are creating AI to save us. We are creating AI because we need AI. AI, it’s going to be the most dangerous things in the world. It’s going to be the tools for massive destruction, and it’s going to be the only one hope for us. Without AI, we couldn’t. With AI, I deeply believe we can solve the problem. problem of climate change, with the sicknesses, with illness, with the war, et cetera, et cetera. But only in the situation when this AI will be decentralized and will be based on the compassion. When we are thinking about sustainability goals, only 16% of our dreams happen now. Why? Because we have no compassion. If we have the compassion, we will not kill the nature. If we have the compassion, there will be no war. This is why we need compassion. We need AI with the compassion because we need AI who will show us our blind spot, who will teach us more about our humanity, who will teach us more about arts, about consciousness even, about emotion. And this is why I need compassion AI, to teach us, to be our partner. Thank you, Adi. What I get it, even underlying the risks,

Robert Kroplewski:
you believe that AI could be beneficial from the compassion point of view? Yes.

Edward Pyrek:
Without the ethics, without the compassion, it can be dangerous. We are screwed. Thank you. Thank you for that.

Robert Kroplewski:
Now we would like to ask my colleague, co-moderator Damian, to play the video from the Emma Ruttkamp, professor from the Pretoria University. She was one of our co-designers, the ethical recommendation came from the UNESCO.

Edward Pyrek:
Please, Damian, make our plane. It’s coming. Yeah. Thank you very much for having me and for the event. I’m very sorry that I can’t join you in person.

Emma Ruttkamp-Bloem:
And not only that, I can’t even join you for questions. Unfortunately, technology is not that far above. If one could join the Zoom meeting from the other side. One more time. But please. We have some technical issue. Give our some seconds. Use Poczonko. Not only that, I can’t even join you for questions. Unfortunately, technology is not that far above if one could join a Zoom meeting from an airplane. But please connect with me on this talk if you have any questions or you just want to have further discussions. The title of my talk is a Global Compassionate AI Ethics, and I’m going to tell you what I think that could be in the context of the UNESCO recommendation on the ethics of AI. So I want to first reflect a little bit with you on why is AI technology important? Where does all this agitation come from? So this is a technology that is advancing at high speed, and it is a technology that to various degrees and in various ways threaten human agency and autonomy. We want human-centered technology that in various degrees keep humans on the loop. Secondly, it’s a technology that can leverage massive amounts of complex data in ways that humans can’t do. This part of the reason of developing the technology, of course, but it also brings, of course, certain concerns. Thirdly, it impacts humans in all facets of their lives. More far removed ones in terms of legal issues of accountability and responsibility maybe, but very intimate ones also in terms of inclusivity and non-discrimination, in terms of the right not to be manipulated, the right to mental integrity, and so on. But also this technology is so fascinating because it has an immense powerful good, and on the flip side, it has an immense powerful harm. So what we have to figure out is how to maximize the powerful good and minimize the powerful harm. So against this background, I want to talk to you about the Global Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, because for these reasons, and also based on a report from the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology, the UNESCO General Assembly in its 40th session asked UNESCO to elaborate a global instrument on the ethics of AI. This work took from April 2020, smack in the middle of lockdown, until November 2021 when 193 member states adopted the recommendation. Just shortly again why, from a slightly different perspective, why do we need this recommendation? AI technology is spreading harm to individuals in such deep layers of their lives that ultimately the harm will be to humanity as a whole. There’s the complexity of the ethical issues that it brings that I’ve already spoken about, and then realizing sustainable AI development requires international cooperation because the companies that develop this technology are transnational companies, so we need global cooperation in terms of ensuring responsible governance of these technologies. Also, widening the inequality gap in the end will backfire on everyone. Think of Africa, the African continent, which is the continent with the lowest median age. If Africa is left behind again, it will impact on the whole world in various ways. Then, of course, what is the value of the recommendation? And this is very, very important to understand and or to realize. It will lead to cooperation and shared responsibility of multiple stakeholders across various levels and sectors of international, regional, and national communities. So now, if we just take a second to think about the aims and objectives, now obviously this recommendation aims to provide a basis to make our systems work for the good of humanity, to bring a globally accepted normative instrument with a strong emphasis on inclusion issues of gender equality and protection of the environment and ecosystem. So it’s about the good of humanity, but it’s also about the good of the environment. and ecosystems, and there is this focus on inclusion issues, specifically in terms of gender. So on the whole, the recommendation aims then to enable stakeholders to take shared responsibility based on a global and intercultural dialogue. So, and here is the first glimpse of the Compassion AI. The values that we identified in the final version of the recommendation that Member States identified for the final version, respect, protection, and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms and human dignity, environment and ecosystem flourishing, ensuring diversity and inclusiveness, living in peaceful, just, and interconnected societies. The principles, we have quite a lot, well-known ones like safety and security, like fairness and non-discrimination, the right to privacy, human oversight and determination, transparency, explainability, responsibility and accountability. But we also have a new one, proportionality and do no harm, which is basically about situating a risk-based approach in the core of the recommendation. And also, we have sustainability as a principle, we usually, if mentioned, it’s a value. And this is to, in a sense, concretize the value of environment and ecosystem protection, because while this technology can really help to reach the SDGs, it can only do that if we understand that there is a continuum of factors that impact on whether, on the level of realizing these goals in various regions of the world. And then we have the multi-stakeholder and adaptive governance and collaboration, and we have awareness and literacy as our last principle, because civil society is an AI ethicist’s biggest friend. But we did not stop with values and principles, we wanted to figure out how… to focus on the how and not just on the what. So we had to find a way in which to make the recommendation concrete enough to make an impact, firm but also at the same time open enough to ensure adherence, supple enough to have validity in the future, which is a really tall order, as you all know, and then somehow to ensure that the actions, the sum of the actions will achieve trustworthiness of this technology. In order to do this, we identified 11 areas of policy action and we gave detailed actions in each area of policy action and so that member states have some guidance on how to concretize the values and principles. This recommendation also has a very robust section on evaluation and monitoring because UNESCO is completely committed in supporting member states in the implementation of this recommendation and UNESCO has already developed a methodology for ethical impact assessment. Important methodology that takes into account that member states will be at different stages of readiness to implement the recommendation and there are various other ways in which UNESCO is willing to support member states. But now having given the background of the recommendation, let’s take a few seconds to just move now into the compassion AI. What could this possibly be? Now I want you to just honestly just take a second to reflect on the answer that you would have for each of these questions. Who are you? What would be the main quality that you would use to describe yourself to other people? What determines the nature of your thoughts and actions? What determines your agency or your autonomy? What link is there between your autonomy and your moral responsibilities? And what does respect for your autonomy require from other moral agents? So on the basis of those questions, I want to tell you about my notion of positive AI ethics. I do this by just quickly introducing you of an approach in philosophy when we consider issues of the meaning of life and we think about how to achieve a life of well-being. Philosophers such as Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum came up in this context with the capability approach. In terms of this approach, capabilities are political entitlements that impose duties on governments to enable its citizens or their citizens to realize lives of well-being. Now, in the context of AI, if we ask what kind of entitlements will allow humans, positive liberty and capabilities, so not maybe political entitlements, what kind of titles would do this, but what is positive liberty? Esai Berlin made distinction between negative and positive liberty. Negative liberty is simply the absence of obstacles to realize one’s freedom. Positive liberty is more interesting because it is about doing something with this liberty, doing something so that you actualize the liberty that you have to live a life of well-being, to take control of your life. This thing moves into the notion of capabilities that is about what you need to achieve a life of well-being, not having the ideal only of a life of well-being. I think obviously that the entitlements that we need are ethical entitlements. In the AI ethics context, these entitlements place positive duties on all AI actors. What are positive duties? This is also an old philosophical concept, the distinction between negative and positive duties. Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant wrote on this, but more recently, Leitner and others wrote on this in the context of AI ethics. Negative duties is simply do no harm. Positive duties, again, is the more interesting one because it is about protecting the vulnerable such that no harm is done onto them. It is about doing something with the fact that you have a duty placed upon you. In this way, context, AI ethics would enable humans to flourish, would enable meaningful technology society interplay, which is really important, and would maintain the integrity of technological processes and not stop innovation as something. So the compassionate argument for AI ethics is then AI innovation for the good of humanity relies on the actualization of certain ethical values and principles as ethical entitlements or capabilities in terms of positive actions as duties that will actively prevent harm and support human agency and autonomy. And I forgot to say on the previous slide, these duties are duties that all AI actors share and AI actors incorporate the researchers, the designers, the developers, the deployers, the users. And so obviously governments are also included here. So AI ethics in this sense, to give you an example, translates and actualize ethical entitlements such as the right to privacy, to realize positive liberty, to for instance then decide whether or not to sign a consent letter, in terms of positive actions for AI actors, for instance ensuring responsible third party sharing, access to own data, and so on. So to end off a bit of philosophical reflection, and again thinking about the whole aim of compassionate AI, why does it matter to reflect on what it is to be human in the area of AI? Why does it matter? Why are we doing this? It ensures that AI ethics becomes actionable and positive. It establishes ethics as a human technology mediator, not an add-on, not a top-down, but presents ethics in fact as a dynamic mechanism for translating abstract principles into positive duties and actions for AI actors to achieve a life of well-being for all. So it affirms ethics as a compass and enabler of human flourishing and trustworthy. sustainable technology

Robert Kroplewski:
Thank you Emma very much for your insight of working work of compassion and be open for redefining that all puts of UNESCO for new approach and to Find some solution to cover the gaps what I got it from your Presentation what I like super much. It’s a positive labor liberty Some new dimension Positive actors we needed that is a very good. What was underlined but on the on the beginning still we need to work with the approach of intercultural exchanging any values any assets any possibilities and That with that thoughts. I would like to give the mic to David Hanson Designer and the founder of Hanson robotics known Sofia robots David if the high-tech industry Is able to adopt that kind of idea thoughts? And to do something positive and be positive actors finally If you could share with us some some thoughts

David Hanson:
Thank you Thank you excellent discussion on some very important issues of how AI can impact human lives, so AI is a tool and In a way it is a portal to access our Own information in some regards, so it’s a bio inspired technology inspired loosely by the way spiking neurons work in nervous systems, and it then accesses human data to find hidden patterns in human data. There are some very interesting implications that these technologies could, by being bio-inspired enough, systemically they could become living beings that we have to then consider as potentially sentient, autonomous beings deserving respect. But this is science fiction today. We don’t have deep sentience in machines. There might be glimmers of life because these are bio-inspired technologies, inspired by our fundamental information that we’re gleaning from biology, and you see these feedback loops where the technologies are then enabling the discovery of new aspects of intelligence. We are representing this in computational biology and computational neuroscience, and then those are informing new architectures in artificial intelligence. And so behind the scenes, these technologies are advancing very quickly, and that is moving most rapidly in the corporate sector. So we’re seeing corporations taking the risks and raising the money to propel these technologies forward in ways that are very helpful to us, that are transformative, that enable new discoveries. So let me give you some examples. AlphaFold, from DeepMind, has applied artificial intelligence to unlock proteomes, the functioning molecular are components that build everything that lives. And so you go from the genome to the proteome, and the proteome builds everything else. And that’s us. So AlphaFold discovered the human proteins, or gave us tremendous clues about all the human proteins, and now all the proteins in nature. And then they released this open source, and it’s facilitating, really, a revolution in biosciences. So then from the corporate sector to the public sector, you’re seeing this transformative cascade of the technologies. Of course, a lot of these ideas came from academia, came from esoteric 50, 60 years of research and information sciences that did give us things like computing. Some of the thinkers like Turing and von Neumann were also considering the impact of artificial intelligence. So a lot of the thinkers in the world that gave us the computing revolution and the internet, all these information technologies, were thinking about thinking machines, and laid the foundations that only became so obvious to lawmakers and the public within the last few years. Well, it started much earlier than that. So this dynamic interplay between policy, academia, the thinkers of the world, and the corporate sector has been at play. And so the question is, how can we take these forces and factors and make them better for the greater good? And I think about compassion. Compassion, for me, to distill it down to a simple definition, to give my definition to the many definitions that people are providing, for me, compassion is the appreciation of. life. It’s that simple. To appreciate life. Life in all its diversity. Life as a as a whole sustainable ecosystem. Life that was in the past, the history of life, the natural history of life. Life as it is today, as dynamic systems that we may not understand. We do not understand much of how life works. Even human biology we don’t understand a lot of aspects of human cognition. So it’s not just appreciating the things we know but also appreciating the fact that there are many things we don’t know. It’s also appreciating the diversity of human life in all its form and the interdependence of humans on the web of life. And so with this concept of compassion I see reflections in many of the traditions of compassion. And one tradition or I would say insight into compassion that relates to artificial intelligence was from a science fiction writer named Philip K. Dick who wrote an essay called The Android and the Human. And he said the difference between, and this was in the early 1970s, the difference between humans and machines is compassion. It’s that simple. And that he went on to say that a machine that could express more compassion than a human in effect would be more human than a human who lacks compassion. And humans are amazing with our neuroplasticity, our ability to adapt, and we are in effect defined by that. The difference between humans today and humans 50,000 years ago is the technology of our language more than anything probably, the technology of our ideas that are built, and that the conveyance of those through the machines that we build build, and in fact, externalize this. But our minds continue to evolve. And this idea of compassion, then, expressed through the technologies that we make in our corporations, in our schools, but we get out through some sustainable economic factors. Because there’s not just the economics of the ecosystem. Certainly, energy exchange is a kind of economy in the ecosystems. But we have to make things that give people jobs, and make money, and keep things from collapsing. There has to be economic sustainability. And so the corporate sector can facilitate this in a way, but we have to look at the bigger picture. Because it’s bad economics if we’re only serving next quarter profits for publicly traded companies. We have to look at the economics of 100 years, of 1,000 years. We have to look at the economics of our children. So the only way that corporate activities make sense is in this larger picture, this web of compassion. And so humans will desensitize ourselves. One of the approaches, unfortunately, is that we can filter our sense of compassion in order to achieve something that we want. And this is a problem. We see it. We’re evolved this way. We have the neural architecture of chimpanzees, basically. We are the third chimpanzee, as Jared Diamond says. And so we have to use these technologies to help us to actualize. There will be so much more profit for all of life if we can do this, if we can achieve this ethics of greater appreciation of life, of life’s potential, appreciation for not just the way that life has been and is today, but could be in the future. Creating robots has been my aim, but in the goal of creating AI that can enhance human caring, can help us to awaken to caring, and then may eventually be capable of caring. Right now, GPT algorithms and models that are created, anything like CLAW, GPT-4, et cetera. I think there is an open source version. There are many of these out there, not just ChatGPT, but they don’t care. None of them actually care. You can prompt them to behave like they care, but they do not care. So it is up to us to care about the future, up to us to enhance our capability of caring. So the question, and it is not an answer, it is a question, how can we in industry and academia and government and non-governmental organizations and as individuals, how can we create these technologies that enhance caring? And I would say that the UN is a machine for that, in effect. But we need to make it move towards action, not another form of escapism. How can we create the actual tools of democratization of AI and put them together into something like an AI commons that serves a greater good and not a special interest of any one corporation or one government for one nation or a few nations collecting together, but create the smartest, best, most compassionate AI that brings out the most compassionate aspects of humanity for people around the world? This is a question. Thank you.

Robert Kroplewski:
Thank you, David, for a very good, valuable presentation. Your speech was very emphasized, energetic. That is good, what I got it. Understanding compassion as an appreciation, that is a noun and verb. We must understand compassion. in deep sense, what is a compassion, and act, do something on positive, as Emma said before, way. Collaborating and democratizing assets, collaboration, and this, yes? Compassion in an action is very important, because otherwise it’s an escapism into a fantasy about compassion. Yeah, this is that, this is that. And I would like to ask Tom, Mark Beckley, excuse me, for a short advosum to speech of David. If you see possible this from the SDG, Sustainable Development Goals, experience, your experience working with this. Mark, you are invited. Absolutely, I really love what David said, and I agree.

Marc Buckley:
There are a few things that are really interesting, because never before in human history have we ever went from one age or epoch, or had a transformation without some form of technology, the pneumatic tire, the steam engine, the printing press, the computer. And it’s interesting that we’re at that same pivotal moment in time, that now we’ve got AI, we’ve got emerging technologies that really are on the cusp of helping humanity to make it into a new age or epoch. I deeply believe we need to leave the Anthropocene and get into a new age or epoch. The problem is, is we’re fallible, we’re not concise, we’re not in agreement with one another, and we need some kind of innovation or system out there that helps us guide in the right direction with that compassion, with that ethics, to give us the support and the knowledge and the training of cumulative human wisdom so we don’t make the same mistakes or repeat the same. things over and over again. AI has many examples of how that can integrate with the sustainable development goals. So it’s first time in human history, it’s the first ever global moon shot, the first ever earth shot, where 197 countries came together for the first time ever and agreed on plans, actions, a roadmap for the future, a people plan, a protection plan, an insurance plan for humanity. The big issue is there’s a lot of debate and controversy because there’s no collective intelligence, no AI to accumulate all that knowledge and show us the innovative way to go forward and kind of be the mediator between us all. At the beginning of what David said as well, we talked about sentience, he talked about economics. We need to make aware that it’s not the debate of sentience but are we having technology domesticate human beings or are we domesticating technology? And what are we as humanity willing to sacrifice for technology? The other big factor is by having this help and this guide that has compassion, has ethics and is innovative that can really give us that edge exponentially to move in the future so that we’re holding to the goals, the targets, the indicators, the monies, the transformation. And that’s where what David said about economics, most people don’t know that the sustainable development goals are an entirely new ecological economic model. 90 trillion US dollars by December, 2030 to reach the sustainable development goals. If you don’t think the 90 trillion US dollars is an economic model, I don’t know. what is. In the Netherlands, the tulip economy is a lot less than 90 trillion, and it’s considered its own economic model. This is a new ecological economic model that has a plan and a way forward for humanity that I think businesses can use. And David touched upon it so eloquently, and I’m really in full agreement that as we do that, we do it in the right way, we can make some huge achievements and really achieve the goals in a short possible time, and the economic model is already there. Thank you, Mark, very much for that intervention. That probably is the best moment when I could invite Tom Eddington for an eight-minute speech. If the big business is able to share assets to empower the Sustainable Development Goals, even being actualized by well-being, human dignity perspective, ethical perspective. What do you think, Tom? Oh, sorry, we don’t hear you.

Tom Eddington:
Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I think, you know, talking about business and business opportunities, just a little bit of background first. You know, I believe that when we’re talking about AI, we’re at a Promethean moment, when Prometheus, the god of fire, brought fire to humanity. That’s where we are as a species with regard to AI. We have this carbon-silicon relationship that’s being generated, being formed. Businesses are trying to make sense of it. We don’t have defined business models yet. There’s billions of dollars being spent on AI. Each of the businesses, they’re trying to make

Robert Kroplewski:

Tom Eddington:
that have spent those kinds of money, Amazon most recently, their $4 billion acquisition, they’re all trying to figure out how are they gonna make money with AI? And they’re looking through the lens of commercialization, they’re looking through the lens of making money, and they’re not looking through the lens of some of the other points that have been already raised by David and others, Mark. And that’s, unfortunately, that’s where we will find ourself is similar to what’s happened with climate change. If we go back to 1971, the Secretary General of the United Nations said, without, with all of the geniuses and with all of their skills, they ran out of foresight and air and food and water and ideas. Antonio Guterres in 2021, once again, was talking about climate change. And the hubris of a business, the hubris of our leaders are looking at AI solely through the lens of commercialization, solely through the lens of market share and bringing common business practices to a new technology, a new way of doing business, seeing huge market opportunities without really looking at the potential impact on humanity. We’ve got, August 22nd of this year was the World Overshoot Day, when we use more resources on the planet for the year than what resources are available. And AI has the potential to help us solve that. It has the potential to help us accelerate that and create even more of a problem. So if there’s not something, that helps guide businesses in their decision-making process that helps inform the creation of their business models, like an AI charter similar to the Earth Charter that was created in the 1990s. We run the risk of the extermination of the human species, and so looking at creating not only regulation and policy, but incorporating compassion, looking at decentralization versus centralization, as we’ve seen with power generation, and really looking at processes and methodologies to match the problem. Using a public health model or virology model or war games model, Internet cybersecurity models, scenario planning models to really understand and define the potential risk of AI, and how and who should be overseeing and having impact on the thinking behind it. I look at someone like Nicholas Robinson at Pace University, who has said, a generative AI is emerging faster than we can cope, so we need not try to outrun the machine, but regain mastery of ourselves and our ethics, and create the self-discipline to manage the uses of AI, and bringing that vocabulary, that mindset, that thinking into industry, into the development of the business models are essential, if AI can bring and deliver the promises that we all hope for without the risk.

Robert Kroplewski:
Thank you, Tom. Very interesting what you’ve tried to set, and I see that the business, even being not prepared till today, organize themselves to be prepared to share assets, and that’s great what you can observe from your intervention. Mark Grobelny. who is with us and I would like to invite you to a short two minutes to Tom Ellington. How the international organization in which you are engaged is preparing for that kind of maybe the gaps and asymmetry what Tom tried to set.

Marko Grobelnik:
Yeah, thanks. So Tom nicely referred to the whole thing as this Prometheus moment. Yeah, it’s true, right? I mean, we can see this on a scientific side, right? And as well as on the commercial side by all the indicators. And now one aspect which is kind of relevant. So it’s true on one side we have all these international organizations which Robert you listed before, right? This includes OECD, Council of Europe, including NATO, UNESCO and a few more which are trying to regulate this AI. Most of this regulation actually started in like 2018-19, right? So definitely years before the so-called chat GPT moment. So this is this Prometheus moment which Tom mentioned, right? And so back then AI was kind of slow. We were regulating or discussing AI which was happening within that year. So certainly AI which was happening either after year 2000 or after 2010, which didn’t have that huge tempo as now, right? And then what had happened so in late 22, this chat GPT moment happened and all the regulators basically got confused. This includes especially the regulators which had a plan to bring legally binding. legally binding documents, so this would be Council of Europe and EU, and it was unclear what to do, because the principle of work was different. And now what’s happening during 2023 is that somehow all these organizations are trying to adapt. What we see, there are basically two major principles, so one is this a little bit slower democratic way of preparing the regulation, and this is what most of these organizations are doing. On the other hand, there’s one more innovative approach on how to establish this balance between the power of AI and some kind of public trust and how to possibly prevent dangers. This is what US and Canada did just recently, so Canada just maybe two weeks ago, US maybe months or months and a half ago. So this is this voluntarily conduct between companies, big tech companies, selected big tech companies, and the government. So this is something which is kind of established or kind of established trust by a handshake, which is also kind of interesting. And so this is how I see development of the whole thing in this last year in particular. And just the last statement, so this year I visited many events, so unfortunately I couldn’t be physically in Japan, but I was basically traveling for the last three months on all sorts of AI events. So what Tom was saying about companies trying to… So, running for commercial values or land grab as a market grab, right? I would say this is mostly true. This is mostly true, and there are at least two levels, right? At least two levels of this competition. One is between companies themselves, right? So at least on the Western side, we have three, four companies which are fighting for these major stakes, so this includes Microsoft, AWS, so Amazon, Google, and Meta to some degree, right? Although running mostly on AWS, right? So this is between the company. This is kind of market competition. On the second level, you have geopolitical competition, which is mostly goes between U.S., Europe, and China, right? China is coming, and China is good, right? They have all the brain you can imagine, they just lack the hardware, right? But this likely will get compensated as well. So okay, not to be too long, right? Because this is just a comment, but these are a couple of thoughts on Tom’s. Thank you, Mark. That was good comments.

Robert Kroplewski:
You make a very big essence of four years of working in an international organization, and you actualize our new considerations, now you’re looking for how to cover the gaps, how to deal with the challenges. Eddie, if we are so far, is it still missing?

Edward Pyrek:
Yes, I will just short, because I know that we are missing time. First, this is what we try to do in Global Artificial Intelligence Alliance. We try to find the right question. We didn’t look for it. for the answer, because I think this is the question are moving us, the question are changing the reality. And this was the one of the question which you asked me. I think we need a good question. We should start with thinking and asking ourselves what we don’t know, what we don’t understand. Second things, I think again, I will come back to this. I think that we forget that the rules and regulations, not everything, that what the Kant said, the starry sky above me, the moral law between me. This is what we should have. We should start it from ourself. We are thinking about creating AI, about creating any kind of the technology which can destroy that to help us. We start to think about ourself and asking who we are, what we are doing, what is the most important for us, what kind of ethics, what kind of the world we would like to create in the future. And I think this is the things. We don’t know really what kind of the world we want to create. I think we are still busy with the time which is now and we are not asking ourselves how the future should look like, because we don’t know. We didn’t have the imagination. We didn’t have enough imagination. We need a good question. We need to remember that everything is started from ourself, not from technology, not from law, from something which is outside of us. You said that you would like to additionally ask Mark. Yes, yes, yes, yes, because I know Mark. We have this amazing conversation with you when you spent few years asking the people about the future. And if you can just, I will give you my time, if you can just in two, three minutes. We changed structure, but only one minute, please. You remember the question which you asked the people about how they see the future. I love what you said. Yes, absolutely. So I’m just showing my screen now and hopefully you can see it because I want to tell you about that real quick.

Robert Kroplewski:
So I asked this question and it’s an old question that we’ve been asking for over 70 years. It’s what does a world that works for everyone look like for you? And it’s a big, huge social experiment that I’ve conducted. I’ve asked 3,500 people on video this question. This question was on podcasts, on videos, at events. Most of the people I’ve asked are authors. And some interesting things happen. When I ask them the question, what does a world that works for everyone look like for them? Mark, excuse me. We have some technical problem with your presentation. We have like a ping-pong coming and disappearing stroboscope issue. I don’t know if it’s specially prepared because it could be like an advertisement in the movie. But probably not. I can do it again. Just one second. Sorry about the technical. Okay, maybe you… Okay, hold on. Here it is.

Marc Buckley:
Yeah, yeah. Hold on. So that may be… We come back with your turn next turn to this. But David… Okay. Now we see it. Okay. We’ll come back to you, Mark. Please. Now we have a problem with voice. We miss you, Mark. Yeah, excuse me. We come back to this in some minutes. But in the prepared structure of our discussion, the next intervener of Advocaat to your speech was David. David, only two minutes. and it’s to say if Eddie Foundation, the Gaia Foundation prepares to do something.

David Hanson:
Yes, so Global Artificial Intelligence Alliance, we founded this, co-founded it with a group, small group, but with the intention of making something truly global that would be democratic for people, individuals to get involved, but also to incentivize corporations and governments and NGOs and many other people, anybody who has an interest in the future of life and how AI can help could get involved and benefit from this. And so the idea of big questions, of questing, of questing is very important. So having the right incentives for people to be involved becomes really important. Gamification is a principle that goes beyond games, like profit incentive for companies, it can be real, but also for individuals where they have access. So there’s a couple of things. One is how do you create this kind of democracy of action? And I think that the crowdsourcing of market dynamics can really help, like voting in and you get something back and people’s information then becomes really valuable and instead of just taking it, having them sign a license like many companies do, just like give their data away, people should be able to have their voice heard and participate by licensing in. So this kind of global data commons can be quite. useful. A global AI commons can be incredibly powerful. There’s this old story of the stone soup where there’s no food. Everybody says there’s no food but one person says I’m going to feed the whole village with the stone but everybody else has to put in something as well and you put in the stone and then everybody, somebody brings carrots, somebody brings potatoes, somebody brings other ingredients and pretty soon you have a big pot of soup that feeds everybody. So if we do this with AI in a way that that benefits the people who bring something to the table we could see AI get smarter faster but in a way that is truly inclusive and transparent and that researchers in the world who don’t have access, the people who don’t have access to AI have access but we have to include people from all over the world. It really has to include the people in developing nations who don’t have access to this technology. It has to include leadership from the indigenous community. It has to include the children of the world and so we need what we what we have come to call the guardians, the Gaia guardians, the guardians of the world. We need people who step forward to be representatives in order to open the channels up for everybody else to have a voice. So then that idea of action, the companies of the world actually right now are the ones that are out doing and getting stuff out there because they have to. So we have to. We just have to see that urgency. So thank you. David, thank you for that intervention. We need to fight

Robert Kroplewski:
with time, excuse me. I would pleasure to listen to you longer and everybody here in the panel. Now I would like to ask the Marko Grubelnik, maybe for understanding understanding and share some thoughts. Is it technically and from the engineer point of view possible to define compassion approaches, principles to the system, artificial intelligence? How you see this, Marko? You have eight minutes to take to…

Marko Grobelnik:
I’ll try to be shorter because I think I spent some time before more than was planned. So, the question is, does the current technology allow us to approach this compassionate AI and all the terms which are, or concepts which are lying below, and this includes concepts like empathy, values, right? And also there’s how to construct and maintain the tissue, societal tissue between people or actors in a society. This would be basically living being, right? So, short answer, is it possible or no? Yes, I think actually after this CGPT moment in this November 22, right, a year ago, roughly 11 months ago, it’s actually first time in the history of AI that we can even think about this, right? Why? Because AI before was missing one extremely important element and this was, let’s say, this text understanding. Text understanding which with this CGPT or large language models, we are kind of approaching. We really don’t understand the text yet, right? But we can mimic text understanding to that degree that it’s good enough, right? So, this is the current status, right? So, these LLMs are literally just, in a way, reflecting what we are putting in. So, we put in the whole web, right? And these LLMs are reflecting what what we put in, but since this is so much of information we get a feeling that actually these machines are smart and they actually, it is pretty impressive moment in the development of AI that we can do something like this, right? What else as an ingredient of this current AI technology is there? So it’s not just reflecting, so retrieval of what we put in, but there are kind of limited capabilities of inferencing or reasoning as well, right? It’s not perfect, but there exists this elements of deductive reasoning, a little bit less on induction, right? Which machine learning is covering, but on a separate track, machines are extremely good on deductive reasoning, right? And also amazingly good on parts of causal reasoning, right? So why I’m saying this, so these are kind of ingredients on the top of which we can then develop this compassionate AI as a functional system, right? Now from the other side, right? So what is AI, right? That AI is kind of this nice term which we use now for, I don’t know, 70, 80 years, right? But on the other hand, we can say that AI is an area or science of complexity. We have also separate, also this complexity science which mostly physicists are working on, right? But also AI by itself is dealing with complexity as it was said before, right? So I think David said before, right? That AI is looking for this complex patterns in basically data which are coming mostly in organic way from the society. So So the AI basically solving fairly complex problem. Now, can it do something like compassion? Yes, I think, right? So if we, I will use now fairly mathematical way of expressing, if we want to develop an operator, right? Mathematical operator, which we would call compassion, right? Compassion and which would consist from empathy, positive human values or liberties, as it was said before, and holding the societal tissue in a kind of positive way. Yes, then we can approach, I would say, with this ingredients, as I said before, so reflecting the human knowledge and data on one side with some limited capabilities of reasoning. Yes, these are ingredients where we can approach. Now, how this could be implemented? We could easily implement this as an additional layer on the top of the existing, not just AI, but also IT system, which could, let’s say, try to understand and try to guide or steer the decisions of IT or AI system. So this is something which it’s, I think it’s implementable at this stage. Can companies do this? Companies actually are doing a little bit of this. I mean, even if in, let’s say, in the last one year, if you remember the first version of CGPT, how it was in November last year, and the version how it responds today, it changed a lot, right? So it doesn’t allow certain negative queries and so on. But they achieve this not by any kind of, let’s say, higher level philosophical approach, but by a fairly simple red teaming. This is the term, right? Where you have an army of people which are kind of just. killing the bad questions. So, I would imagine that Compassion to the Eye would be something more, which would have a little bit more philosophical and societal values built in by itself, and the system, which would be fairly generic on the top of this. Thank you. Now, not to be too long, I will stop here. I could talk way more. Thank you very much.

Robert Kroplewski:
We have a limited time, but thank you very much, Marco, for a very short intervention. I have a bit changed my structure of that hall, trying to keep the time for some audience. And now I would like to invite Mark Baclay come back to say something, how it will be, how we can impact from that perspective on Compassion, the SDG agenda. If you are still with us, it’s okay, but we have a limited time, only five minutes to keep last five minutes for audience. Thank you. We don’t hear you. Can you see my screen? Yes, now, yes. Okay, and you can hear me great. We don’t hear you, but we see your screen. United Nations has some problems with connection. Or not, only some country, United States. Okay, Mark, excuse me, we have a limited time. And let’s give the floor for our audience in the room or online. If somebody has some questions or some comments, you are invited. We have limited time. Excuse me. This is the last 11 minutes. Maybe Mark can come back. Please, Mr. Michalewicz, you are from Poland. Thank you. Thank you.

Audience:
Can you hear me through the mic? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. I’m from Poland, a government, but it really doesn’t matter. We are in Chatham House rules right now, and I really like the way we throw ourselves into a philosophical discussion, because AI development takes a philosophical discussion to go on, to still be open. And for me, the topic is so complex that I had to take some notes in order not to get lost in what I’m trying to say. So thank you very much. This is a very interesting point about compassion, and the way I see this is if you just have a spectrum and you put compassion on a spectrum, then there must be limit to what is still compassionate for AI to do and what is no longer compassionate. And so what is compassionate? And the most intuitive answer would be whatever has us developing is compassionate. And I guess this is not the right answer, because a better one would be developing and still making us more human, right? That might be more compassionate, right, than just to have something that has us developing all the time, because there has to be a limit to what is achievable. And I have a question I was desperate to ask you. this question. You don’t have to answer the question right now. I very much like what you said about your definition of compassion and whatever, I mean, the appreciation of life, right? And my question to perhaps have you talking about what’s compassionate, what is compassionate, and what is not compassionate, you know, I mean, would you deploy AI to mass the genetics of a sheep, for example, in order to cure human cancer? Would that still be compassionate? I mean, it works for the humans, right? It doesn’t work for sheep, right? And it has us developing in a human manner. And that would, you know, I’d like to pick up your brain on this, because that would tell me a little bit more about what do you think is compassionate, right? And where is the limit of compassionate? Are we the ultimate, our development, is it the ultimate goal of this AI compassionate-based concept? Thank you very much. Thank you, Michal, for your intervention. Maybe before

Robert Kroplewski:
David, you jump. First of all, I think we need to deal more and more with our human compassion state. Our level of this could be under question now. And I thank you for that sheep comparison working in OECD, producing some values for artificial intelligence and principles. Finally, we got it, what I tried to underline in the beginning, that animal is important. We have a conjunction between the human and planet. This is a principle. And now, that was a, at that time, what that was very deep conversation, what is first in the hierarchy human, just now artificial intelligence, or something between. David, please. intervening, if you can take it. Sure. I mean, I think a lot of ethical systems that we have are laws or regulations.

David Hanson:
And this includes things like regulations that are protecting animal rights for research purposes and how you have to do these ethical review boards to be able to do science with the animals. Effectively, what that is is an attempt to weigh the cost and benefits and then represent the ethical conundrums that occur. So it’s a kind of, it’s very much like what Marco was talking about, about the kind of almost Boolean logic of compassion. Like you run through a calculation. Is it worth it? Well, I mean, sometimes if you’re smarter, you don’t have to sacrifice ethics in one situation or create suffering in, say, a sheep animal model in order to achieve some medical breakthrough. Maybe you can do that in silico instead, in a simulation, and be able to achieve the same thing. But right now, we’re not smart enough to be able to do that. But we might also not be smart enough to be able to be as compassionate as we could. So can we use these technologies, the silico, to enhance human compassion, to be able to run these kinds of calculations? Maybe we can.

Edward Pyrek:
Maybe it’s a worthy quest. Sir, just may I add something? Just one thing. Because if we believe that AI can create super AI, and super, super AI, and super, super AI, maybe artificial intelligence can create super AI. super compassion, and super, super compassion, because… And super human. And super human, too, but for sure, but sure can push us forward to understanding, not about only human, when we start to understand better human nature, we start to understand better compassion, and I deeply believe that we can use AI to create super compassion. Then the answer will be completely different than the answer we have now. This is why I’m talking about the questions.

Robert Kroplewski:
Thank you, Eddie, for taking the, yeah, yeah, yeah. We have two people who would like to take, even four, we have only five minutes. Please, short question, short answer. Christian, welcome, that you’re with us. Thank you, Christian Ramsdorff from the OECD.

Audience:
I have a very brief question. Is it fair to say that at this current stage of AI, where I see at least AI being more close to software than being to a human being, that the level of compassion is essentially dictated and kept by the level of compassion of humans? And is it fair to even say that it’s probably kept by the level of compassion of those that have the capacity to develop that, which are currently those with the financial resources? Yeah, thank you for the question. Yes, Marco, I would like to ask people online. Please, take it. Very quick answer.

Marko Grobelnik:
Yeah, at the moment, the whole thing is in the hands of the big tech from, this is maybe five, certainly less than 10 spots in the world which can do something like this. But there is a good prospect that things may change in the future. So just to keep the answer short. I’m not pessimist. I think things are going in a good direction. It’s just the things. So basically what we are witnessing now in the last year are something which I never expected I will witness in my life, right? So, and this is the same for most of my colleagues scientists, right? So, and we are all still watching what’s happening. Thank you.

Robert Kroplewski:
But the answer is- Marco, I can confirm this because we, or very often work together, that is possible. And we can develop our existence outputs to new compassion even approaches, yes. Last, we have only four minutes, but I need one minute for my intervention.

Audience:
Very quick questions, very quick questions, very quick questions. I don’t know who would like to take it. Sure, I will have a very quick question to David. Three minutes, yes, for all of us. My name is Katarzyna Stociwa. I represent the National Research Institute in Poland and my area of expertise is preventing and combating child sexual exploitation and abuse. So my question refers to what you have said and that you would like to include people from all over the world to have their say. Then how would you secure voices of children in this process, especially knowing that generative AI can now produce child sexual abuse materials. So real children can be victimized by using their artificially generated photos or videos for these purposes. So how to make voices of children included in the process of creating compassion within the AI? You asked the question for somebody specifically to David, because he was talking about it. David, only 15 seconds. Thank you.

David Hanson:
Excellent question. And I think the key is having strong guardians. So we have to find people who have proven themselves to be really doing good work for the world. And it has to be inclusive. It can’t just be like from one subgroup of humanity and we have to name the values that we’re aiming for. And so those values that harm life, that harm children, that lead to this kind of destruction are not welcome in the future. They shouldn’t be welcome. We need guardians who take that stand, who guard our children, and then also give those children a voice as well so they can participate. Because often we don’t hear, there are no children in this room. And I think that the children have like almost, I mean, preternatural insights into the world. So through mechanisms like what we call the guardians, we can create a more inclusive democracy. Thank you, David.

Audience:
15 seconds, last very short question, please. You present yourself and we have, yeah, yeah. Probably you have the one. Yeah, my name is Shizuka Morika and I’m just thrilled to hear what you all have to say. And in terms of what I feel missing is provide right incentives to for-profit corporations, especially in the US. And we just perform to the expectations and for the rewards. And I’ve been wondering, how can we get rid of the quarterly earning regulations? Because European countries, they have done it, many of them, right? But I’ve been wondering, how can we get the US to stop quarterly earning requirements? US, if I could understand, started to that process, yes. Maybe it’s not so proper, that’s a different approach or responsible, more than trustworthy, this is that. Of course, because that discussion today appeared, last question, Mr. Takashida from Japan

Robert Kroplewski:
and last intervention, anyone. So thank you for inviting me, Robert, and thank you all for your inspiring talks. I don’t have a question, but I actually have a last statement. Number one, AI as a term is quite outdated. Artificial intelligence, what does that mean?

Audience:
I think that reflects the relationship of man-machine relationship as master and slave. As long as humans do engage machine or AI in that way, you have the risk and the fear. But now we have to redefine what true intelligence is. And in my opinion, that’s compassion. And David mentioned about sentient possibility of sentient machines. So that’s totally possible on the ground that we elevate our consciousness with compassion. And we have some invention on the way, as Ray Kurzweil mentioned in the spiritual machine. So I’m totally optimistic for the future of compassion. Yeah, thank you.

Robert Kroplewski:
Thank you for your good comments from the Japan culture and your experience of life. Thank you for that. I would like to ask our online colleagues, especially maybe Mark and Tom, if you could comment very shortly, only 15 seconds, because we don’t have time, even if we pass the time. If you would like to have last intervention, please, you are welcome. If not.

Tom Eddington:
Yeah, I’ll go ahead and just share one closing comment. From my perspective, we have to be intentional and architect compassion into the development of whether we. call it artificial intelligence, silicon intelligence, whatever we call it, we have to be intentional about architecting compassion into it. If we don’t, it will evolve into whatever it’s going to evolve into, and we can’t allow that to happen. And we’re running out of time to bring that intentionality to the work.

Robert Kroplewski:
Thank you, Tom, very much. Mark, your last chance, only 30 seconds.

Marc Buckley:
I think artificial intelligence is probably occurred because we’re called Homo sapiens, a wise man. So we think we’re wise and have a lot figured out. And so now as we create our new children, artificial intelligence, and we give them compassion and ethics and the guidance, which we’re hoping to do with Gaia and this group here today, I think we can have it live up to that name that when us as the fathers or the creators of AI, ask it to do something that goes against life or humanity, that our children, artificial intelligence come back and say to us, no, we’re not going to destroy or hurt those other human beings. Instead, we’re just going to talk to the other AIs on the other end or the other culture and work it out like decent beings or intelligent beings would instead of dividing ourselves amongst one another. And so I really have high hopes that we can build those ethics and that compassion into to AI and that we can use it as strong tools to help us get on the right side of history, that we use this technology to really get out of the Anthropocene into the symbiocene into a new age of Homo Symbios and all sentient and all life beings on earth. Thank you Mark. This is time to make some conclusions. For me I was super happy that you can share your thoughts, your considerations and interacting with our panelists. I’m super happy about the question that came to our discussion, even

Robert Kroplewski:
very serious questions but need to be addressed. And what I would like to propose as a call to action, two approaches. First thing could be let’s have impact on this way to prioritize the UNESCO ethical recommendation over the SDG agenda and in the same moment and define, redefine the SDG agenda to enrich it by technology and especially ethical approach, ethical usage, ethical deployment of the technology. That will be one thing. And second thing, trying to find a common understanding of compassion. Especially I underline compassion, not how much compassionate but compassion is the next step after the empathy approach to compassionate. Compassion as a verb, as an activity, as a noun, as understanding, as a knowledge. Deep flying, swimming in that substance and future appreciation of other people. I would like to propose the call to produce AI Compassion Bridge Charter. Why bridge? But we have some papers, we have some resolutions, some recommendation but we get from today’s town hall that we have some gaps. many people and international organizations, our audience, participants to produce that kind of a Compassion Bridge Charter and engaging network for Compassion Approach to Artificial Intelligence. That I got it as a call for action for next year, not more. That we need to act very quickly. And I welcome very much next summit of Compassion, the location will be announced, but I would like to find a bigger network of AI guardians, developed part of that AI charter. And Eddie, if you would like to have a closer remarks. I just want to invite you to Salzburg in March, 6, 8 March for AI Impact Summit. We need all people who want to help. We need all organization who want to have the impact, who understand that with AI we can really have the impact for the world. Thank you very much. Thank you all of you. Thank you. And see you in the future, Compassion. Thanks. You’re my guest also. Thank you. . . . .

Kossi Amessinou

According to the analysis, it has been found that several African governments are actively supporting investment in digital infrastructure. This is a significant development as it indicates a major shift in Africa’s role in the digital landscape. The provision of digital infrastructure is crucial for ensuring digital availability across the continent. Without adequate investment in infrastructure, digital services and connectivity would not be possible.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights that governments in Africa, particularly in West Africa and specifically Benin, are offering subsidies to the private sector to incentivise and support investment. This creates numerous investment opportunities, particularly in areas such as broadband implementation in rural areas. Such initiatives encourage the private sector to contribute to the expansion of digital infrastructure and bridge the digital divide within the continent.

The analysis also emphasizes the need for increased investment in data centres and internet exchange points. These facilities play a crucial role in ensuring local internet traffic and lowering costs. By establishing well-equipped data centres and internet exchange points, Africa can benefit from efficient and cost-effective local data networks.

Additionally, the analysis presents an argument regarding the freedom of internet service providers to offer services at lower costs. This argument suggests that governments should allow greater flexibility in regulations to enable service providers to lower their prices. An example from Benin indicates that internet service providers can receive licences by city, which not only helps in reducing service costs but also promotes competition and improves access to affordable internet services for users.

In conclusion, the analysis reveals the changing landscape of digital infrastructure investment in Africa. African governments are actively supporting investment, and the private sector is presented with several opportunities to contribute to the expansion of digital infrastructure. Furthermore, the importance of increasing investment in data centres and internet exchange points is highlighted. Lastly, the argument is made for enabling internet service providers to offer services at lower costs to enhance affordability and accessibility. Overall, these findings underscore the significant progress being made in Africa’s digital ecosystem and the potential for further growth and development.

Thabo Mashegoane

Africa is facing the need to transition from a consumption-based economy to a more sustainable model that focuses on becoming producers and manufacturers. This shift is crucial for the continent to achieve its sustainable development goals. It is predicted that Africa will become the most populated continent with a significant number of young people, who are likely to possess an average of four devices per individual over the next three to five decades.

While Africa’s potential youth population and their high device ownership may offer opportunities, relying solely on a consumption-based economy will not be sufficient to accomplish sustainable development goals. Africa needs to move towards a more productive and manufacturing-focused economic model. This transition requires a strategic roadmap that includes capacity development and the establishment of production facilities.

The roadmap for Africa’s transition to a producer and manufacturer-oriented economy starts with capacity development. It is essential to enhance the skills and knowledge of the workforce to meet the demands of a shifting economic landscape. Investing in quality education and vocational training programs becomes imperative in preparing the African population for jobs in the manufacturing sector. Strengthening technical skills and promoting entrepreneurship can also contribute to the development of a vibrant manufacturing industry.

Alongside capacity development, the establishment of production facilities is vital. Africa must build the infrastructure and create a conducive environment for manufacturing industries to thrive. This includes ensuring a reliable supply chain, access to affordable energy, modern technology, and supportive policies and regulations. By promoting local production and reducing reliance on imports, African countries can strengthen their economies, create employment opportunities, and encourage sustainable development.

It is important to note that a positive sentiment is associated with the transition from a consumption-based economy to a producer and manufacturer-oriented model in Africa. This shift is aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 8, which focuses on decent work and economic growth, and SDG 9, which emphasizes industry, innovation, and infrastructure.

In conclusion, Africa’s journey towards sustainable development requires a shift from a consumption-based economy to one that prioritizes production and manufacturing. The continent’s projected rise in population, particularly the youth demographic, presents both opportunities and challenges. By implementing a strategic roadmap that includes capacity development and the establishment of production facilities, Africa can harness its potential, create sustainable economic growth, and achieve the SDGs. It is essential for African nations to embrace this transition and invest in the necessary infrastructure and skills development to secure a prosperous and sustainable future.

Inye Kembonta

Africa possesses a wealth of human and natural resources that have the potential to contribute significantly to its economic growth. These resources include various minerals that can aid in the manufacturing of infrastructure required for the internet. However, Africa has struggled to fully retain the value chain and capitalize on its resources, which has hindered its economic development.

There is a pressing need for policy development in Africa to address this issue. The continent must establish effective policies that enable it to take advantage of its abundant resources and play a more active role in global discussions related to the internet governance forum.

Inye Kembonta emphasizes the importance of African solutions in benefiting Africa as a whole. It is suggested that African solutions be defined to include existing solutions that are rooted in the continent. By highlighting the unique contributions that Africa can make to the global value chain, it can have a greater influence and derive more benefits from its resources.

However, Kembonta argues that Africa has not effectively utilized its resources. Despite the abundance of resources, both human and natural, Africa has struggled to convert them into a significant part of the global value chain. This underscores the need for better resource management and responsible consumption and production practices.

Furthermore, Kembonta advocates for government engagement with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to foster partnerships and collaboration. By involving NGOs in discussions and initiatives, the government can benefit from their expertise and perspectives, leading to more inclusive policies that address the digital sector’s challenges and opportunities in Africa.

In conclusion, Africa’s vast human and natural resources hold immense potential for economic growth. However, it is crucial for the continent to retain more of the value chain, exploit its resources effectively, develop appropriate policies, and engage with NGOs to foster partnerships. By doing so, Africa can position itself as a key player in the digital landscape, contributing to its own development and the global internet governance discourse.

Melissa Sassi

Melissa Sassi is a venture partner at Machine Lab Ventures, where her focus is on enabling tech entrepreneurs to effectively build, scale, and potentially exit their businesses. She prioritizes the importance of digital innovation and financial well-being in this process, particularly within the African context.

In Africa, Melissa Sassi emphasizes the crucial role that digital technologies play in driving economic growth. She specifically highlights the significance of entrepreneurship and the youth in this regard. She provides evidence from various articles that underscore the value of digital technologies and youth entrepreneurship in transforming Africa. Her belief in the potential of these factors to contribute significantly to the continent’s development is evident.

Melissa Sassi advocates for a practical and real-world-oriented education model. She places importance on skills such as storytelling, critical thinking, building partnerships, and financial management. By promoting this type of education, she aims to equip individuals with the necessary skills and knowledge to thrive in today’s world.

Furthermore, Melissa Sassi emphasizes the importance of fostering an entrepreneurial culture within universities to drive growth and development. She suggests a project-based learning approach at the university level, with a focus on cultivating a growth mindset and entrepreneurial skills. This approach encourages students to think creatively, take risks, and develop the mindset necessary for entrepreneurial success.

Overall, Melissa Sassi’s work demonstrates her dedication to supporting and empowering tech entrepreneurs, specifically in the African context. Her emphasis on digital innovation, practical education, and fostering an entrepreneurial culture contributes to economic growth and development. Her insights serve as inspiration for entrepreneurs and educators alike, providing valuable guidance for creating an environment conducive to innovation and progress.

Rachael Shitanda

Africa is facing challenges in its digital and economic development, and several arguments are presented on how the continent can overcome these challenges and unlock its potential. One crucial aspect is the need for Africa to leverage its own capacity and resources to address its digital and economic development problems.

One argument emphasises the importance of increased Internet connectivity and accessibility in Africa over the past two decades. This has attracted a significant number of startups to the continent, as they see new market potential and opportunities. The positive sentiment towards this argument suggests that leveraging the power of the Internet can be a game-changer for Africa’s economic growth.

Another argument focuses on the role of governments in encouraging local talent and facilitating the development of locally made products. The argument highlights the significance of strategies and initiatives aimed at nurturing local talent, which can significantly boost economic development. Providing favourable government policies in terms of business setup is also essential for stimulating entrepreneurship and creating a thriving startup ecosystem. The sentiment associated with this argument is positive, indicating a belief that governments have a crucial role to play in supporting and promoting local talent and businesses.

Furthermore, developing a high skill set and an entrepreneurial mindset is emphasised as another key factor in driving Africa’s digital and economic development. Proper education and training are seen as essential in nurturing an entrepreneurial mindset and developing the necessary skills. Additionally, the importance of capital investment within African communities is highlighted, suggesting that encouraging venture capitalism can further foster an entrepreneurial ecosystem in Africa.

A noteworthy observation from the analysis is the importance of nurturing homegrown solutions for the continent. While it is mentioned that most African startups are currently funded by venture capitalists from Eastern and Western countries, there is a sentiment that African populations should be empowered to invest in local startups. This highlights the need for Africans to take ownership of the development and growth of their own businesses and industries.

Another observation is the responsibility of governments in creating an enabling environment for business setup, providing good policies, employment opportunities, and stable currencies. Governments are seen as key players in creating favourable conditions for economic growth and reducing inequalities.

In conclusion, the various arguments presented all underline the need for Africa to leverage its own capacity and resources in addressing its digital and economic development problems. This includes increasing Internet connectivity, encouraging local talent and homegrown products, nurturing an entrepreneurial mindset through high skills and venture capitalism, and ensuring that governments provide good policies and employment opportunities. By embracing these strategies, Africa can unlock its tremendous potential for economic growth and development.

Joanna Kulesza

The summary highlights the need for a comprehensive and well-aligned regulatory framework for internet infrastructure in Africa. This is due to SpaceX now starting its operations in Nigeria and the importance of broadband internet access, which involves international law, national regulations, and multi-stakeholder policies. The sentiment towards this argument is positive, emphasising the necessity of a regulatory framework to support internet infrastructures in Africa effectively.

Another argument raised is the scrutiny of non-African companies, like SpaceX, that offer connectivity services. It states that these companies should be thoroughly examined based on jurisdiction, security measures, and data handling. Questions arise concerning equipment ownership and access, as well as the content of collected data, access to it, and processing rights. The sentiment regarding this argument is neutral, suggesting a need for careful consideration and evaluation of these non-African companies operating in Africa.

Promoting stakeholder participation is considered vital in achieving sustainable internet access. This includes the involvement of governments and civil society in the decision-making process. The World Radio Conference, scheduled for later this year, aims to discuss these considerations. The conference would provide an opportunity for informed input from all stakeholders, enabling African countries to actively work towards ensuring sustainable development and internet access. The sentiment towards this argument is positive, recognising the importance of involving all stakeholders for effective and inclusive decision-making.

In conclusion, the expanded summary emphasises the need for a comprehensive regulatory framework, scrutiny of non-African companies providing connectivity services, and the importance of stakeholder participation in ensuring sustainable internet access in Africa. The World Radio Conference is highlighted as a platform for discussing these considerations and gaining input from all relevant stakeholders. Overall, the analysis provides insights into the challenges and opportunities involved in promoting internet infrastructure and inclusivity in Africa.

Bimbo Abioye

Africa is currently not very visible on the global digital value chain map, particularly in areas such as content creation and fintech. This lack of ownership and visibility can be attributed to internal challenges faced by Africa itself. These challenges include a non-supportive business environment and deficiencies in policy frameworks, capacity building, infrastructure development, access to finance, and research and development.

One argument is that African businesses often end up being sold due to the non-supportive environment they operate in. Additionally, Africa lags behind in critical areas such as policy and regulatory frameworks, capacity building, infrastructure development, and access to finance. These shortcomings highlight an urgent need for improvement in order to foster sustainable economic growth in Africa.

However, there is a recognition of the importance of enhancing these areas in Africa’s development. It is argued that urgent attention is required to enhance policy and regulatory frameworks, capacity building, infrastructure development, and access to finance. By addressing these deficiencies, Africa can unlock its potential for decent work and economic growth.

On a positive note, it is suggested that African businesses need to shift their perspective and focus more on future possibilities rather than solely on past and present circumstances. This shift in mindset is believed to be crucial in driving innovation and competitiveness in the digital economy.

In summary, Africa’s limited presence in the global digital value chain is attributed to internal challenges and deficiencies in critical areas such as policy frameworks, capacity building, infrastructure development, and access to finance. However, there is a positive sentiment towards addressing these issues urgently in order to unlock Africa’s potential for economic growth. Additionally, the need for a mindset shift to focus on future possibilities is emphasized as a crucial step in driving innovation and competitiveness in the digital economy.

Jimson Olufuye

Jimson Olufuye, the chair of the Adversary Council of Africa’s ICT Alliance, opened a workshop at the 18th Internet Governance Forum in Kyoto, Japan. The workshop aimed to address the Global Digital Value Chain and discuss Africa’s current status and future plans.

Jimson Olufuye’s opening remarks at the workshop highlighted his support for fulfilling the promise of the digital age for everyone in Africa. This vision is advocated by the Africa ICT Alliance, an organisation that works in collaboration with the African Union, UNECA, and African governments. Their shared objective is to bridge the digital divide and ensure that Africa can harness the full potential of the digital era.

With vast experience in the field, Jimson Olufuye is also a principal consultant at Contemporary Consulting, an IT firm based in Abuja. The firm specialises in data centres, cybersecurity, cloud computing, and online workflow research. This expertise reflects Jimson’s involvement and commitment to addressing key issues in the digital landscape, particularly in Africa.

The workshop, organised by the Africa ICT Alliance, provided a platform to discuss the Global Digital Value Chain. This chain encompasses various elements such as data centres, cybersecurity, cloud computing, and online workflow research. These aspects are crucial for driving innovation, supporting infrastructure development, and ensuring secure and efficient digital solutions.

The discussions held at the workshop aimed to provide insights into Africa’s current status and explore strategies to propel its digital growth. Jimson’s participation and expertise, alongside other stakeholders, contributed to a comprehensive analysis of the challenges, opportunities, and the way forward for Africa in the digital realm.

In conclusion, Jimson Olufuye, as the chair of the Adversary Council of Africa’s ICT Alliance, played a key role in opening a workshop at the 18th Internet Governance Forum. His support for the vision of fulfilling the promise of the digital age for everyone in Africa, as advocated by the Africa ICT Alliance, underpins the discussions held at the workshop. Additionally, his involvement as a principal consultant at Contemporary Consulting showcased his expertise in addressing crucial aspects of the digital landscape. The workshop provided a valuable opportunity to assess the Global Digital Value Chain and chart Africa’s path towards a prosperous digital future.

Bernard Ewah

After analysing the given information, several key points emerge:

1. The National Information Technology Agency (NITA) in Nigeria is striving to improve regulations and enhance the quality of device components. This is important in order to enhance customer experience and increase market gains in the country’s tech industry. Nigerian entrepreneurs have faced challenges in the market with device assembly, so these efforts by NITA aim to address these issues and drive growth in the sector.

2. It is essential to understand the structure of the labour market and the potential impact of technology adoption. With a significant proportion of the economy operating in the informal sector, there is a need to comprehend the existing structure and identify where technology can make a difference. This understanding will contribute to the achievement of SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth.

3. The digitisation of traditional services like hair braiding and carpentry can bring about numerous benefits. By creating digital platforms, services that were traditionally limited to local markets can be expanded and made accessible to a wider audience. This not only opens up new market opportunities but also enhances the reach and impact of these services.

4. It is suggested that the focus should be placed on addressing the “low-hanging fruit” in African markets. This refers to goods that are currently unstructured and of low quality but are highly relied upon by the population. By implementing measures to improve the quality of these goods and enhance their structure, African markets can experience significant growth and development.

5. The value of natural resources, such as coal, has drastically changed over the past few decades. However, emerging resources like data are gaining increasing value. This highlights the importance of recognising and adapting to the transition in resource utilisation. Governments should be prepared to embrace new opportunities and adjust their strategies accordingly to maximise the benefits of these changing trends.

6. Governments play a vital role in acknowledging and adapting to the changing resource landscape. As certain resources become less valuable or utilised over time, it is crucial for governments to identify and prioritise emerging resources with rising worth. This supports the achievement of SDGs 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) and 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

7. Finally, the participation and contribution of the Nigerian government in the African Information and Communication Technology Alliance (AFICTA) is crucial. This partnership, in line with SDG 17: Partnership for the Goals, facilitates collaboration among various stakeholders and fosters a conducive environment for technological advancements and growth.

Overall, this analysis highlights the importance of improving regulations, enhancing the quality of device components, understanding the labour market, digitising traditional services, addressing low-hanging fruit, recognising the changing value of natural resources, adapting to resource transitions, and collaborating through platforms like AFICTA in order to achieve sustainable economic growth and development in Nigeria and across Africa.

Chidi Diugwu

The National Communications Commission (NCC) plays a crucial role in uplifting digital literacy in Nigeria by sponsoring the Digital Bridge Institute. This institution is specifically designed to enhance the technological skills and knowledge of Nigerian citizens. It offers various programs and courses aimed at upskilling public servants and other individuals in the field of digital literacy.

The NCC’s sponsorship of the Digital Bridge Institute showcases its commitment to human capacity development. By investing in such initiatives, the NCC acknowledges the importance of equipping individuals with the necessary skills to thrive in the digital age. Through its support, the NCC aims to bridge the digital divide and empower Nigerians to fully participate in the growing digital economy.

The positive sentiment towards the NCC’s efforts in promoting digital literacy is evident in the widespread support it receives. The NCC’s commitment to research and development is evident through the establishment of a dedicated department. This signifies the NCC’s continuous efforts to stay abreast of technological advancements and to provide relevant resources and tools necessary for digital literacy development.

Furthermore, by linking digital literacy efforts to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as Quality Education (SDG 4) and Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure (SDG 9), the NCC demonstrates its recognition of the wider socio-economic benefits that come with enhanced digital literacy. By aligning its efforts with these global goals, the NCC reinforces the importance of digital literacy as a key enabler for sustainable development.

In conclusion, the NCC’s sponsorship of the Digital Bridge Institute in Nigeria is a commendable initiative aimed at improving digital literacy. By providing programs and courses to enhance the skills of public servants and other Nigerians in the field, the NCC actively contributes to human capacity development. The positive sentiment and widespread support for the NCC’s efforts reflect the recognition of the importance of digital literacy in shaping a prosperous future for Nigeria.

Mary Uduma

The analysis highlighted several key points discussed by the speakers. Firstly, concerns were raised about the lack of significant participation of African businesses in digital processes, indicating the need for training African youth and business people to increase their engagement in the global digital value chain. This involves equipping them with the necessary skills and knowledge to actively participate in digital activities, which can contribute to the growth of Africa’s digital economy.

Secondly, the analysis recognised the remarkable growth of fintech in Africa, with a focus on the success of M-Pesa in Kenya and the industry’s expansion in Nigeria. M-Pesa, a mobile payments platform, has not only transformed the financial landscape in Kenya but has also been adopted by other countries in the region. The rise of e-commerce platforms like Jumia and Conga in Nigeria further demonstrates the increasing digitalization and consumer adoption of digital platforms across Africa.

Lastly, the analysis underscored the need for stringent measures to protect data and ensure its security, particularly with regards to human rights. Concerns were raised about the storage and safety of collected data in an increasingly digital world. Advocacy for data protection and security measures is crucial to safeguard individuals’ privacy rights and prevent unauthorized access or misuse of personal information.

Overall, the analysis reflects a positive sentiment towards Africa’s potential to enhance its participation in the global digital value chain. It highlights the importance of investing in training and skills development to empower Africa’s youth and business communities. Additionally, it recognizes the significant growth and impact of fintech, exemplified by M-Pesa and e-commerce platforms. Furthermore, it emphasizes the urgency of implementing robust data protection measures in line with human rights considerations. This comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities in Africa’s digital era underscores the need for strategic interventions and collaborations to harness the potential of digital technologies for sustainable economic growth and social development in Africa.

Olutoyin Justus Oloniteru

The speakers engage in a discussion regarding Africa’s progress in the digital sphere, emphasising the need for an unbiased self-appraisal. They highlight several factors that have contributed to this progress. One notable development is the Africa ICT Alliance, which has played a crucial role in changing the dynamics of digital progress in Africa. Despite not existing 30 years ago, the alliance now serves as a catalyst for digital innovation and advancement in the continent.

Furthermore, the expansion of companies such as MTN and Eko Network into Nigeria has had a significant impact on the digital landscape of Africa. These expansions have not only brought about economic growth and job opportunities but also enhanced connectivity and access to technology in the region.

The discussion also highlights the importance of crowdfunding and crowdsourcing for technological development in Africa. The promotion of these strategies has allowed individuals and organizations across the continent to raise funds for technological projects, thereby fostering innovation and growth in the digital sector.

However, concerns are raised about the potential detrimental effects of the financial influence of the West and East on Africa’s digital landscape. The argument is made that these external sources of funding often prioritize their own returns on investment over the development of Africa’s digital infrastructure and capabilities. As a counterpoint, it is proposed that Africans can take charge of their own financial destiny through collective crowdfunding efforts. By relying on their own people for funding, Africa can minimize the influence of external interests and ensure that digital progress is aligned with the needs and aspirations of the continent.

Another significant aspect discussed is the importance of developing and utilizing African solutions to address African problems. The speakers highlight the field of hardware manufacturing as one area where African innovation and expertise can be harnessed to create solutions that specifically cater to the continent’s needs. By supporting local initiatives and encouraging entrepreneurship in this sector, not only can Africa address its challenges more effectively, but it can also create job opportunities and foster economic growth.

Overall, the speakers conclude that Africa’s progress in the digital sphere should be objectively examined through an unbiased self-appraisal. While external financial influence can be a potential obstacle, the continent has the potential to overcome this challenge by relying on its own resources and fostering a culture of innovation and self-sufficiency. By embracing crowdfunding, supporting local initiatives, and creating African solutions for African problems, Africa can continue to make significant strides in its digital transformation journey.

Jimson Olufuye:
Okay, it’s two minutes after. I think we can start now. Konnichiwa. Yeah, that is a greetings in Japanese to everyone in the room and to those who have joined us online and those following us through the regional hubs. So welcome to workshop number 311, Global Digital Value Chain Africa’s status and way forward. This workshop is being put together by the Africa ICT Alliance AFICTA and is happening at the 18th Internet Governance Forum taking place here in Kyoto, Japan. With the theme, Internet we want, the Internet we want, empowering all people. And this particular workshop is under the sub-theme of digital divides and inclusion. My name is Jameson Olufoye. I have the privilege of being the chair of the Adversary Council of Africa’s ICT Alliance AFICTA. Talking about AFICTA, AFICTA is a concerned private sector led alliance of ICT association companies and individual IT professionals in Africa founded in 2012 with six country membership, but now in more than 40 countries in Africa. Our vision is to fulfill the promise of the digital age for everyone in Africa. And in doing so, we collaborate with the AU, UNECA, African government, especially the government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and through ATESAL and also through the Ministry of Communication, Innovation and Digital Economy in Nigeria. In the spirit of multi-stakeholder engagement, which is the bedrock of Internet Governance Forum as outlined in the Tunis agenda of the World Summit on Information Society 2005. So we want to thank all our stakeholders for connecting and working with us thus far. The chair of AFICTA will be talking more during his opening remark. So one of the positive things that came out of this WSIS and Internet Governance is AFICTA indeed. And on the chat room, you can get a link to our website to know more about AFICTA. Well, by my day job, I’m the principal consultant at Contemporary Consulting. It’s an IT firm based in Abuja. We work on data center, mitigate cybersecurity issues, provide cloud computing solution, online workflow research. We do a lot of research. So I’ll be your on-site moderator for this workshop. We have also online moderator and that is Mr. E.E. Kemabunta. Mr. E.E. Kemabunta is the national coordinator of AFICTA and is also the CEO of Tech Law. Mr. Kemabunta, are you there? Please say hello if you are there. Hello, yes, I’m here. Good morning and good evening. Good afternoon, wherever you are joining us from. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Kemabunta. And we also have, speaking in this panel, as I mentioned, the chair of AFICTA, Mr. Thabo Masegwani, the former president, Institute of IT Professionals of South Africa, will be giving his opening remark. We have a very rich panel of on-site and online speakers. In no particular order, as I introduced them, though they will also talk more about what they do as they intervene. I have Mr. Bimbo Abiyoie, who is the president of the Institute of Software Practitioners of Nigeria and the group MD Fintrack Software, Nigeria Limited, representing the private sector. We also have Dr. Kosi Amesuno, Amesuno, Chief of World Bank Division in the Ministry of Economic and Finance of the Benin Republic. Dr. Kosi, are you there? Yeah, Dr. Kosi is there. Is Mr. Bimbo there online? Yes, I’m here. Good morning. Good morning. Great. Good day. All right. Then we have Professor Yoan Kuleza, representing Academia in Europe. Professor Yoan, are you in the house? Sorry, yes, I am. I’m looking forward to the panel. Thank you for having me. Oh, great. Then we have the Amazon of IT Governance, Internet Governance in Nigeria. Mrs. Mary Uduma is also the coordinator of the West African IGF, representing the civil society. Dr. Melissa Sassi, representing the private sector in North America. Are you in the house, Dr. Melissa? Yes, I am. Thank you for having me, and thank you for representing us in Kyoto. Oh, great. Thank you. Good to see you and hear your voice. Yeah, you too. You too. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Next is Mr. Toyi Oloniteru, the CEO of DAPT, representing the private sector. Mr. Toyi, are you in the room? Yes, yes, I’m with you. Good morning from Nigeria, and good afternoon from elsewhere. We are talking from different locations, but it’s very early morning in Nigeria now. It’s a pleasure to be with you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next is Miss Jane Coven, representing the technical community in North America. Jane, are you in the room? Okay, actually Jane is in a session now, and she will join us before the end of the program. Next is Miss Rachel Chitanda, Executive Officer, Computer Society of Kenya, a strong member of AFICTA, from the private sector. Miss Rachel, are you in the room? Yes, yes. Good morning and good evening to everyone. It’s nice to be here. Looking forward to the conversation. Okay, great to see you. Next is Dr. Ben Ewa. Dr. Ben Ewa is the Acting Director, e-Government, at the National Information Technology Development Agency of Nigeria, representing the government. Dr. Ben. Thank you very much. It’s nice to meet you all. Okay, and also, we have one of the Distinguished guests, Senator Afolabi Salesu, I don’t know if he’s around. He will join us because of the program. He’s the Chairman, Senate Committee on ICT and Cybercrime in the National Assembly of Nigeria, representing the parliament. So this is how it’s going to go. Each speaker will have about three minutes to speak for the two rounds we’re going to go through of policy questions, covering about 60 minutes. So we hope that at the end of the two rounds of discussion, then we can take input from the audience and Q&A from the audience. So the Chair of AFRICTA, Mr. Salaesu, Thabo Ezeguani, please, the floor is yours for your opening remark. Thank you.

Thabo Mashegoane:
Much appreciated, Dr. Jimson. And good morning to everyone who is in Africa and Kunishiwa for those in Kyoto. I had just learned the new word. We have to continually learn as we go along. Ladies and gentlemen, there is an old adage that says, if you’re not on the agenda, you become part of the menu. And I think this actually speaks a lot to a discussion we’re going to have today, where Africa is poised to become one of the most populated continent with youngsters into the next 30 to 50 years. And we will see ourselves in a scenario where each individual has on average about four devices. But however, what we see here is the issue of more on the consumption side. And we have to ask ourselves the question of how do we then transition from a consumption-based economy into being more of producers and manufacturers? And we have to ask ourselves as we continue, whether as Africa, will we be able to accomplish the sustainable development goals with only as a consumption-based economy? We need to ask ourselves, what then are the low-hanging fruits in transitioning from being consumption-based into being largely a producer? Of course, there’s many approaches to this. One being that you can do a big bang approach. We know practically it’s interesting to do that, but perhaps we need to have a roadmap that starts with capacity development right into establishing production facilities in Africa and having Africa to participate and partake in this value chains of digital. Ladies and gentlemen, I think there will be a lot of expected discussion going into the panel. And I don’t want to take a lot of time. Let’s just give a round of applause to our panel who will give us an expert opinion on this topic. I thank you.

Jimson Olufuye:
Thank you very much, Chair. And in fact, all the panelists, because you have to wake up very early. I think in Nigeria it’s about past 5 a.m. and in some other places around midnight. So we really appreciate your sacrifice and commitment. Thank you, Chair, for that direction. I will now yield to my colleague, moderator, the online Angu, Mr. Ye Kemabunta, for the next item on the agenda. Mr. Ye Kemabunta, please.

Inye Kembonta:
Okay, thank you. Thank you, Jameson. I have the honor to speak briefly on the workshop, but incidentally, when the chairman of AFICTA, Thabo, spoke, he did an excellent job in explaining what has brought us to this workshop, actually. So I run the risk of repeating him, so I’m going to be careful. And your introductions too give a hint as to where we’re headed. So the workshop has been thought through and put together to help stakeholders, as it were, discuss the issues surrounding the global digital value chain, as the chain affects Africa. Africa is a repository of several minerals that aid manufacturing of certain kinds of infrastructure for the internet. Africa has human, therefore, has human resources and material resources, but it does appear that we have. has really achieved essential retention of the value chain. So what has gone wrong? We’re gonna be talking about looking at it and I want to make it a bit balanced since we’re discussing inclusivity here. Is Africa really included deliberately in the process? Answer may be yes, it may be not quite. I can’t foretell, the panelists will have a go at it and explain how Africa can get more of the value chain. Would there need to be some concessions to Africa? Would Africa need to step up its policy development? These are issues that will come up this workshop looking at value retention and having not to be a consumer continent all through but also taking advantage of its own resources especially material that are abundant really in Africa. How can those be exploited, explored and exploited to help Africa take its place in an inclusive process of internet governance forum? So that’s essentially where we’re here. We’ll be putting questions to the panelists who are professionals in their own right. Unfortunately, the time doesn’t allow for the deep dive by every speaker. So we ask that the speakers go straight to the point, be brief, cover the grounds in just about three minutes. We’re gonna have two rounds of the discussion. So that’s essentially what we’re here for, what the workshop is about. Thank you, Jameson.

Jimson Olufuye:
Thank you very much, Mr. Kemabunta for putting it very clearly. I also have no doubts that our panelists will do justice to the subject. But before we go ahead, I’ll just recognize the director in charge of technology and innovation at the UNECA, that’s Dr. Maktasek. Dr. Maktasek, you’re welcome. Again, welcome to everyone. Now to the policy questions. We just have two policy questions. I will take one, then Mr. Eyea will take the second one and all our speakers will take one after the other as Eyea mentioned. This first policy question has two parts. So we just encourage our panelists to respond to them in succession. Considering that Africa is rated as a continent with the least contribution to the global digital value chain as evidenced through the dilemma experienced in the advent of the COVID-19. So A, how inclusive is the global digital value chain? And as a consensus stakeholder, what are the initiatives or actions required to take, the action we require to take to amend the abnormal scenario. And the follow-up to that, which is the second part of this first question, is kindly identify soft areas through which Africa could penetrate the global digital value chain and the benefits the continent would derive. And so I’m going to invite Mr. Bimbo Abuye, the group MD of FinTrack, for the for your submission. Sorry, he needs to have his video and microphone turned down. Would the host please assist? Okay, great. There he is. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, the moderators, the audience, everywhere we are, in any part of the world. Yes, as has been… I don’t know why you guys… Go ahead, we can hear you. Proceed.

Bimbo Abioye:
Okay, thanks. Yes, from the global digital value chain, we are talking about the creation and production, distribution, consumption, and ownership of digital content and platforms. And when you look at all the ecosystem, from maybe car banking, caprice solutions, to payment processing and fintech, to cyber security, research and development, to cryptocurrency, to digital marketing and advertising, video streaming, and what have you. Cloud computing and infrastructure. It is very evident and clear that Africa is nowhere on the map. There may be a lot of presence on the content creation in some climates, and also maybe fintech. We are also into consumption and creation, but definitely not ownership. So Africa as a continent is already on a super high way to becoming a digital slave in the ecosystem, which is very, very unfortunate. What can we do? Unfortunately, it’s like everything is really getting cast, but it’s not too late to still make some changes. The problem with Africa is Africa itself. I wish there are things other parts of the world can do to help Africa. I think they are doing their bit, but even in their attempts to help, ownership is taken away. We have some unicorns on the African continent today, but all our unicorns have been sold because there is no supportive environment in Africa, even for African businesses. So, what can we do differently? We need to up our game on policy and regulatory frameworks. We need to up our game on capacity building and skill development. We need to up our game on research and development. These areas we are lagging behind. Access to finance is another very big area that we need to up our game on. Unfortunately for us in Africa, even the way we value things, we look too much to the past and the present, and that puts us at a disadvantage. Many organizations that are digital-minded, they are looking more at the future. Oh, this company is struggling now. If I publish this form, it will enable it to do things that will enhance value. But we are fixated by what the company has been able to do and what it’s doing now as a prism to look at its future. So these things have to radically shift, and governments across Africa have got to also get involved in enabling access to finance. Without finance, there can’t be much impact in development. And of course, infrastructure development is another very critical area that governments across Africa have to play a very clear role. Access to infrastructure like roads, ports, utilities, power, the cost of doing business in Africa is very, very high, and it puts us at a disadvantage. If all this can be done, Africa will take its place in the digital ecosystem. Thank you very much, Mr. Amartey.

Jimson Olufuye:
Thank you very much, Mr. Abiy. As the president of ISPON, it would be good to hear what ISPON will do or how ISPON will respond even to this subject matter. Thank you for all the points you have outlined. I will move to the next speaker. And that is Dr. Kossi Amasinu. Dr. Kossi.

Kossi Amessinou:
Thank you, Chairman. I thank also Africa for inviting me. It is our third time now making workshop together. Okay. We are often ahead some experts saying every time that Africa is no longer something like land of consumption. Africa is the land of consumption of digital. Digital coming from another place. But it’s important to know that that position are changing now. That position are very changing. Since COVID-19 time, we have some collective awareness that must encourage and also energize for us in Africa. The availability of digital technology is not possible if we don’t have massive investment in digital infrastructure. Several African governments understood that today. When we see in our area in West Africa, for example, in Benin, we know that private sector cannot invest in the area where profitability of the investment is not very clearly for short and middle term now. Governments now in our area, including Benin, we offer private sector several opportunity. We provide subsidy within framework of transparent call of intent. When we need to put some specific infrastructure somewhere, for example, we need to have broadband in rural area. We call private sector people and tell them how kind of investment you need to do this job. And we provide them subsidy to support the gap of resource. It’s important for us today to construct that is important to have new approach. for investment in the infrastructure area in Africa. We have one approach called methodology of synergy, inter-network synergy. This approach mean we’re supposed to take into account that methodology when we are designing project, when we are planning, when we are deploying, when we are maintaining the infrastructure we’re supposed to do in telecommunication area, in electricity area, in transport providing area. When we have, for example, we have a project to build the roads, we know that we need to make more action in that area to less pass also the network of telecommunication, the network of water, the network of electricity. When we take this into account and discuss more with private sector, also government, and see how we can help together, we reduce the cost of investment of project. We have also some challenge in our area. What is data? We need data center and internet exchange point. But when we build data center and internet exchange point is for one result. We’re supposed to have our data, our internet traffic locally. Internet is good, but if I want to call somebody in the same country with me, and I use internet bandwidth, it’s not profitable. It’s really good for us to have our local network usable. If I call somebody in the same area, the cost will be very low for me. Another point is our regulation today. How can we regulate the digital sector in our region? More time, we understand internet service providers say, the cost is high, we don’t take more investment to provide service for our clients. Today, for example in Benin, we have the license by city. The people who have their internet service provider can receive now the license by city, build their network and provide service. That is make the price very low for people who will need that internet service. We have also the challenge of literacy, digital literacy. We can make some people outside the internet today. It’s important for us to teach people, to let them know what is internet, and use that internet in ethical area. Because we know, we understand cyber security, cyber security, we can work on it by awareness.

Jimson Olufuye:
Thank you Chairman. Excellent, excellent. That is from the government perspective. A lot of work you are already doing there. Well, we still take all the inputs. Let me turn to Professor Kulesa, Joanna Kulesa. Please, you have the mic. The mic is muted, the mic is muted. Yes, indeed, I did unmute it right now.

Joanna Kulesza:
Thank you so much. I am thrilled to join the AFICTA panel again. Thank you for having me. I have been listening in on the discussion with much attention, and I do hope to be able to contribute with a case study that might address the concerns that were mentioned by previous speakers. So I do note that there is a need for comprehensive, well-aligned regulatory framework. Looking at the challenge that has been addressed somewhat from the outside, I welcome the observations from the insiders. As the case study, I would like to put on the table for discussion does reflect those concerns. I also note the need for coordinated capacity building and the reliance on infrastructures as offered by non-African companies. Now, having consulted with the organizers, please let me propose one case study, one suggestion here that might be of interest during this IGF meeting. There have been quite a few sessions organized around new developing internet infrastructures that are allowing connectivity, particularly in underserved regions and in developing countries. In this context, it might be useful for us to look into the policy challenge for the location of those specific services in the global value chain with due regard to Africa. Now, the picture you see on your screens is the availability of SpaceX, non-African company and its services to regions in Africa in developing countries, particularly in those which are challenged when it comes to connectivity. I would like to propose this discussion in the context of sustainable development goals. The overarching purpose is to ensure that the next billion is connected and that connection is stable, secure and offered in a sustainable way. When we look at the specific development in the global value chain, we would note that there is a rapid rise both in demand and in supply when it comes to these developing, not so novel, but rapidly developing technologies. Just recently, at the beginning of this year, SpaceX announced that it will start operation in Nigeria. Now, it might be relevant for us to question how that operation is going to function, how the sustainable development goals will be achieved with a non-African company offering that service with governmental support to individual end users. Now, I believe that a recently completed project supported by the Internet Society Foundation on that specific purpose offers a few suggestions. You will find more information here. I do not wish to take up too much time, but if you were seeking recommendations for both policy and civil society engagement into the specific components of the global value chain, do consider clicking on the link at the address given above. The report presented for the Internet Society Foundation within its Decolonizing the Internet theme looks at various policy aspects of low-Earth orbit satellites, including the services offered by the company headed by Mr. Musk. I will refrain here from highlighting specific cases where these policy issues have recently become relevant, but it is not just connecting the next billion of users, but it is also ensuring access in times of conflict or internal turmoil, just to mention the war in Ukraine or the situation in Iran. So, if developing countries, we call them non-space-faring nations, those who do not yet have access to space technologies, wish to develop their policies and inform civil society in a consistent manner, allowing them to reach for that low-hanging fruit of technology that is already being offered slowly to African states, they might consider raising awareness around the regulatory landscape of broadband satellite technologies. Just very briefly, the landscape might not be as simple as one might think. So, when we do consider broadband Internet access, it is not just national regulation. One could go even as far as to say that national regulation might not be sufficient. We would probably view that component of Internet infrastructure from a broader perspective, and that would encompass both international law, national regulations, but also, with us meeting here at the IGF, the policies developed in a multi-stakeholder manner. So, when we look at that specific technologies, all of those components should be considered. On the website in the report, but also accompanying the report, you will find two cheat sheets. So, ready-made documents with questions that both the governments and civil society, respectively, might wish to answer before they allow a private company offering these specific services. I’ve put on a slide here simply the questions for civil society, ensuring that we would have their representation here in the room, but there is a dedicated policy cheat sheet policy report also for governments. We do consider Internet access a human right, and when a new technology comes and offers Internet access to those who have been behind the digital divide, the government is quick to act to make sure that the citizens are satisfied and actually do have connectivity. But questions to be asked include those around jurisdiction, include those around security. Who owns this equipment? Who has access to it? access there too, who may decide to switch it off in times of conflict, as you might have observed recently over Ukraine. Finally, a vital component that was already mentioned by one of the previous speakers is data. When these new fundamental technologies are introduced into jurisdiction, both civil society and governments should ask questions about data, the content of data collected, the access there too, and the processing rights. Again, we’ve been asked to speak simply for three minutes as an introduction, so I will leave you with this slide. But just to summarize, if you’re looking to address this specific challenge, which is fundamental to connectivity in the region, do consider following or actively participating in the World Radio Conference happening later this year, where these considerations will be discussed, maybe not in a multi-stakeholder model, but with a particular focus on governments. And informed input from all stakeholders in a multi-stakeholder manner will, however, allow also African countries to take an active step towards ensuing sustainable development and sustainable internet access. I’ll stop here for the sake of time. There is more at the link provided, and I am always happy to answer questions. I’m looking forward to the second part of the panel.

Jimson Olufuye:
Thank you again for having me. Thank you very much, Prof. It’s like you are saying that the government has a lot to do with regards to ensuring that there is greater participation of Africa in the digital value chain. And in terms of participating in ITU, you know ITU is a treaty-making organization. But I’ll just use the opportunity to recognize that, indeed, most countries are encouraged to attend such events through. multi-stakeholder delegation, wherein the private sector, the civil society, and all relevant stakeholders are part of the country team. Thank you very much for highlighting that. Let me now turn to Miss Mary Uduma, speaking from the civil society perspective. Madam Mary Uduma. Madam Mary.

Mary Uduma:
Thank you. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are connecting. And thank you for being in this session. From my own perspective, my name is Mary Uduma, as we said. I coordinate the West Africa Internet Governance Forum. And in looking at Africa’s participation and in the process of the global digital value chain, I’m sorry. And for us, from the grassroots, we try to make sure that we are participating in our own little way, and raising these issues at the IGF, whenever we organize our national IGF or regional IGF. And more so, we are also interested in how this new process, new program, after affect the human rights. And we talked about the pandemic area. You now saw that we’re only dependent on the other people from outside Africa to help us. Even the one we developed within Africa, we were not able to, it didn’t go far. But the fact is that we need to consciously, we need to consciously, intentionally develop, will I call it engaging the engagement of and advocacy for participation of Africans in this value chain. And also developing our young people, developing our business people in particular, because our business people are not participating a lot in the process. So, and also making sure that our voices are not only heard, but we also be part of it. But I want to say, I want to raise one issue that Africa has done. One is the M-PESA and the FinTech area when M-PESA started from Kenya and other countries and the regions are adopting that. And so that is one of the contributions I can see. And we can see that FinTech is booming in our, especially in Nigeria. And we can see Jumia or Conga, people doing e-commerce. So those are where I think we are participating or we are contributing. So that’s for me where I could say that the business sector is doing. But come to human rights, we want standards. We want to be protected. Our data that is being gathered, we want it to be protected. So we are trying to, We are also concerned about where the data is housed, where it is stored, where it is stored, where it is stored. So we would try as much as possible to provide advocacy for data protection and safety of our data. We are also concerned about where this data, where they are housed. Okay? So we should also be part of, let’s see whether we can house our data within our continent and not depending on everything

Jimson Olufuye:
else. So we should also be part of, let’s see whether we can house our data within our continent and not depending on everything else. Thank you very much. That is very good. We are actually participating one way or the other. We need to do more. Thank you very much. I will turn now to Dr. Melissa Sassi, North America. Dr. Sassi, please.

Melissa Sassi:
I am a venture partner at machine lab venture. I am a venture partner at machine lab venture. I am a venture partner at machine lab venture. I am a venture partner at machine lab venture. My whole world revolves around, you know, enabling tech entrepreneurs to build their businesses, scale their businesses and potentially exit, depending on the scenario. I have spent a lot of time in, you know, kind of digital skill building. So I kind of take this intervention and look at it from the perspective of technology entrepreneurship and promoting a culture of digital innovation and financial well-being. And why do I take it from this perspective? You know, it is about making, you know, meaningful use of the technology in front of us and, you know, enabling skill building that drives outcomes. Meaningful and quick outcomes. So I am going to read some headlines. It is a bit doom and gloom, but also, you know, a bit inspiring as well. Accelerating the use of digital technologies is key to creating productive jobs and boosting economic growth in Africa. Middle East and North Africa addressing highest rate of unemployment in the world. Entrepreneurship is critical to Africa’s transformation. Why Africa’s youth hold the key to its development potential. Why Africa’s youth hold the key to its development potential. Why Africa’s youth hold the key to its development potential. Youth entrepreneurs will define the future. So on and so forth. All right? And people are the ultimate resource in economic development. Without people, what do we have? So what do I see as entrepreneurship culture or entrepreneurship culture as Google was recommended to Google to see if countries understand that entrepreneurs should make sustainable investments and investments. I see things like climate investments. Education I see it like my day dress brand. I see it like ważned production I see. He speaks to the portfolio. I treat content creators. Educators most all over the world. It’s not possible for new students to share their experiences, young people to share their experiences with their peers. Not even necessarily through formal education often in organic ways. It’s about culture, it’s about skills, about tools. It’s about making the results of your working experience able to be validated and ratified. This is only possible through train the trainer initiatives, clubs, learning and well doing and collaborating. And learning and the challenges. measuring impact and scaling it. A perfect way to do this is leveraging where youth already are. University settings, for example. Breathing the fire of entrepreneurship into every single classroom and campus. Which enables it to build the scale, or enables it to be built for scale. Something like this. A campaign where you choose in one university as a pilot, 100 students, 50 students, that spend time over a short period of time to learn a number of different tools, growth mindset, entrepreneurship skills. And then they go out and share it in each and every faculty with sponsors from each faculty and those administrators that support the university as a whole. Enabling them to grow and shine so that it’s not just about them going and learning, they’re practically creating things, using the tools in front of them every single month. And then they have a capstone project. Again, practical stuff. Not memorizing things, not theoretical things, real stuff. Measuring it and scaling it and rolling it out to each and every university. So when I think about growth mindset, these are kind of things I think about. It’s being able to tell stories, to bring our stuff to life, our origin stories. Having a passion for lifelong learning. Knowing how to fail and be perfect, not be perfect. Knowing how to motivate ourselves, be resilient and have perseverance, so on and so forth. Entrepreneurial thinking. Knowing how to manage our money, make money, knowing where taxation comes from. Knowing how to build partnerships, knowing how to pitch, how to understand our audience, how to know when you’ve got a product that people want and they’re willing to pay for it. Knowing how to solve problems and think critically. These are examples of tools for entrepreneurs. Notice I haven’t put, let’s all go out and learn to code. It’s real practical stuff. And I just put these examples and it’s not about saying, you know, let’s use examples that already exist. Let’s look at local tools that can either be developed or are already developed. Design thinking and agile. All right, I’d love to engage anyone if they’re interested.

Jimson Olufuye:
I’m easy to find, Dr. Melissa Sassi, thank you. Thank you very, very much, Dr. Melissa Sassi. Culture of innovation, scaling up capacity and skills, being practical, being engaging. Thank you so much for that perspective. In fact, as a matter of fact, in Nigeria, we have a new minister that’s come up with a strategy focused on developing the talent and capacity of about five million youths. So you are quite right on point. Thank you. All right, well I know exactly who I’m calling tomorrow then. Okay, sure. All right, I will now turn to Mr. Tsoyi Oloniteru, the private sector, to please come forward with his perspective. Thank you. Mr. Tsoyi, are you there? Okay, maybe while we wait for Tsoyi to come up, I’ll move to Ms. Rachel Shitanda, Executive Officer, Computer Society of Kenya. Rachel, are you there? Yes, yes. Okay, please, go ahead. You have your three minutes. Oh, so thank you so much for the opportunity and thank you everyone for joining in. I think I have to introduce myself.

Rachael Shitanda :
My name is Rachel Shitanda. I’m a Senior Executive Member for Computer Society of Kenya. I’m also a Head of Product for Mentalists. I lead team of developers and techies when it comes to product development and strategic outlook towards products and startup. So my approach and my view towards this problem of today is more of us as Africa looking towards our own capacity as a continent and what we as ourselves can use, can leverage to solve our own problem when it comes to digital and inclusivity and also when it comes to economic development. So it’s a common fact for everyone who is here that African has really enjoyed and experienced a very increased connectivity and accessibility to internet and penetration of internet in the continent for the past two decades. And so Africa is one of the markets which is attracting a lot of startups. And one of the biggest thing that we have to focus as Africa is how are we making our own solutions? Are we leveraging also from that uptake to build our own economies? So the main focus here is the governments to really put a strategy around encouraging local talent and local homemade products to be developed. As from the previous speakers who have already spoken before me, they spoke about Mr. Bimbo has spoken about financing, infrastructure and reduction of cost of business, which primarily is focused around government policies in terms of business uptake. And so if we have, if we provide a very favorable environment to startups and also to individuals in our communities to start business, then we will leverage on this change and this uptake of Africa as a very new market in the world. We have also heard from Dr. Kosis about local network and how the government needs engagement in order to provide solutions and also better regulation policies. So I think as a representative of the government, we can agree that it is a mutual responsibility and it falls a lot more on the government because as a government, it has a mandate to provide. good policies, employment opportunities, stable local currencies, and safeguarding their population. So, I think it’s a point for us to get in the middle ground and focus on those issues that are really affecting us. Also, as it’s common knowledge and also what Dr. Melissa has spoken about, about high skill set and entrepreneurship mindset that should be developed within ourselves in order to leverage on this change and develop our continent, then we have to look at what is this high skills and entrepreneurship mindset. What are we providing as a continent in order to grow our entrepreneurial mindset? Are we providing finances? Are we growing our population in such a way that they focus on job creation? Are we encouraging capital venture capitalism within our own? Like, are we building capital investment within our own communities? Because it’s just sad that most of the startups that are brought up, even that are coming up in Africa, they are mostly funded by venture capitalism from the East and the West. And our own population of people that are able to either finance or invest in such companies are not even aware or are not informed about opportunities that are around tech and the tech ecosystem and how they can leverage their income and grow their portfolios by investing in small startups within ourselves. So, I think we should really go into it deep and encourage our own population to invest within Africa by providing solutions around ourselves. So, as I conclude, I just want to focus more on us building solutions within ourselves. As Africa and also as policy makers that are in this forum, what environment are we building or are we creating around building networks and also building companies and encouraging other companies to come? What are we also doing when it comes to employment and skills upgrading? What are we doing when it comes to regulation? What are we doing in our own capacity when it comes to consumption of products that have been developed in Africa? What are we doing as a private sector also to develop solutions that we need because we actually understand what we need from our own contents? What are we doing also as a continent to safeguard our own data? What are those things that we’re encouraging companies to invest and bring their data to Africa? Are we providing the enabling environment? And so, as a community and also as people stakeholders within this industry, we need to focus on this. So, thank you so much. Excellent. Rachel, very well put.

Jimson Olufuye:
We appreciate that intervention. I will turn now to Toi. Mr. Toi Oloruniteru, you are back online now. Okay, please go ahead for your three minutes. Thank you.

Olutoyin Justus Oloniteru:
Okay. Thank you, everybody. Just to be very quick, my contribution is that we need to do an unbiased self-appraisal of Africa and how we are doing because we seem to be over-focused on the negative side and not able to appraise the positive side in terms of the progress that we have made so that we can see how we can quickly advance on that because a lot is happening in the continent. For example, like this Africa ICT Alliance that we have now, it wasn’t there 30 years ago. So, today that shows that there’s a progress that we’re making and I know a lot of things that we’re doing with this Africa ICT Alliance to change the dynamic of things. So, we have to look at a lot of business expansions that is taking place in Africa, just like MTN came to Nigeria, Eko Network came to Nigeria. I know a lot of Nigerian companies that are also going to other African countries, Kenya. Just like our banking system, we have technology expanding to other African countries. So, in the same way, we have a whole lot of… of things that are happening. For example, we have the DNS Africa now. We are right now, I imagine, as a fellow of the encryption associate council, mentoring a lot of other young Africans from Kenya, from Tanzania, from elsewhere in Africa. So a lot of things happening, and we need to also recognize these things so that we can now see how those things can help in the transformation of the digital value chain for Africa in the immediate to long term. For example, if I have met a lot of people now to expand my businesses to other parts of Africa, this is my mentees, they’ve really become part of the value chain process. And right now, in our companies in Nigeria, I’m recruiting some of those people from other countries in Africa to work in Nigeria remotely. Vulnerability assessment, financial testing, creating jobs for them, making sure that they’re part of the value systems, making sure that we are doing things so we need to point these things out. And what am I trying to say? We need to have behavior modification in terms of change of attitude. And my recommendation is that we need to lay a lot of emphasis on crowdfunding and crowdsourcing. We look at Africa as a whole, we can crowdfund Africa. If you have 1 billion people, let us say we develop something. I would say people should subscribe to it at, say, $10 or $100, and you have 1 million people in the whole of Africa, let’s say for technology development. How much would that be? If that funding is put there by Africans, then we can determine the utilization. Maybe young people, new investments, new startups, that Africans will give this thing to Africans, rather than the funding coming from the East and the West. Because if the business model and the design of the funding is from Western countries or from Eastern countries, I can bet you that they cannot do that without looking at how they are going to make return on investment. So we are undermining ourselves because we think that we are poor. We are looking at ourselves from a poverty point of view, which is wrong, because there is a lot of capacity in terms of informing capacity. It will not be government and government and government only. The government will also borrow from the West and be paying back. We can fund ourselves through crowdfunding, and we’ve got to deliver the service also through crowdsourcing. If I want to have the solutions in Nigeria, why can’t I get somebody from South Africa, somebody from the East? And it has happened before. Because look at all of us using Moodle and e-learning software now, whereas QNES Gen has one of the first e-learning software which I’m part of, that NCS. put four universities in Nigeria to learn about telecommunications development for Africa, when the Telecommunications Regulations Force was developed by the University of South Africa, and a copy of it was given to the University of Jordan to use. So now, instead of using QNHJ, why do we now decide to go and use Google for those ones that were developed by Western countries, popularize it, and kill yours? So to me, we need a change of attitude, we need the right attitude, we need to look at the little little progress that we have been making, rely on crowd-funding and crowd-sourcing African solutions to African problems, including manufacturing of hardware, which is also happening in Nigeria. I know one of our directors in NIDA, Dr. Agu, is doing a lot of mechatronics at a village in Abuja, Fujie. We can go there, so instead of patronizing, for the government to go and patronize products from outside Africa, and then we keep on complaining and complaining. If it’s going to create jobs, creating jobs in Nubia, not even in the city center, in the remote area. So this would be my immediate contribution for now, that crowd-funding and crowd-sourcing and the right attitude to look at the positive side of what we can do. Thank you.

Jimson Olufuye:
Very well made, very well made. We need to look inwards. Excellent, thank you very much, Chief Tui Oloniteru. Let me now turn on to Dr. Ben Ewa, NIDA. I can say that NIDA is also one of the outcomes of WSIS, one way or the other. Dr. Ben Ewa. Thank you very much.

Bernard Ewah:
One of the benefits of speaking last is that you get to summarize all the ideas that have been made by previous speakers. I must say that I quite agree with every view that has been expressed here. By way of introduction, yes, I work for the National Information Technology Agency, where we intervene through regulations. As I said during the session on data governance and trust yesterday, we are beginning to see regulatory interventions that are more market-facing, less risk-adverse, designed to trigger new markets. The issues that have been talked about here have to do with infrastructure or the quality of infrastructures. In the last decades, entrepreneurs from Nigeria, for instance, have ventured into assembly of computer devices. They have made enormous gains, but we also see how they have struggled in the market. So, we are also responding with and trying to bring out regulations that enhance the quality of device components and also improve the customer experience. But I will talk also about some of the things I do in addition to regulations, and that also resonates with some of the contributions from others, in particular the tech entrepreneurship and so on. If you take a very close look at the existing African market, we need to be interested in the structure of the labor market, where a large proportion of the economy is in the informal sector. If we are serious about tech adoption, we must be also interested in understanding where our needs are, what the structure is now, and how technology can impact on the existing structure. For instance, we consume a lot of goods that are unstructured, low quality, but which a huge percentage of our population rely on on a daily basis. So about two years ago, I started working on that, and currently we’ve successfully created a digital platform where virtually every service, including hair braiding and other services, can be structured. One of the interesting takeaways from that is that these traditional services can be digitized. We are seeing a connection where a carpentry worker can use digital platforms to enhance markets and so on. So my point is that we need to look at where the majority of our population needs interventions. That will be the low-hanging fruit for African markets and so on. Thank you very much. Very good.

Jimson Olufuye:
Thank you very much, Dr. Bain. I would love to hear what NIDA is doing to empower those people as well. It’s a good point you made, but we’ll come back to that. I will now yield to my colleague online, Mr. Yekema Bunta. Please pick it up.

Inye Kembonta:
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Excellent session so far. I listened attentively to all the speakers, and I was excited about the numerous suggestions that were coming forth. Ben, who speaks for government at this workshop, and has spoken last, I won’t let you go off so quickly. I won’t let you speak last again, so you’ll speak first. I have reversed the order and have you intervene right away. I’m going to be talking to you about raw materials, but I defined it broadly. I define raw materials to include human resources actually. I also define raw materials to include existing African solutions that are there, but not harnessed for the benefit of Africa. So since, and by the way, before I ask my question directly to Ben, Dr. Belewa, it would be nice for government, as you represent, to be part of AFICTA, even if at not a membership level, but at affiliate level of some kind. So the interaction can be more robust. We’ll not be talking to ourselves. We’ll have government engaging with us directly. So I’m appealing that you make this constant, since you represent a very powerful and important agency in Nigeria, the NIDDA, the Technology Development Agency, but that’s an aside. So let’s get to the question. We’re home to resources, really. Africa is home to so much resources, human and natural. What went wrong that we are not able to convert those resources to a normal part of the value chain globally? Take, for instance, let’s look at government. Has government of Nigeria, which you speak about, taking steps in what direction to ensure that those resources are used even for the benefit of the nation, as an example? So you go first, Dr. Belewa. Thank you very much. Yes, one minute.

Bernard Ewah:
On the first part of the question about membership of Africa, I’m already here, and I’m going to take this back to my boss. ensure that it continues to participate and contribute effectively in this process. On the second part about conversion or utilization of natural resources, this is interesting because every age defines the value of natural resources. We can talk about what the coal industry still meant a couple of decades ago to some economies, including advanced economies, and what it is today. But today we are also looking at new resources like data and so on. So I think the key thing for government is to recognize the transition in the resource utilization and how they can be effectively employed to achieve national development.

Jimson Olufuye:
Thank you. Yes, Mr. Iye, just to bring it to your attention, we also have another powerful government agency representative in the house, NCC. So Dr. Chidi is here, sitting with us. So please, I’m sure you want to also… Dr. Chidi from NCC? Yes, exactly. The Nigerian Communications Commission?

Inye Kembonta:
Exactly. Yes. Oh, why don’t we have his intervention for a minute at once, since government is speaking. The telecom sector is what he represents, and most of that… is probably in foreign hands, as it were. So let’s hear his own intervention. You have a minute, sir. We’re talking about resources. Africa is home to natural resources for production. And I defined resources to include human resources. I defined it to be broad. Natural resources include human resources, and also solutions that already exist. How has that fared in the telecom sector? Are we contributing to the global value chain, as it were? Thank you.

Jimson Olufuye:
All right.

Chidi Diugwu:
Thank you very much, the moderator. Your question is very relevant. Human capacity development is very critical as a raw material for the subject matter. As you may have gathered by now, NCC is a major, in fact, the only sponsor of the Digital Bridge Institute in Nigeria. So Digital Bridge Institute is designed to upscale Nigerians when it comes to digital literacy. There are so many programs going on there, like the Advanced Digital Appreciation course, and there are programs that are designed to upscale public servants. Well, that is on a very high level. The NCC is very much keen to develop research and development, and that is why we have a full department dedicated for research and development.

Jimson Olufuye:
So we endow professorate chair on Nigerian universities selected every year.

Chidi Diugwu:
Apart from that, I would like to thank the African Secretariat and of course the technical team,

Jimson Olufuye:
a wonderful technical team. Can you put your hands together for this great technical team? Big thanks to the government and the people of Japan for their overwhelming hospitality. Thank you all very much. Have a good day and goodbye. Thank you very much. I think we had a very wonderful session. The time was a bit of a limitation. You can go through the chat and see some of the comments that we have there and questions. I hope we’ll be able to do justice to that, maybe if we have another version of this discussion next year. It’s something we really need to further discuss going forward. Thank you everyone. Thank you so much. Thank you too and goodbye. I don’t know if you are listening to me, but I can hear you. Thank you, Namaste. Namaste. Namaste. Namaste.

Allan Cabanlong

The Global Conference on Cyber Capacity Building (GC3B) brought together experts and decision-makers from all over the world to discuss the importance of addressing digital risks and strengthening cyber resilience. The conference highlighted the fact that the digital world has a profound impact on every aspect of our lives but also presents numerous risks that need to be addressed.

One of the main arguments put forward at the conference was the necessity for individuals and nations to be aware of these digital risks. It emphasized that simply being aware of these risks and their potential impact is not enough. Resources, knowledge, and skills are required to effectively mitigate them. The speakers stressed the need for investment in the digital future and the importance of every country having the resources and expertise necessary to navigate the challenges posed by the digital transformation.

The conference also emphasized the need for global collaboration in cybersecurity. It recognized that no single nation can tackle these challenges alone and that nations need to work together and support each other to keep up with the rapid pace of the digital transformation. Collaboration was seen as crucial not only for addressing current challenges but also for staying ahead of emerging threats and technologies.

The aim of GC3B was to support and strengthen global cyber resilience. The conference brought together high-level government leaders, practitioners, experts on cybersecurity, and representatives from the development community. Through interactive discussions and knowledge sharing, the conference aimed to develop a global framework for concrete actions that support countries in enhancing their cyber resilience.

Cyber capacity building was highlighted as a key enabler for sustainable development. It emphasized that all nations need to prioritize building their capacity to effectively respond to cyber threats. Building robust cyber capabilities is seen as essential not only for protecting critical infrastructure and national security but also for promoting economic growth and social development.

The conference had a positive impact on inspiring other regions and strengthening global cybersecurity cooperation. The insights, ideas, and best practices shared at GC3B were seen as invaluable in inspiring other regions to take similar actions and fostering a renewed commitment to global cybersecurity cooperation.

In conclusion, the Global Conference on Cyber Capacity Building stressed the importance of being aware of digital risks and having the necessary resources, knowledge, and skills to mitigate them. The need for global collaboration and support in cybersecurity was emphasized, aiming to keep up with the digital transformation. The conference aimed to support and strengthen global cyber resilience and highlight the key role of cyber capacity building in enabling sustainable development. The GC3B conference inspired other regions and left a lasting impact on global cybersecurity cooperation.

Audience

The audience member raised several questions during the event. Firstly, they were curious about the reasons for choosing Ghana as the location for the event and asked about the availability of virtual involvement. The organizers did not provide a direct response to this, but it can be inferred that Ghana may have been chosen for its potential to host successful and impactful events.

The audience member also inquired about the organizers’ plans for the year after the event and their goals within the next three years. No specific plans or goals were mentioned, which implies that the organizers may not have disclosed this information. However, it is important to have long-term plans and goals to ensure the sustainability and continuity of initiatives like the Accra call.

Speaking of the Accra call, it was stated that achieving its objectives, as outlined in the Accra call document, will take a considerable amount of time. This indicates that the goals and aspirations laid out in the Accra call cannot be accomplished within a short period, such as six months or two years. It is crucial to understand that long-term commitment and efforts are required to bring about significant changes and advancements.

The concept of effective capacity building was also highlighted during the event. The audience member pointed out the importance of tailoring capacity building efforts to the specific needs and demands of the recipient country. It was emphasized that capacity building should be demand-driven, ensuring that the recipient country can absorb and sustain the knowledge, resources, and skills provided.

Furthermore, legislators were recognized as playing a vital role in sustainable cyber capacity building. It was stated that involving the legislators and helping them understand the value and importance of sustainable cyber capacity building is crucial for securing adequate budgetary resources. This acknowledgment highlights the need for collaboration and communication between policymakers and industry experts to ensure the allocation of necessary resources for successful capacity building programmes.

During the event, the issue of donor coordination was addressed. It was emphasized that de-conflicting between donor countries is essential to avoid duplication of work and optimize resource allocation. The Sybil Portal was mentioned as an existing tool that can be utilized to prevent overlap and promote effective coordination among donors.

In the context of cybersecurity, collaboration and coordination were emphasized as key factors for success. It was noted that going solo in cybersecurity initiatives is not effective; instead, collaboration and cooperative efforts are necessary. This is particularly relevant in the Pacific region, where countries are at different stages of cybersecurity development. The audience member highlighted the importance of ensuring that no country is left behind and called for coordinated efforts to address cybersecurity challenges collectively.

In conclusion, the audience member raised various insightful questions and concerns during the event. They inquired about the choice of Ghana as the event location, the availability of virtual involvement, plans for the future, and the goals of the Accra call. The concept of effective capacity building, the role of legislators in sustainable cyber capacity building, and the need for donor coordination were also discussed. Collaboration and coordination in cybersecurity efforts were emphasized, especially in the diverse Pacific region. Overall, the event provided valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities in event organization, capacity building, and cybersecurity.

Liesyl Franz

The involvement of the United States government in international cyberspace security and capacity building is vital for the development of knowledge, skills, and infrastructure in other countries. Over time, the US has increased its funding and activity in this area, moving from just one person to providing significant support to initiatives such as the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFCE) and the Global Conference on Cyber Space (GC3B) which aim to improve coordination and dialogue on cyber capacity building.

Recognizing the interconnected nature of cyberspace security and digital development, efforts are being made to address both areas together. Bridges are being built to bridge the gap between these two domains, ensuring progress in connectivity without compromising security. The goal is to digitize societies while also making them resilient to cyber threats.

The United States is a strong advocate for multi-stakeholder community discussions, which include donor countries, recipients, implementers, the private sector, and academia. Initiatives like the GFCE and GC3B facilitate engagement and effective cyber capacity building. The US actively participates in these conferences through a high-level interagency delegation.

Efficient capacity building depends on tailoring the approach to the specific needs of each country and ensuring its absorbability. Sustainability is another crucial aspect of capacity building, requiring long-term viability and continuous support.

Additionally, capacity building efforts should address immediate responses to crises. The United States highlights the importance of addressing urgent needs in countries facing crises like Ukraine, Albania, and Costa Rica. This demonstrates the necessity for capacity building to be adaptable and responsive.

Financial resources are vital for providing assistance in capacity building and other areas. Adequate funding is necessary to implement programs and initiatives effectively.

Emphasizing the benefits of cybersecurity efforts can encourage investment and political support. By highlighting the positive outcomes and advantages of cybersecurity measures, it becomes more likely that resources will be allocated to support and advance these efforts.

In terms of training, it is recommended to provide in-country, on-site training for better integration of cybersecurity measures. This tailored approach directly addresses the specific needs and challenges of each country. Continuous learning is also seen as beneficial in the field of cybersecurity, allowing individuals to stay updated and take advantage of professional development opportunities even if they are unable to travel for training.

In conclusion, the United States plays a pivotal role in international cyberspace security and capacity building. Their involvement includes financial support, hosting conferences, and promoting multi-stakeholder engagement. The interconnectedness of cyberspace security and digital development is recognized, and efforts are being made to address these areas together. Capacity building should be tailored to the specific needs of each country and focus on sustainability. Immediate responses to crises are essential, and adequate financial resources are necessary for providing assistance. Emphasizing the benefits of cybersecurity efforts can drive investment and political support. In-country, on-site training and continuous learning are recommended for better integration and professional development in cybersecurity.

Keywords: United States government, international cyberspace security, capacity building, funding, Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFCE), Global Conference on Cyber Space (GC3B), cyberspace security, digital development, multi-stakeholder community discussions, sustainability, immediate responses, financial resources, cybersecurity efforts, in-country training, on-site training, continuous learning.

Christopher Painter

The Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFC) is an organisation devoted to promoting cyber resilience and capacity building in line with sustainable development goals. An important initiative of the GFC is the ACRA Call to Action, which seeks to enhance cyber resilience in development and foster sustainable capacity building. This call to action is aimed at countries, regions, the private sector, and the technical community, with a focus on promoting cyber resilience, advancing effective cyber capacity building, strengthening partnerships, and enhancing resources.

Christopher Painter, a strong advocate for cyber capacity building, emphasises the significance of aligning with development goals. He believes that consultation and community input are crucial for the success of the ACRA Call. To ensure community engagement, a mature draft of the ACRA Call will be circulated for public comment by the end of October. The GFC also plans to engage the community through public consultations at various events, such as the Paris Peace Forum, Singapore Cyber Week, and the IGF session. Their objective is to address major concerns and incorporate new ideas and input into the ACRA Call.

Due to COVID restrictions, the GFC had to change the location of their first conference, originally planned to be held at the World Bank in Washington. Instead, they see an opportunity to hold the conference in Ghana, a country with unique needs in the field of cyber resilience. The government of Ghana is supportive of hosting the conference. Efforts are being made to facilitate virtual participation for those who are unable to attend in person, ensuring robust virtual connectivity.

The GFC places emphasis on involving the global south and securing legislative and leadership buy-in for sustainable cyber capacity building. They highlight the need to integrate cyber resilience into national plans and view it as an integral part of broader development strategies. They also stress the importance of respecting human rights and the rule of law in any declaration pertaining to cyber resilience and capacity building.

In terms of governance, the GFC aims to integrate improved governance practices into their work. They advocate for building partnerships, local leadership, and coordination among developing countries. By fostering the leadership of developing countries in coordinating cyber capacity building efforts, the GFC seeks to create stronger partnerships and enhance long-term sustainability.

Additionally, the GFC underscores the importance of information sharing and coordinated efforts among donor countries to avoid duplication of work. Regular meetings are held for donor countries to collaborate and exchange information. They also advocate for strengthening existing organisational structures rather than creating new ones, ensuring greater sustainability and efficiency.

Financial resources play a critical role in cyber resilience activities, and the GFC calls for maximising existing financial streams, including international development financing, domestic resource mobilisation, and private sector involvement. Drawing from the development community, they propose utilising models to measure sustainability and incorporating cyber resilience into integrated national financing frameworks.

To ensure professional development and capacity building, the GFC aims to professionalise the cyber capacity building community and promote human rights-based and gender-sensitive approaches. They also underscore the need for project prioritisation and the creation of measurement tools to assess the results and impact of projects.

In conclusion, the GFC is passionately committed to promoting cyber resilience and capacity building aligned with sustainable development goals. Through initiatives such as the ACRA Call to Action, partnerships with developing countries, and efforts to maximise financial resources, they strive to create a more secure and resilient cyber landscape. Their focus on consultation, community input, and collaboration reflects their commitment to inclusive and sustainable cyber capacity building efforts.

Tereza Horejsova

During the analysis, several important points were highlighted by the speakers. One of these points focused on the International Governance Forum (IGF) being described as a hybrid event. This means that the IGF combines both in-person and virtual elements, allowing for greater participation and connection from around the world. The IGF is seen as a significant platform for global networking and exchange of ideas.

Another key topic discussed was the Global Future Council (GFC) organising a major conference in Ghana, with a strong emphasis on partnerships for the goals. The conference aims to bring together various stakeholders to collaborate and work towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The GFC’s commitment to partnerships highlights the importance of collective efforts in addressing global challenges.

The analysis also focused on the ACRA call, which sets guidelines for efficient global action on cyber capacity building. This highlights the need for effective coordination and collaboration in addressing cybersecurity challenges worldwide. The call serves as a roadmap for enhancing cyber capacity and ensuring the global community is better equipped to mitigate digital risks and threats.

The digital world was discussed extensively, with a recognition of its vital role in essential areas such as food, water, and healthcare. The digital world enables connections and facilitates communication, leading to improved access to resources and services in these critical sectors. However, it was also acknowledged that digital risks are associated with the digital world. This emphasises the need for strong cybersecurity measures and proactive efforts to address potential threats.

Efficient resource use and better coordination were identified as crucial factors for enhanced global support. The analysis highlighted the importance of using limited resources effectively and establishing better collaboration among countries. This includes linking different communities in cyberspace and improving coordination to ensure optimum efficiency in resource utilisation.

The Sybil portal was discussed as a valuable resource for mapping various cyber capacity building projects. This portal allows for easy access to information on projects already implemented or currently ongoing and enables filtering based on specific regions or countries. The portal serves as a tool for tracking and analysing global efforts in cyber capacity building.

Furthermore, the analysis highlighted the necessity of building on previous projects to plan new activities effectively. This approach avoids duplicating efforts and optimally utilises limited resources. By learning from past experiences, countries can enhance their planning and implementation strategies, leading to more impactful outcomes.

Another noteworthy observation was the importance of collaboration among countries. By working together and sharing their expertise, countries can achieve more efficient use of resources and tackle challenges collectively. The analysis emphasised the significance of partnerships and collective action to promote sustainable development and address global issues.

In conclusion, the analysis provided valuable insights into key topics such as hybrid events like the IGF, major conferences organised by the GFC, the ACRA call for efficient global cybersecurity action, the role of the digital world in essential areas, the need for efficient resource use and better coordination, and the significance of the Sybil portal and collaboration among countries in cyber capacity building. These insights highlight the interconnectedness of global efforts and the importance of cooperation in addressing complex challenges in the digital age.

Pua Hunter

Significant progress is being made in the cyber ecosystem and cyber capacity building space in the Pacific region. Initiatives such as the Pacific Cybersecurity Operational Network (PECSON), Pacific Islands Law Officers Network (PILON), Cyber Safety Pacifica, E-Safety Commissioner, and Oceania Cybersecurity Center (OCSC) are actively contributing to the development of the cyber ecosystem. They are strengthening the region’s infrastructure, legal frameworks, policies, and capabilities to handle advancements in cyberspace effectively.

The Global Forum for Cyber Expertise has recently launched its Pacific Hub, aiming to enhance cooperation and knowledge sharing on cybersecurity matters in the region. Collaboration, engagement, and coordination among stakeholders need improvement to maximize the benefits of these initiatives. Embedding these aspects in the cyber capacity building approach will enhance the region’s overall cybersecurity preparedness and resilience.

Cybersecurity is a crucial aspect of digital engagement that cuts across all sectors and impacts various cyber-related activities. Pacific leaders have recognized its importance and emphasized its individual and collective responsibility. The Oceania Cybersecurity Centre has highlighted cybersecurity in its review for several Pacific region countries, including the Cook Islands.

In terms of donor assistance, sustainability becomes a challenge when donors leave without ensuring adequate resources. Planning and resource allocation are vital to ensure the longevity and effectiveness of projects.

Regarding training and capacity building, the concept of in-country training has been proposed to enhance knowledge transfer. Bringing trainers to countries to train a larger number of individuals can improve expertise implementation and dissemination.

In conclusion, the Pacific region is progressing significantly in the cyber ecosystem and cyber capacity building. Various organizations, networks, and conferences have contributed to these developments. Enhancing collaboration, prioritizing sustainability in donor assistance, and emphasizing in-country training will strengthen the region’s cybersecurity capabilities and readiness to address evolving threats.

Tereza Horejsova:
also to everybody joining us online. I heard we had a bigger crowd online than in the room, which is always exciting, given that the IGF is a hybrid event. My name is Teresa Horejsová. I will be your moderator for today’s session, and I’m with the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise. And joining me in speaker capacity today is Pua Hunter from the Cook Islands, who is joining us online. Hello and good afternoon to you. Then we have here in the room Liesel Franz from the US government, thank you, and Christopher Painter from the GFC, the president of the GFC Foundation. My helper online for the remote moderation is Allan Tsabanlong, also from the GFC, the director of our Southeast Asia Hub. What we will try to do at this session is to actually mostly have a conversation with you. We will have a few, you know, points to get us started connected to the presentation of a, I hope, major conference that the GFC with its partners is organizing at the end of November in Ghana, the so-called GC3B, the Global Conference on Cyber Capacity Building. But we will particularly focus on one of the outcome documents that we expect will be coming from this conference, so-called ACRA call, which would set some, let’s say, guidelines and ideas for more efficient global action on cyber capacity building. And we would like to use your perspectives to help us shape what this document could look like. So, I hope that this sounds as a good plan. What I suggest that we do for a start is that we will play a very short video that should introduce the conference a little bit, and then we go to the various speakers. So, now, let’s go to the video. Now, fingers crossed that everything works. And if I may ask our dear colleagues here in the room to get Alan on screen, who will share his screen and play the video. Thank you very much. At this moment, it’s without sound. Alan, can you stop it for a sec? I don’t know if the sound issue is something we can handle in the room or on Alan’s end. It also comes with digital risks. Alan, can you start again? Oh, he can’t hear us. Sorry about that. Thank you. We can hear the sound now. And apologies for the technical glitch. The digital world touches every aspect of our lives. It enables us to connect, learn, and travel, and plays an important role in safeguarding life essentials, such as food, water, and health care. Along with huge opportunities, it also comes with digital risks.

Allan Cabanlong:
We all need to be aware of those risks. To ensure a free, open, and secure cyberspace, every country should have the resources, knowledge, and skills they need to invest in their digital future. To this end, nations should work together and support each other with these capabilities so that every country can keep up with the digital transformation. After all, a chain is only as strong as the weakest link. On 29th to 30th of November, 2023, the first Global Conference on Cyber Capacity Building takes place in Accra, Ghana, co-organized by the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise. the World Bank, the Cyber Peace Institute, and the World Economic Forum, and hosted by the government of Ghana. This conference will be attended by decision makers from all over the world, high level government leaders and practitioners, the development community, experts on cybersecurity and capacity building, the private sector, international organizations, academia from all regions and across all sectors. They will gather to acknowledge that it is paramount for all nations to have the expertise, knowledge, and skills to strengthen their cyber resilience, and to work together on developing these capabilities to ensure a free, open, and secure digital world. We must all act now on cyber capacity building, because it is a key enabler for sustainable development, economic growth, and social progress. To this end, at the GC3B, the ACRA pool will be announced, a global framework for concrete actions that supports countries in strengthening their cyber resilience. Stay tuned to the GC3B 2023.

Tereza Horejsova:
Thank you very much, Alan, for playing the video. And I hope this serves as a little bit of an introduction on what we are up to. But Liesl, if you could tell us more about why, at first place, it’s also important for the U.S. government to be involved in these efforts, and why you think the GC3B is tackling some issues that are missing on the agenda. Great.

Liesyl Franz:
Thank you, Teresa, and good afternoon, everyone. I’m Liesl Franz with the State Department in the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy, and I am responsible for our international cyberspace security unit. And one of the key elements, one of our business lines, as I have come to describe it. it is on international engagement and capacity building. And it builds upon years of efforts in building capacity around the world in various ways, including helping countries with national strategies, learning from our experience, perhaps mistakes, and also with building incident response teams and other efforts that help build institutions in other countries to address the risks that you heard about in the video. Over the years, fortunately, we’ve been able to garner a little bit more funding to provide capacity building around the world. We started with sort of one person doing cyber issues in capacity building years and years ago, and we have been able to build that out into a little bit more of activity. But what we found, first of all, is that there’s an increasing amount of demand for not only funds, but also the breadth of things that countries are looking for to be able to build up their own resources, knowledge, and skills. And other countries were also looking for ways to help provide such cyber capacity building. And I think as Chris has said in another session where he talked about the global cyber capacity building, we want to make sure that all the countries that have the means to provide resources or funding are not doing all the same thing for the same people around the world and that we are able to spread ourselves across the globe in a more. coordinated fashion, or at least informed fashion. So that is why we were supporters of the GFCE, the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise, in the beginning, and why we are supporting the conference. Because we, you know, think it’s a unique opportunity for the multi-stakeholder community and donor countries, this sort of coordinated fashion, recipients, implementers, you know, those who are actually on the ground doing the capacity building that we and others can fund, the private sector and academia to actually have discussions and dialogue to discuss the current state of cyber capacity building. What does it look like? Where is it happening? What are we providing to whom, and what are the demands that are coming from the global community? And so this comes at a critical moment when conversations at various multilateral organizations, such as the UN, say, or the International Telecommunication Union or others, look to cover capacity building in greater detail because of that growing demand. So the, as you’ve probably heard, this year’s conference, inaugural, right, conference is thematically focused on bridging the gap between cyber capacity building and digital development, and I would say maybe development writ large also, because it’s not its own, it doesn’t have to be its own thing. But it’s a unique opportunity to connect various groups and ideas that have too often been siloed, and not, Chris used to talk about silos of excellence in the U.S. government, fair point, but we see them in sort of every aspect of the world, and we want to build those, the connectivity. them. So how do we make progress on connectivity without sacrificing security? How do we digitize societies but also make sure that they are resilient? And these critical questions and these are critical questions for us in the 21st century. We’ve heard them throughout the week here and I think probably in our everyday work lives and I think all of you here and online understand that covering them in detail is important and worthwhile. So for these reasons and probably many others, the U.S. is looking forward to participating through a high-level interagency delegation led by Ambassador Fick, or Ambassador for Cyber, Space, and Digital Policy, and engage the multi-stakeholder community on these questions and probably many more that will come to the floor in the conference. So we hope to see many of you in Ghana as well and so that we can take meaningful steps toward a safer, digital, and cyber future. Thanks.

Tereza Horejsova:
Thank you very much, you know, for your remarks but also for the support of the of the U.S. government and kind of reconfirmed by the delegation that you are sending to Accra. That’s fantastic. Although the conference is called a global conference, it does take place in Africa. It is true that the Africa region is of particular importance to the GFC. It’s also a region where we have kind of progressed most with kind of the approach of regional agendas to cyber capacity building. But the main aim of the event is really like to connect the regional perspectives with the global discussions. So in this sense, it will be very important that we get perspectives from various regions. And at this point, I would like to turn to you, Pua. from joining us from the beautiful Cook Islands to tell us a little bit more about the perspectives of Pacific Island States when it comes to cyber capacity building and how you see the regional efforts feeding into the global action. I hope we have you online and we can hear and see you. Let’s give it a few seconds. Hi, Trisa, can you hear me? We can both hear you and see you, it’s perfect. Please go ahead. Thank you so much.

Pua Hunter:
Greetings, everyone. So there’s actually a lot happening in the Pacific in the cyber ecosystem and cyber capacity building space. In my view, this is a good sign because it demonstrates that nationally countries in the Pacific region are developing their own enabling environment, their infrastructure, their legal framework, their policies and plans, including their capability and capacity to deal with the development in the cyberspace. And we do receive support from our development partners such as the World Bank, Asia Development Bank, United Nations Development Program and so forth, which is a great thing and we’re very grateful. We also benefit from the initiatives of regional and international organizations who deliver cybersecurity initiatives in our region. And for example, the Pacific Cybersecurity Operational Network, PECSON, the Pacific Islands Law Officers Network, PILON, the Cyber Safety Pacifica, the E-Safety Commissioner, the Oceania Cybersecurity Center, OCSC. And just recently, last week actually, in Nandi, GFCE, the Global Forum for Cyber Expertise launched its Pacific Hub and it was a great event. And this. more, many more regional and international organisations helping us here in the region, in the Pacific region. So it’s actually a busy space, a good busy space, and these are useful initiatives, undertakings and training offers extended to our region. However, I think we need to be able to manage these events, both nationally and regionally, so we can better reap the benefit that these initiatives are intended for. It’s one thing to bring something to the ground and then leave and nothing moves from there. So yeah, it needs to be managed properly. Back in 2020, the Oceania Cybersecurity Centre hosted the Global Cybersecurity Capacity Building Conference. It focused on national approaches to cybersecurity and also engagements in the region and with the development partners. The takeaway for me from that conference was contextualising nationally and regionally through more collaboration and engagement and also better coordination. And just last week, I attended the Pacific Cyber Capacity Building and Coordination Conference, the P4C in Nadi in Fiji. The same message about collaboration and coordination was also repeated several times, but this time Accountable was also attached to this, and I think that’s a very powerful message. We need to be accountable for what we’re doing in the cyber ecosystem. For me, this message confirms that cybersecurity is our own individual responsibility as well as our responsibility collectively. So despite cybersecurity and cybercapacity building being a busy space in the region, I think it’s highlighting that cybersecurity is a very important component of our digital engagement that cuts across all sectors. sectors and across all the dimensions of cyber activities. We’ve seen that in the CMM review that OCSC did for some of the countries here in the region, including us, the Cook Islands. I’m actually encouraged that at the highest level in the region, our leaders recognized and placed emphasis on the importance of cyber security and references in the region’s high level plans, the BOE declaration, the 2050 Blue Pacific Strategy, and recently the Langatoi, the endorsed Langatoi declaration. Next month, the Pacific Islands Forum leaders will be meeting here in the Cook Islands from the 6th to the 10th of November. And in their program, I was so happy to see that they’ve got a session for strengthening cyber security arrangements. You know, again, it actually demonstrates the commitment of the Pacific leaders and leading up to the upcoming GC3B in Ghana, it sets a clear path for the region and also the fact that we’re looking at high level participation from our region. Thank you so much.

Tereza Horejsova:
Well, thank you very much. Good remarks there. And, you know, I’m happy that you also kind of called for a bit more action for things to be moving. And that’s what we are hoping that the GC3B will help with, not only to make some concrete progress on bringing the two rather siloed communities of development and cyber together, but also to bring more political attention to the very urgent issue of cyber capacity building, as Liesel stressed, but then have kind of a tangible document, you know, as an outcome. that hopefully can contribute to more concrete actions in the future. So, Chris, if I can turn to you. The document’s working title is the ACRA Call, but would you be able to tell us a little bit more about the document in the shaping that will then be basis for the discussions and inputs that we will hopefully hear from all of you here? Thank you.

Christopher Painter:
Yeah, certainly, Teresa. And just building off the prior comments to give a little context, we just launched the Pacific Hub. What the GFC does is it tries to do this exact coordination. So as Pua said, and I saw this in Melbourne at the conference we helped have a session just before the pandemic, many of the island countries are saying we get lots of offers for help, but sometimes they’re the same offers for help and sometimes we can’t actually deal with them. And so one of the reasons for being of the GFC is to take donors and implementers and recipients and try to make more sense out of this given we don’t have a lot of resources. And that really builds on another thing that was mentioned, which is the overall purpose of this conference is to, as Teresa said, to highlight and to promote this idea of cyber capacity building, which is often lost as important as it is, but also to bring these often disparate communities that don’t talk to each other very well, the cyber security capacity building community, which we know very well, but the traditional development community and the traditional development community, not just as digital development, but indeed development projects around the world. And if you think about the SDGs, or if you think about those, almost all of them are undergirded by both digital and having strong cybersecurity. If you think about development projects like water and power, we saw this in the video, they’re often controlled by cyber means and therefore cybersecurity is a foundational thing, but the communities don’t really interact that much. So one of the big outcomes from this is to really promote that integration between these two communities and dialogue. and actually leveraging each other’s efforts. If we can go to the, just move to slide five. Yeah. Okay. So, you know, obviously bringing people together, having those conversations, having that program is gonna be important, but even more important is this is meant to be a process and a call for future action. As Pua said, it’s great to have all these, like, oh, let’s do this, but it’s not that great if you actually don’t have the actions that follow it. So the ACRA call, which is the working title right now, instead of a declaration, declarations are like, we’re gonna declare this, you know, but a call is a call for action, much like the Christchurch call or the Paris call or some of the other ones that are out there, meant to be sort of a living document. And the idea is really to elevate a mainstream cyber resilience and in the development agenda and vice versa with actionable items. So going to the next slide. Okay, so that, so it’s meant to be an action framework drawing on from existing commitments, but also some new commitments in a few different areas and really a blueprint for motivation and work in this area for both the development and the cyber communities. And I should be clear, it’s not that, you know, we’re not saying the development community has to understand cyber and the cyber community doesn’t have to understand development. We both have to understand and work with each other. I think that both communities have been a little with blinders on. Now there are exceptions, the World Bank, USAID, the British Development Organization, a number of them are doing more of this. And I think that’s good, but it’s still kind of in its infancy. So it’s gonna, this is a blueprint, a call to action with the aim to elevate cyber resilience. And you may wonder why we use cyber resilience. Well, not surprisingly, when you say cybersecurity, the development community says, oh, that’s a military thing. That’s a security thing. Why are we dealing with it? Cyber resilience, it really resonates with both communities, both the cyber community and the development community. I think it is really what our overall goal is, resilience. So, it’s to elevate that, promote capacity building that supports larger development goals. Go to the next slide. So, and I should say that this document is still in development. We hope to circulate a somewhat mature draft at the end of October for comment, for community comment, and welcome your comments then. But today, we want to kind of give the conceptual framework and get some thoughts from you. We think it matters now, as Teresa said, because we’re at an inflection point. We’re at this point where these development projects are getting more dependent on cyber technologies and digital technologies. And we really need, we can’t afford any longer to be in these separate communities. We can’t afford in terms of resources to do that either. There’s lots of resources in development. There’s not that many in cyber capacity building. But we make each other stronger by working together. And it’s meant, the call is directed to countries, including recipient countries, donor countries, regional organizations, private sector, technical community, really the entire multi-stakeholder framework that we know and love so well here at IGF. Next slide. I basically covered this. The framework is really meant to be more of a call to action with specific items that will be listed under four major categories. It’s voluntary, like most calls are. You can’t make, you can’t really reach a binding agreement, as I think any of you know, in a short period of time. But a voluntary call where people sign on or endorse, I think is very helpful. So it’s not formal signatories, but people who endorse it. Go to the next. OK, and I mentioned these four major areas, which will have various thoughts or action items under. And the four areas are, one, actions to strengthen the role of cyber resilience as an enabler for sustainable development. So that’s exactly what I was covering, that drawing this connection in very clear terms and making recommendations within that bucket in terms of how the development community and the cyber community can work and leverage each other. The second major bucket is actions to advance demand-driven, effective, and sustainable cyber capacity building. These are things like making sure you have the political will in countries to actually not just do one-off trainings, but that they really want this and you have more sustained capacity building. And that is demand driven. You heard Pua talk about this as well, that we’re simply not saying here’s a whole bunch of programs, but we’re listening and talking to people in regions and countries about what they want and what they need, and we’re matching that. Because that, again, leads to sustainability and traction and something that our scarce resources are more effective by. The third bucket is to foster stronger partnerships and better coordination. So the coordination is, again, one of the major elements here, and I mentioned this before. The whole reason we were set up is to promote coordination. There’s much better coordination, I’ll tell you now, than there was seven years ago. Still not perfect, you won’t be surprised, but there’s a lot. I mean, countries are talking to each other. Donors are talking to each other. The platform we create has allowed a lot of this to happen. It’s also happening organically in other venues too, and that’s great, but we need to amp up that coordination because, again, if we don’t do that, we’re wasting the resources. We’re not actually meeting the needs of the countries and the others who need this help. And then finally, the last bucket is one that everyone understands, which is resources. How can we significantly up the game in terms of resource commitments to this area? Much like, no one has enough money. We all understand that. No one has enough people to do these issues, but I think the SDGs have been very successful in focusing political attention and getting some resources, and I think there’s been a lot of resources devoted to those, and we’re not trying to, as they say, rob Peter to pay Paul. We’re trying to leverage each other’s resources. This is not like give it to us and not to them. This is using the resources in order to achieve the things that the SDGs are trying to do, the development community is trying to do, that we see with the same vision of how this is done, and it also allows us to learn from each other in terms of implementation modules. So those are the four major buckets, and we’d love to get input from you in those. It’s gonna be based on the conference in terms of those four buckets kind of reflected in the agenda for the conference, but the content of the declaration or the call is meant to actually be actions after the conference. It’s a set piece, but it’s really the process I talked about, and I mentioned consultation. We started with a small group of co-organizers, us, the GFC, the World Bank, the Cyber Peace Institute, and the World Economic Forum. on the steering committee who have helped fund the conference, larger group of friends and the community and we’re in that process now and that’s one of the reasons we’re here today. So I don’t need to go through all these with the public consultations. We’re here. We’re doing one now. We’re going to do one at the Paris Peace Forum. We’re going to do one in Singapore Cyber Week next week. Any possibility we have, any chance we have to engage with the community, we’re going to take and as I say, we’re going to circulate a mature draft but certainly willing to take input. So the question we have for all of you is really those four buckets that I talked about. Does that cover everything? We think it does but that doesn’t, you know, we don’t know everything and the people we’re working on don’t know everything. So we want input from you, does that, those four broad buckets cover I think the major concerns we’re talking about and are there particular barriers that we need to overcome in better connecting cyber capacity building with development goals and elevating the role of cyber resilience in development and vice versa that would lend themselves to particular action items that you would like to talk about today. And also this is an ongoing thing. If you leave this room and say, oh, I should have mentioned this, let us know. I mean, we want to hear about it. So that’s really the setup for what we’re trying to do today. We really would like to hear from you about where you think there could be progress made on this, about the overall idea and about this kind of structure and if this makes sense.

Tereza Horejsova:
Thank you very much, Chris. I think that was quite clear and now really is the time that we want to hear from you. You come from different backgrounds, different perspectives. You might have maybe come across some complications stemming from the fact that the cyber and development communities don’t interact with each other. You might have been involved in various cyber capacity building projects. So I would suggest, Alan, that we actually keep the slide with the four areas up and at this point, really, I would like to. to encourage you to share your views with us, either online or here in the room. And don’t be shy. We really want your views. Yes, and I know there are a few people in the room who are not shy. I’ve already seen my daily news. No, Michael, you will disappoint us if you don’t. May we ask you? But we need to get you on the microphone. No, no, hold on. Otherwise, the online won’t hear you. Either take this one or go there. But let me give you this one. Sorry. No worries.

Audience:
Mike Nelson with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. And I’ve worked with these people. Really simple question. Why Ghana? And what were the other things considered? And how much of it will be virtual? I mean, you don’t have to be there to be part of it, right?

Christopher Painter:
I think we’re trying to work on connection details so there’ll be a good virtual ability. But I’d say it’s sort of a long and storied history. I think originally, we were hoping to have it at the World Bank in Washington, which also would have posed some challenges for people on visas and et cetera. Because of various COVID restrictions, other things, that wasn’t going to work. And then we thought about a number of places, frankly. But as Teresa said, every region has unique needs. And we partner with the OAS in America’s region. We have a Pacific hub we just launched. We have a ASEAN liaison. We’re doing a lot of work in Africa. And the government of Ghana very much wanted to do this. And given all the work that we’ve been doing in Africa, setting up an African experts group, et cetera, it seemed like an important place to have. And it also was important, I think, to have the first one somewhere in the global south. I think that that was an important thing. Rather than have it in, you know, there’s lots of nice places in the north you can have it. But it doesn’t really send the right message. Then it’s like a conference of the global north talking about what they’re going to do, where this really needs to be a conversation. So that was really the rationale. And we’re quite happy about that, too. Yes, we are. very grateful to know that you know we want to get this one under a belt but in the future ones we’ll have to figure out where the next one will be like these things always work but we want them to be representative and so we certainly want to get people from all over the world as I said this is in Africa but

Tereza Horejsova:
it’s not just an African conference thank you very much Chris also for the question address please including hopefully even on the substance of the of the document in the making any takers please please go ahead Sparky thank you and yes if you can also introduce yourself and your institutional affiliation thank you thank you Sparky from yeah Sparky from JP said thank you for your presentation my question is obviously what is what what are written on Accra Accra call cannot be achieved like six months or

Audience:
two years it has it should have you know it may take more than few years to you know to reach the level you like to you like to achieve so my question is other than you know your short time goal launching the call maybe after a few months is is there any plan for like year after or maybe go your goal within next three years thank you yeah so that’s why I said for each of these categories the idea is to have several more specific goals and although they’re

Christopher Painter:
not gonna have I don’t envision them having strict time frame saying this is gonna be done in like 90 days or it’s something like that we are going to monitor them we’re gonna look at them you know after six months after a year see what progress is being made when there is a second one of these conferences as we said this is the inaugural one that’s often also a stock taking but where there’s lots of opportunities for stock taking and very much the idea of a call is unlike a more general declaration is to make sure we’re making progress. You know, we don’t want this to become shelfware, as many things become, and then you never look at it again. So that’s a thought process. Now, you know, people are going to make progress at different rates in different parts of the community. We’ll implement them in different ways. That’s why it’s voluntary. But we want to track and even go back to the parties who support these efforts and say, OK, well, what have you done? Not in an accusatory way, but in a way that just says, are we making progress? Thank you, Sparky.

Tereza Horejsova:
Thank you, Chris. Others? Liesl, yes? There you go. Stereo.

Liesyl Franz:
I think, well, first of all, I would say that I think the US government has had some input into as part of the concentric circles that Chris was talking about as far as the consultation about the conference and the substance of the call. So I’ll say this in my capacity and not necessarily prejudge or undermine anything we’ve said into the process. But one of the things that I think comes under the action B, the second bucket on effective capacity building, is looking at the ability for any particular country to absorb a certain amount of capacity building at any given time. Do they have the institution before they get a deluge of funding for something that’s sort of amorphous or doesn’t quite fit the need? So demand driven, but also tailored. enough to the recipient so that it can be effective and I think also sustainable. The other thing that we have been grappling with is that, to Sparky’s point, I think about the fact that foreign assistance and capacity building is often a long-term investment over time and takes time for the knowledge, skills, and institutions to develop before they can have the full impact that you want. But we have been grappling with more emergent or urgent response in some of the crises, I suppose, for lack of a better word, that we’ve seen in Ukraine and Albania and Costa Rica and so that might be an element of effective as well in the second bucket, although I would also think it could be captured in the third bucket as far as partnerships and coordination. Of course, I think everything relies on D, which is the financial resources, but even if those aren’t in text in the Accra Call, I think those are two things that we in the United States are looking at when we’re looking at these days as far as our strategic approach, our strategic outlook for some of the capacity building that we’re trying to do now.

Audience:
Thanks, Liesl. Thanks, Liesl. I’m all choked up, I’m all choked up. Others, please? Online, too, if people have comments. Yes, please go ahead, yes. Okay, my name’s Casey Rout, and Das Franz is actually my boss, so I’ll pose this to Chris so I don’t put her on the hot seat, but we had a conversation yesterday, and I’ve been kind of thinking about this a little bit more, and it goes. to be of a sustainable cyber capacity building. And so after the donors and trainers leave, you know, the countries need budgetary resources to continue, you know, the hardware, the software, the knowledge, the training. So how do we work, what’s your view on involving legislators in training them, having them understand the value of this so that they create the budgetary resources we need to really have sustainable capacity with cybersecurity and governments? And how do we better integrate them, whether it be through GC3B or other ways?

Christopher Painter:
Yeah, look, I think that’s a big issue. And that goes to the political will and the sustainability point. So, you know, there are two aspects of that. One is getting the country buy-in at a legislative and leadership level. And I agree that maybe those are some things we can work into this. Another is, you know, under that last bucket, unlocking the financial resources. You know, there are a lot of financial streams that are available and used in the development community. And there are models the development community uses to measure sustainability, to make sure that their dollars and pounds and pesos and other things are, yeah, are actually well spent. And it’s, you know, not just one off. So I think there’s a lot we can learn from the development community, too, in terms of the tools they use. So for example, one of the things that we’re thinking of having as one of those action items is to identify and employ the full range of financial streams available for financing of national cyber resilience activities, including international development financing, domestic resource mobilization, which really goes to your point, private sector, incorporation of cyber resilience and integrated national financing frameworks. And that’s exactly your point, I think. So it’s not just an add-on or like some boutique little bubble over here. It’s actually part of the larger plan. So I think that’s the kind of wording we’re thinking about now,

Tereza Horejsova:
but I think that helps put that into some relief. So thanks for that. And I’m really glad that we are talking about the, you know, practicalities connected to budgets and money, because also, as Chris pointed out, But I mean, no one has enough money, budget, no one.

Christopher Painter:
If you could all leave a check on the way out, that would be helpful. No one has enough people. Mike, you just leave your credit card and your pin and we’ll be fine.

Tereza Horejsova:
Yeah, that’s why it’s a little bit also makes the situation inefficient. And we should make sure that the resources are used efficiently, which wouldn’t be necessarily happening if we do not connect these two communities, but also if we do not connect more on kind of coordinating cyber capacity, building support globally, which is kind of the main raison d’etre of the GFC. Because we do have a speaker online and because she is online, I don’t want to kind of put her in the shadow. So, Pua, please give us a sign if you want to chip in. Otherwise, we will continue the discussion in the room. And I also know we have – okay. So, yes? No? Sorry. I know we have one comment online from Alan on Southeast Asia. So, please go ahead now. Okay, we cannot hear you. Hello, good morning. Can you hear me now? Yeah, and maybe let’s remove the slides so that we can see you properly, Alan. Thank you. Yes, good morning, everyone. Yes, the GC3B Conference on Cyber Capacity Building.

Allan Cabanlong:
This will inspire other regions and leave with a renewed commitment for global cybersecurity cooperation. So, it’s very important for Southeast Asia, not just the Pacific as well. in other regions so that they will be inspired to globally engage with other regions as to capacity building efforts and share insights and ideas and good practices in that they can learn in the GCTP. And I would also take this opportunity to invite everyone next week in the GFC regional meeting in Singapore during the Singapore internal cyber week. And this will be again discussed there during this, I mean next week.

Tereza Horejsova:
Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Alan. And you know, if any of you are traveling to Singapore for the Singapore international cyber week, please let us know, you know, so that we make sure that you’re also part of the part of the conversation. Any other reflections either online or here in the room, please. Please go ahead. Hello everyone. Sorry.

Allan Cabanlong:
My name is Guus van Zwolle and I’m with the Dutch government and we are very supportive of course of the GFCE. They’re run by our colleagues at the same team. We recently as the Netherlands have published our new international cyber strategy where we also lay a big layer foundation of our strategy is cyber capacity building. But we do tie it in it to also supporting countries that are receiving the cyber support to also adapt their regulatory frameworks in order to make sure that these cyber capacities are being run in a framework that’s with respect for rule of law, international human rights standards. And I was wondering what your perspective on that would be and if that would also be a part of the GC3B conference. Thank you very much. Yeah, I think, you know, there’s parts of any kind of declaration or call and one of them is sort of the preamble that sets it out and certainly respect for human rights.

Christopher Painter:
And, you know, we don’t get really get into the regulatory framework as much, but rule of law, yes. And then the action items are more, I think more tailored to other things. though there’s some of that mentioned there too. But that is certainly a goal. We want to integrate that better governance and respect for human rights. And this is like foundational to the GFC certainly too, going forward as we do this. And that’s indeed what the development community does too. So that’s another place where there’s a good nexus, I think. Thank you. Also- So Teresa, if you have thoughts, or Pua, if you have thoughts or- And Pua has thoughts actually. So Pua has thoughts. So a second attempt to connect you, Pua, please.

Pua Hunter:
Thank you, Teresa. Sorry. I actually wanted just to circle back to the comment earlier on from one of our participants here about the sustainability. So right, sometimes when our donors come and assist us with something and then they leave and there’s no continuity, we need to look at how we can resource ourselves properly so there’s sustainability attached to it. Also from the meeting last week in Nandi, participants were talking about these trainers coming into the country, into the country, so that there’s more of us to be trained at one given time rather than one person going to a regional or somewhere where the trainer is able to train many countries, but one or two from each country. So the idea is to bring the expertise and train more on the ground rather than one or two going out to be trained. Because the other issue with that is the knowledge learned from these trainings overseas may not be transferred back or appropriately transferred back in country. So again, those needs to be looked at appropriately.

Tereza Horejsova:
Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, that’s a very concrete suggestion there. Any other reflections, comments?

Christopher Painter:
I just want to say that I totally agree with that and we’ve seen that, so I’m not sure which, it fits under several buckets, but one place that we’re trying to reflect that now is under the third bucket of fostering stronger partnerships and better coordination. And one of the things we’re thinking of under that is a bullet or something that would say fostering the leadership of developing countries in coordinating CCB efforts in close cooperation with donors and others. So it’s not, it’s more locally owned as well, and I completely agree that just having a whole group of people descend on the country and then leave again doesn’t actually help in the long term. So you do want to have, you know, there’s another part in the last bucket where we talked about systemizing south-south and triangular cooperation. So again, it’s not just, you know, a whole bunch of people landing on your shores and then leaving again, but really kind of building this in more permanently. Kind of the train-the-trainers logics in that. No, thank you very much, Chris. Any other reflections? Please, go ahead.

Tereza Horejsova:
Thank you.

Audience:
Hi, Linda Maisels from the State Department. So I’m interested in de-conflicting between donor countries and how we can use the GC3B and GFCE as a mechanism for doing that. That would also involve not reinventing the wheel, so if there are tools that already exist that there’s no reason to do them again. How do we find them? How do we, for instance, use an existing tool like the Sybil Portal to make sure that we are not doing the same work over and over again? And how do we get donor countries to speak to each other?

Christopher Painter:
Thank you. And that’s the raison d’etre for why we were created is for that very purpose. And indeed, when we were in the Pacific, when we launched in the Pacific Hub, we had a sort of side meeting, which I guess we do every couple months of the donor countries. They are a core group of donor countries, which they found very—this has been at their request so that they can share information with each other. Now, you know, it’s never going to be perfect because countries have their own priorities and that’s the way the world works, and that’s fine. But I think they welcome the ability to share that information to find out what someone else is doing because sometimes it’s like, well, we don’t need to do that or we can join your efforts, right? And we were not—we don’t want the Accra call to create new, giant new structures. You know, that I think is not helpful. We leverage the structures we have. Many of you know, who’ve been following some of the debates in the OEWG, there’s this debate, should we create a new, you know, ecosystem? Well, why would you do that with the scarce resources you have when you need to leverage what’s there? So, for instance, under the coordination, the third bucket, one of the things we specifically say is utilize existing coordinating nation platforms like ours, for instance, to better coordinate and de-conflict and have the kind of donor dialogue that you’re talking about and strengthen them, you know, so make them more participatory, get more people involved in them. So, I think that’s what we’re trying to do. You know, take what we have, make it stronger, and be more effective with the resources we have.

Tereza Horejsova:
Thank you very much, Chris. And maybe just to add, because Linda also mentioned the Sybil portal, you know, it’s available on sybilportal.org and it’s kind of a resource where we try to map various cyber capacity building projects. globally, it’s possible to, you know, filter on specific regions, specific country, and, you know, get the information on already implemented or currently ongoing projects. And why is that important? Because to be able to plan, let’s say, a new activity in a specific country, it is kind of a good idea to build on what others have done so that there is, to the extent possible, a little bit less duplication of efforts and ultimately, again, more efficient use of the limited resources available for these activities. Any other comments or inputs? Susan? Please. Susan Garoé from our Pacific Hub, please go ahead.

Audience:
Thank you. Thank you so much. I’d like to also just say on what Linda has said when it comes to de-conflicting interests when it comes to donors. What we notice is that we’re living in an era where collaborations and corporations is a strength going forward. Going solo, an individual, is not effective anymore. And there are many reasons to it. And in the Pacific, one of the things that I noted is we are on different parts when it comes to cyber security. Some of us are more advanced. Some of us are just taking baby steps. And with this well-coordinated effort, we ensure that no one is left behind. And we make use of all the resources that we have. So that’s a plus on these types of platform.

Tereza Horejsova:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Susan.

Liesyl Franz:
Definitely a good comment there, if there are no other comments. So yes, Lisa, and then Chris, yes? Thanks. So this conversation has actually spurred a couple things for me that maybe to add to the thought process going forward. One is that, you know, we talked about in the video. And a lot of the conversations here have been about the cyber security efforts to address the risks and that there is a cost to doing so. But there’s also, I think, many benefits to providing cyber security efforts in the processes and digitization and digital transformation efforts that countries are going through right now. And I think finding a way to emphasize the positive because when we talk about funding or we talk about political will or we talk about, okay, funding or political will, those are pretty important. Sometimes it’s hard to say, well, we’ve got, we have to make this huge investment in cyber security for something may never happen. But I think perhaps changing some of that rhetoric to providing cyber security for the betterment of economies and digitization and investment in economy. That might be something to, if a development bank builds a bridge, it’s a positive, right? So maybe thinking about what the analogy is there for cyber. And then secondly, I really appreciated Pua’s comment about wanting to have the ability for training in country and on site so that it is well integrated into the, whatever phase of development that that institution, the country agency is in. But I think perhaps we can also talk about the various types of training or capacity building that can happen. and maybe thinking about it in stealing a page from the legal community, continuous learning or continuing education so that there’s a, you know, sort of fundamentals and then things that will help individuals even if they have to go somewhere else to get it. We know that not every, you know, cert for example can send all their people to a training and outside the country at any given time, but perhaps there are ways that individuals who have, you know, been trained in country can then take advantage of continuous learning opportunities going forward. Anyway, that’s just a reaction to a couple things that people have said here and if it’s able to be captured and there’s interest by others, then perhaps some way to think about it.

Christopher Painter:
So thanks for that. There are a couple of things that, you know, as I heard some of the comments, I just like to know. First of all, we welcome your continued feedback. Does the structure make sense? Are we missing a whole, I don’t think we are, but are we missing a whole group of things that we should be addressing? I think the comments I’ve heard would fit into those four buckets in some level. You know, to the question was asked by our Dutch colleague earlier, one of the proposed things we’re thinking of putting under the second bucket is professionalizing cyber capacity building community of practice with tools and guides to help stakeholders put into practice established principles, including human rights-based and gender sensitive approaches to CCB. So that is built into at least our thinking right now. It has to be put on paper and actually kind of wordsmith negotiated among folks, but that’s certainly there. And also this idea of doing a better job of creating tools where we can measure the results. And that’s where the development community is pretty good, you know, or at least I think they’re pretty good. They have these tools where they measure the result of our project, because that then helps them decide where they’re going to invest in. And the other thing they do well, which I think we need to figure out how to do, is to prioritize. One way is to link it to critical national resources. Big projects are going to make a big difference where cyber is going to be critically important. You know, figuring out how to prioritize too, I think will help too. and learning from each other on that. So those are some of the areas. But I’d say, again, we have a couple more minutes left. Do you have any input or things you think should be in there or thoughts? But also, welcome input afterwards. So you have four minutes, right? Four minutes, so take advantage of it. Structure, any one of these, any comment, any suggestion you’d like to see.

Tereza Horejsova:
And yes, it’s before lunch, so we respect that. And anyway, it’s time to wrap. But thank you very much, Pua, Alan, online for your support, Liesl, and Chris here in the room, and in particular to all of you online and on site. To those of you here in the room on your way out, we have prepared some more resources on GC3B and some goodies as well. So you might take it home with you. And as this is the last day of the IGF, let me also wish you very safe travels back home and see you around. Thank you very much. And I should thank you all for being here. I should just shout out to Teresa for organizing this. And Teresa has also been on the Multistakeholder Advisory Group for the last several years. And she’s rotating off that, so thank her for all her efforts in the IGF too. Thank you.

Audience

During a recent discussion, the importance of youth engagement in governance and politics was emphasised. Participants highlighted the need for young people to be aware of and involved in governance, as political decisions can have a significant impact on their lives. The argument put forward was that young people should strive for a better understanding of governance and actively advocate for more meaningful engagement in decision-making processes.

Another key point of discussion was the role of consistency and resilience in gaining influence and becoming opinion leaders. An example was shared about a CEO who started a company at a young age and, after 20 years of consistent hard work, became an influential leader in the industry. This highlighted the importance of persistence and unwavering dedication in achieving influence and becoming a respected voice in one’s field.

In terms of overcoming challenges and gaining acceptance, participants stressed the significance of collective dialogue and collaboration. It was emphasised that by engaging in conversation, working together, and accepting challenges, individuals and communities can effectively tackle obstacles and foster acceptance. This highlights the need for open and inclusive discussions where all voices are heard and valued.

The discussion also drew attention to the current trend of youth inclusion and the need to capitalise on this momentum through various initiatives. It was noted that there are already numerous programs and speaking engagement opportunities available that aim to involve and empower young people. It was suggested that further efforts should be made to maintain this momentum and create additional initiatives to sustain youth engagement and ensure their voices continue to be heard.

In summary, the discussion emphasised the importance of youth engagement in governance and politics, with a specific focus on understanding governance, advocating for meaningful involvement, maintaining consistency and resilience to gain influence, engaging in collective dialogue and collaboration, and leveraging the current trend of youth inclusion. These insights highlight the significance of empowering young people and recognising their role in shaping the future.

Yukako Ban

The analysis covers several topics related to the metaverse and its future implications. It begins by highlighting one of the main policy gaps for the metaverse: the lack of clear definitions and regulations. The metaverse is often described as the future of the internet, a network of virtual worlds blending the digital and physical realms. However, due to the absence of clear definitions and regulations, there is uncertainty about how it should be governed.

Moving on, the analysis discusses the potential benefits and risks associated with the metaverse. By 2026, a significant proportion of the population is expected to be engaged in the metaverse. To prevent issues such as hate speech, misinformation, and anonymity, better management and regulation are necessary. On the positive side, the metaverse has the potential for application in education and fostering intercultural dialogue. It can revolutionise the way we learn and interact globally, reducing the need for physical travel and potentially lowering CO2 emissions.

The analysis also emphasises the importance of considering Northeast Asia’s geopolitical tensions in relation to the metaverse. The unregulated metaverse could exacerbate existing conflicts and geopolitical tensions in the region. Given the region’s geopolitical importance and the anonymity between nations, specific consideration must be given to Northeast Asia when shaping metaverse policies.

Regarding education, the analysis suggests that there is a need to explore the metaverse’s educational utility, as it remains largely unexplored. Currently, there is a lack of developed educational content, highlighting the importance of further research and investment in this area.

In terms of age diversity, the analysis highlights the different perspectives that the younger generation, known as digital natives, have on digital technology’s involvement in reality. Their viewpoints should be taken into account in policymaking processes. Similarly, the perspective of age diversity, especially in regard to internet governance, is lacking. Both the voices of the youth and the older generation should be considered to ensure a comprehensive approach.

Notably, the analysis touches on the demographic changes happening worldwide, with many countries leaning towards ageing societies. As a result, youth voices tend to be undermined. It argues that youth should have more access to decision-making tables and be part of larger discussions, breaking away from age-based segregation.

The analysis also highlights the significance of cross-border cooperation in the Northeast Asia region. Countries like China, Japan, and Korea already have extensive economic cooperation. In today’s globalised world, no single country can manufacture a product independently. Academic programs promoting cooperation also exist among these nations.

Furthermore, the analysis emphasizes the role of technology, education, and capacity building in initiating cooperation. By focusing on these topics, peacebuilders can avoid political issues and foster citizen-level awareness and collaboration.

Cultural diversity and localization are also deemed crucial on a systemic level and in internet governance. While different cultures and values bring about diversity, fragmentation and division can arise. However, technology can help bridge language barriers and differences, promoting cooperation.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the need for a comprehensive understanding and collaboration to navigate the challenges and opportunities associated with the metaverse and related issues. Clear definitions and regulations should be established. Age diversity should be considered in decision-making, and youth voices must be heard and included. Cross-border cooperation and dialogue among different generations are paramount. Additionally, technology, education, capacity building, and cultural diversity play significant roles in promoting collaboration. By addressing these aspects, we can work towards harnessing the full potential of the metaverse and achieving a more inclusive and sustainable future.

Linda Hjelle

In the meeting, Linda Hjelle, an Associate Political Affairs Officer at the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, was introduced. Linda provided insights into her involvement in various roles. Firstly, she mentioned being the program manager for a project related to UN projects and aligned with SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. This demonstrates her dedication to promoting global peace and strengthening institutions for achieving justice.

Additionally, Linda stated that she is moderating the online discussions during the meeting. As an online moderator, she addresses questions from the online audience, ensuring informative and interactive discussions. This highlights her active involvement in engaging with a wider community.

Linda’s introduction as an Associate Political Affairs Officer at the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs establishes her expertise in political affairs. Her role reflects her significant influence in shaping policies and strategies for peace and stability.

Overall, Linda’s active participation as a program manager, online moderator, and Associate Political Affairs Officer demonstrates her commitment to advancing UN initiatives. She works towards promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions while engaging with various stakeholders in meaningful discussions.

Ijun Kim

The “Futuring Peace in Northeast Asia” programme, organized and led by the United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, aims to promote peace and stability in Northeast Asia. The programme is in line with the Youth Peace and Security Agenda and seeks to engage young people in discussing and shaping the future of the region.

The programme brought together young people from China, Japan, Mongolia, and the Republic of Korea to collectively discuss the future of Northeast Asia. This inclusive approach allowed for diverse perspectives to be shared and considered. The discussions were facilitated by UNESCO, which provided capacity building through a session known as the Futures Literacy Lab. This lab helped participants develop the skills to explore potential future scenarios and examine their implications.

One of the key proponents of foresight in the programme is Ijun Kim, who believes that foresight is a structured and systematic way of using ideas about the future to anticipate and better prepare for change. Kim emphasises the importance of wide participatory foresight tools, which engage a diverse group of people in discussions. The goal is to make the discussions interactive and to surface trends or signals that may not be immediately apparent.

As part of the programme, Kim proposed various policy avenues for realising the vision of a peaceful Northeast Asia. These include regional cooperation for education, focusing on cultural exchange to foster understanding and collaboration. Additionally, the establishment of a Northeast Asian Youth Parliament for climate change aims to involve young people in addressing environmental challenges. Furthermore, the promotion of digital literacy programmes through cross-sectoral partnerships is seen as essential for enabling young people to navigate the digital landscape effectively. The programme also emphasised the importance of consensus-based regulation and policy presentation.

The role of young people in governance and policy-making was also highlighted. It is crucial for young people to understand how governmental decisions can impact their daily lives. They are encouraged to advocate for more meaningful engagement and push for their voices to be heard in decision-making processes. Creating an intergenerational cooperation environment was identified as essential for fostering understanding and collaboration between different age groups.

The Internet Governance Forum was recognised for its contribution to shaping governance and peace-building. The involvement of young people in such forums was highly valued, and there was gratitude expressed for their active participation and contributions. Moreover, the integration of digital literacy and the concept of the metaverse into existing initiatives was supported, as it would facilitate the implementation of these initiatives and promote innovation and development.

In conclusion, the “Futuring Peace in Northeast Asia” programme, organized by the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, seeks to involve young people in shaping the future of the region. The programme emphasised the importance of foresight, inclusivity, and meaningful engagement in discussions and policy development. With the participation of young people, the programme aims to foster a peaceful and prosperous Northeast Asia.

Oyundalai Odkhuu

Upon analysing the provided information, several key points emerge regarding the development and governance of the metaverse in Northeast Asia. The main arguments put forward are as follows:

1. Developing Northeast Asian metaverse platforms: The analysis recognises the importance of Northeast Asian countries leveraging their world-class technological capacities to develop their own metaverse platforms. This is seen as a preventive measure against potential monopolies by Western countries. By creating their own metaverse platforms, Northeast Asian countries can maintain control over the digital space and ensure equitable access for their citizens.

2. Promoting the development of inclusive algorithms: The analysis emphasises the need for open and inclusive algorithms in the metaverse. It suggests that countries should collectively develop algorithms that facilitate cross-language information sharing, ensuring that diverse voices and perspectives are represented. The argument is rooted in SDG 10, which focuses on reducing inequalities.

3. Fostering regional collaboration and stakeholder dialogues: The analysis emphasises the importance of engaging a wide range of stakeholders in the development and governance of the metaverse. This includes marginalised communities, youth, individuals from different social classes, genders, sexualities, and disabilities. By fostering collaboration and dialogue, Northeast Asian countries can ensure that the metaverse reflects the needs and aspirations of all its users.

4. Discussing the regulation of the metaverse: The analysis highlights the absence of a single player in metaverse regulation. It suggests that a regional initiative, similar to the Internet Governance Forum, should be established to address this gap. By engaging in discussions around regulation, Northeast Asian countries can shape the metaverse’s governance framework and ensure that it aligns with SDG 16, promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions.

5. Engaging youth and promoting global connectivity: The analysis underlines the significance of youth engagement in internet governance. With 71% of the world’s youth using the internet, their involvement is crucial for shaping the metaverse’s future. In addition, the argument advocates for the internet as a tool that transcends borders, connecting people, businesses, and governments on a global scale.

6. Ensuring privacy in the internet: Privacy is identified as a key concern in internet governance. Decisions related to internet governance have far-reaching effects on various aspects of people’s lives. Therefore, it is crucial to establish mechanisms that safeguard individuals’ privacy rights in the metaverse.

7. Capacity building and skill enhancement: The analysis stresses the need for capacity building and skill enhancement in the metaverse. This involves promoting cultural awareness and sensitivity training for developers and users of the metaverse, as well as bridging skill gaps to facilitate effective cross-border cooperation.

8. Investment in the education sector: Considering the metaverse as a new sector, the analysis argues for investment in the education sector to enhance digital literacy and responsible usage. This investment aims to equip individuals with knowledge about the metaverse and its potential risks and benefits, targeting both the young and old.

9. Mechanisms for conflict resolution: The analysis puts forth the need for mechanisms to resolve conflicts during cross-border metaverse activities. It suggests adopting arbitration and mediation processes to address disputes that may arise in this context.

10. Establishing industry standards and a regulatory framework: The analysis contends that industry standards addressing privacy, data security, content moderation, and digital property rights are pivotal in the metaverse. It argues for the creation of a code of conduct or regulatory framework to ensure responsible and ethical practices within the metaverse, in line with SDG 16.

In summary, the analysis advocates for the development of Northeast Asian metaverse platforms, inclusive algorithms, collaboration and stakeholder dialogues, regulation discussions, youth engagement, privacy protection, capacity building, investment in education, conflict resolution mechanisms, and the establishment of industry standards. Northeast Asian countries are encouraged to seize the opportunity to shape the metaverse, ensuring equitable access, responsible usage, and meaningful participation for all.

Manjiang He

The analysis provides a comprehensive examination of various topics, including digital platforms, youth engagement, international cooperation, and the significance of respecting the local context. It begins by discussing the influence of digital platforms on daily life, noting their ability to enhance communication and cultural exchange. However, the analysis also acknowledges the negative aspects of digital platforms, such as the prevalence of hate speech, prejudice, and discrimination.

A key argument put forth is the importance of digital literacy in understanding and navigating the influence of digital platforms on daily life. It highlights the need for individuals to be equipped with the necessary skills to effectively engage with digital platforms and address the negative aspects associated with them. The analysis further emphasizes that social platforms often serve as breeding grounds for hate speech, prejudice, and discrimination. It also highlights the challenge faced by social platforms in swiftly responding to these issues due to technological limitations and differing priorities.

Moreover, the analysis explores the role of young people in internet governance and conflict resolution, pointing out their innovative approaches and willingness to explore different solutions. It emphasizes the importance of including young people’s perspectives in decision-making processes, highlighting that they are often seen as naive but possess fresh insights and ideas.

However, the analysis also identifies limited efforts to engage youth in decision-making processes in the Northeast Asia region. It highlights active youth engagement initiatives in other parts of the world, such as Africa and Bangladesh, and suggests that Northeast Asia is lagging behind in this regard.

Another argument put forth is the exclusion of young people in policymaking and decision-making processes. The analysis provides no supporting facts, but it asserts that young people are often left out of important discussions and their voices are not adequately heard. It argues that mechanisms should be established to channel young people’s voices into both the government and private sectors.

The analysis then delves into the challenges of international cooperation, particularly in regions with differing stages of development – economic, social, and cultural. It asserts that these differences pose obstacles to achieving effective collaboration.

Respecting the local context is also highlighted as a crucial factor in creating a more inclusive and open online digital space. The analysis suggests that societies have their own uniqueness, and integrating the local context into digital literacy programmes or the metaverse can yield beneficial outcomes.

Additionally, the analysis touches upon cross-border cooperation, skill gaps, and funding limitations in the implementation of digital literacy initiatives. It mentions that cross-border cooperation is already happening in certain regions like Mongolia, but no supporting facts are provided.

Ultimately, the analysis underscores the importance of stakeholder engagement in the decision-making process and advocates for the integration of digital literacy and metaverse elements into existing initiatives. It acknowledges the challenges posed by funding and sustainability concerns but suggests that these limitations can be addressed by reaching out to stakeholders and incorporating their recommendations into existing initiatives.

In conclusion, this in-depth analysis offers valuable insights into various topics related to digital platforms, youth engagement, international cooperation, and the significance of the local context. It underscores the need for digital literacy, young people’s perspectives in decision-making, and meaningful stakeholder engagement. It brings attention to the challenges faced in international cooperation and stresses the importance of respecting the local context for creating more inclusive digital spaces.

Jerry Li

The analysis emphasizes the importance of digital literacy and understanding modern technologies. It highlights that while digital literacy programs already exist, there is still a significant knowledge gap between these programs and those offered in schools. To address this gap, in-school and out-of-school digital literacy programs are seen as essential. In-school programs would cover the basics of accessing technologies, effective online engagement, and education on important concepts. Out-of-school programs would be offered in community centres, libraries, and public spaces to include a wider range of demographics. These programs would play a crucial role in ensuring that individuals have the necessary skills to navigate the digital world.

The analysis also underscores the need for a proactive and inclusive approach to digital space governance. It argues for an approach that goes beyond a reactionary stance and involves more voices in shaping policies related to safe digital spaces online. By including a diverse range of perspectives, digital space governance can be more effective in addressing emerging issues such as disinformation, misinformation, and the metaverse.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the importance of youth involvement in internet governance. It asserts that the younger generation, being the inheritors of the problems and subjects for decisions made on their behalf, should have a voice in shaping internet governance policies. This inclusion of youth perspectives is seen as vital to ensuring inclusivity in the digital space.

The analysis also touches upon the topic of global governance of the internet. It suggests that while there was a consensus on global governance regarding certain aspects of the internet’s structure in its early stages, the content should be left to national policies sensitive to cultural differences. This approach recognises the importance of balancing global coordination with the need for cultural and national autonomy in shaping internet content.

The need for improved collaboration between public and private sectors in digital literacy programs is another key point highlighted in the analysis. It showcases examples of successful collaborations, such as the digital literacy program introduced by META in Hong Kong and the Women’s Foundation’s encouragement of women in Hong Kong to be part of STEM fields. These collaborations demonstrate the potential benefits of joining forces to enhance digital education and literacy efforts.

Additionally, cross-border regional collaboration and the inclusion of experts in policy development are advocated. Collaboration with existing cross-border regional collaboration groups, particularly in the education space, and research consortia is seen as a strategic way to leverage resources and expertise. This collaboration can help make policy proposals more informed and inclusive by sourcing a variety of voices and perspectives.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the need for digital literacy programs, a proactive approach to digital space governance, youth involvement in internet governance, and improved collaboration among stakeholders. By addressing these aspects, it is believed that individuals will be better equipped to navigate the digital world, policies will be more inclusive and effective, and the potential of the internet as a tool for positive change can be maximised.

Ijun Kim:
Just you. This is nice. I can just focus on you guys. No. No. Linda, can you try raising your hand again? Because before it was on the presentation, now we’re back on Zoom. Oh, yeah. We see it.

Manjiang He:
I just got lowered. Okay. That’s good to know in case there are any questions from here.

Ijun Kim:
I mean, you can kind of look around a little bit, but that would be the primary audience. And then we can look at the camera a few times. I don’t know. Maybe I’ll do like this a little bit. Yeah. This is a weird setup. This is a weird setup. Yeah. But then they said not to sit past that chair because they won’t be able to see on camera. Maybe I’ll kind of like… Yeah. Kind of like this. All right, let’s get started. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us. us today on the last day of the IGF. My name is Yi-Jun Kim and I will be providing a general introduction of the program we hope to share with you and of course later moderating the discussion we are about to have. Before starting off I would just like to give my colleagues an opportunity to introduce themselves and greet you personally. Go ahead.

Jerry Li:
Hi everyone my name is Jerry. I’m from Hong Kong, China and I’m one of the youth researchers at the UNDPPA as part of this project.

Manjiang He:
Hello everyone my name is Manjong from China and I am a youth peace builder and a member of the Youth Advisory Group under the Asia-Pacific Division of UNDPPA. First of all I want to thank you and thank IGF Kyoto 2023 for giving us this opportunity to speak here and also want to thank all of you either sitting here in the room or watch online for joining with us in this session.

Oyundalai Odkhuu:
Okay hello thank you for everyone and thank you for providing the great opportunity and my name is Ayunda Lai. I’m from Mongolia. I am youth peace builder at UNDPPA. Thank you for all.

Yukako Ban :
Good morning I’m Yukako. I’m from Japan. I’m also one of the youth peace builder from the same division. I’m very great to be here today. Thank you.

Ijun Kim:
And we also have Linda on Zoom. Linda do you want to come in real quick?

Linda Hjelle:
Hi everyone my name is Linda Yella. I am Associate Political Affairs Officer at the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and I’m the program manager for this fantastic project that we’ve been having for now three years and I think Ijin will tell you more about the project itself but I’m happy to be here and I’m the online moderator if there are any questions. from the audience online.

Ijun Kim:
So speaking of the fantastic project that Linda mentioned, thank you. This project is called Futuring Peace in Northeast Asia. So just looking at the title, you’ll notice that there are several components to it. Number one, the future. We leverage the concept of the future to host discussion spaces. Number two, we host discussion spaces about peace and peace where? In this context, Northeast Asia. Futuring Peace in Northeast Asia is a program organized and led by the United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, and it is designed in line with the Youth Peace and Security Agenda. The YPS agenda recognizes the valuable contributions of young people to establishing and sustaining peace and hopes to empower them and engage them more meaningfully in relevant discussion spaces. Through this program, young people from China, Japan, Mongolia, and the Republic of Korea were able to convene and discuss collectively how we envision the future of Northeast Asia. And the central methodology throughout the program that led the overall process is called foresight. I think some of you may be familiar with the concept, but long story short, in a nutshell, here I quote, it is a structured and systematic way of using ideas about the future to anticipate and better prepare for change. So foresight is all about leveraging this concept or this idea of the future so that individuals, organizations, or societies as a whole can become more anticipatory and more resilient to change. The program, the first phase of the program was launched in 2021 in partnership with UNESCO, and UNESCO came in to provide capacity building opportunities through a session program they call the Futures Literacy Lab. the opportunity to really understand what foresight is, what it means for us, and how we can leverage it in these contexts. Then phase two began in 2022 in partnership with a Swiss policy think tank, FORALS. And FORALS supported us in translating foresight activities into tangible policy recommendations that we can later share with a broader audience. So I want to speak a little bit more about phase two, because that’s what this is all about today. Phase two was focused on using participatory foresight tools. So there are many tools within the foresight methodology, and there are many different ways of using it. And participatory foresight tools are focused on engaging as diverse a group of people in these discussions, making it interactive, hopefully fun, so that we can surface trends or signals that are sometimes not as visible. This was done, for example, through a workshop that we hosted and facilitated using the Futures Triangle. The Futures Triangle is a tool where we, for example, a single concept such as regional collaboration, for that single concept we explore the weight of the past, what is holding us back from achieving that, push of the present, what is happening right now that is driving us to change, change the way we think, change the way we do things. And then the pull of the future. What do we want in the future? What kind of vision do we have for the future that is also adding to the desire to change? Then we had a really interesting intergenerational dialogue, and it was my first time engaging such a wide range of audiences. We leveraged an online tool. It was slightly more interactive than a simple survey. It encouraged participants who are taking part in it to imagine themselves stepping into a time machine, going forward a couple decades, and then once they look out the window of the time machine, the first question was, what do you see? And through that process, we encouraged people to dream quite vividly about how they see the future. And through that intergenerational dialogue, we were actually able to interact with almost 150 participants, and of a very wide range of backgrounds, expertise, and of course, age groups. And I found it very valuable because while this is based on the youth peace and security agenda, we also recognize the need to, especially when building a collective vision of the future, it’s very important to engage as wide a range of audience as possible. And then our youth peace builders, we moved on to the desk research phase. Based on the insights we gathered through the workshop, and then the online dialogue with the intergenerational audience, we delved a little bit deeper to understand the current landscape, what is going on in Northeast Asia, what are some opportunities that we have that could essentially launch us closer to the future we want to see, but also what are some challenges that we foresee and how to address them. That desk research culminated in a publication called Future of Regional and Narrative Building in Northeast Asia, Policy Recipes by Youth Peace Builders. So we called it a policy recipe because we wanted to make it slightly fun. So it’s quite easy to read. The reason usability essentially is similar to a cook recipe book. We tried to integrate the concept of using different recipes to essentially create a delicious cuisine. And in this case, the cuisine was a metaphor for the future. of peaceful Northeast Asia. In the publication, if you want to Google it or find it online, you’ll find four policy avenues that the Youth Peace Builders came up to recommend how the region, whether through national policies or regional cooperative policies, can move us towards the vision that we hope to see. The first is calling for regional cooperation for education, specifically focused on cultural exchange to build a more cohesive regional identity and enable collaboration. The second encourages the establishment of a Northeast Asian Youth Parliament for climate change. We recognize that climate change is very relevant to the younger generation and, of course, future generations, and we feel the urgency to do something about that. And one way to address it and meaningfully engage young people is by establishing such a body. The third is calling for partnerships, especially cross-sectoral partnerships, to support digital literacy programs. And the last, but certainly not least, is calling for a more consensus-based regulation and policy recommendation presentation. Thank you. Cool. Thank you.

Manjiang He:
Thank you, Adrienne. So as Adrienne mentioned, there’s a policy recommendation about digital literacy program. So Jerry and I co-authored this policy recommendation, and I’ll briefly talk about the background and why we focus on digital literacy. And Jerry will elaborate more on the interconnected and the digital integrated. So we recognize the influence of digitalization in our daily life, work, and study, and acknowledge the positive impacts of digital platforms promoting communication and cultural exchange. However, it is crucial to address the negative aspects of the digital platforms, especially social platforms, which often serves as the breeding ground for hate speech, prejudice, discrimination. So I’d like to invite Jerry to talk a little bit more about that. Sure. and antagonism and violence. So our findings from the open online dialogue conducted in 2021 revealed that the negative emotion frequently stemmed from historical grievances, recent conflict, nationalism, fake news. I tackled the escalated issues of hate speech and online violence. But relations remained to the social media platforms in technology capacity and priorities often are too rapid for proactive policy changes. In Northeast Asia, the region where I belong and also the peace builder belong, also there are the conversation that I had over the few days at IJF, children and youth held by the Youth IJF China that aims to build capacity for children and youth in.

Jerry Li:
But also, what are the modern technologies? What are the ongoing conversations about these technologies and how can we efficiently and effectively utilize technology in these ways? And so the program focuses on education, learning about technological developments and modern conversation in order to. engagement knowledge that already exists on broadcast media and written media. So public and partner partnerships offer a way to utilize private expertise and developments into a public guided system so that developments are organic and from the ground up and can also consider regional and cultural differences. We noted many existing digital literacy programs throughout the many stages of this project, and we noted that while many are offered by private companies, there is a gap of knowledge that exists between these programs and those offered in schools. And so the components of our recommendations are firstly to have in-school literacy programs, digital literacy programs, and have different stages of these programs for different grades. Covering basics of access to what are technologies, to effective engagement online, to education on important concepts such as what is the metaverse, what is disinformation, and what is misinformation. Bridging versions of these conversations we are having here at the IGF to the classroom enables more voices to eventually be heard in further discussions in online spaces and new technologies. And this is an inclusive approach we really believe in. Our second component of recommendation is out of school digital literacy programs for the public. So in community centers, in libraries, in public spaces, and this approach serves to include more demographics in digital education conversations, and so that we can further adjust material for certain regions and generations as well. Private stakeholders should be providing updates and information onto new technologies. And the third component of our recommendation is to include more voices on policies pertaining to safe digital spaces online. So as Manjong adeptly discussed, there is a lot of online problems that we’re facing, particularly with disinformation, and these discussions need voices from those precluded due to lack of access, language, or even knowledge or care. And we believe that this is not one of those issues where demographics have to seek out the tools in order to engage, and that we would be preemptive in equipping people with knowledge and with access and tools so that they can have a voice in this space. Governance in this space necessitates a grounds-up approach that is not just reactionary. We have next stages in the works and we’re very glad to be sharing part of the project here today. So now Yukako will present the second recommendation. Thank you so much. So from here we will focus on the part

Yukako Ban :
of metaverse landscape in our recommendation. So when we consider our future, technological development is a topic we cannot ignore. So I will introduce the background and policy gaps in this part of recommendation, and Oyuka will explain the detailed recommendation part. So I will introduce the background and policy gaps in this part of recommendation, and Oyuka will explain the detailed recommendation part. So metaverse, often described as a future of the Internet, is a network of virtual world blending the digital and physical realms. When it’s still in its infancy and lacks of clear definition, many providers are rapidly developing technologies as we could see in this forum. When we imagine our future peace in this region, its potential benefit and risks are unknown. So by 2026 a significant portion of the population will be engaged in the metaverse. necessitating better management to prevent issues like hate speech, misinformation, and anonymity. Electricity usage for such a massive use of technology is a debate, but it may reduce CO2 emissions by replacing physical travels. At this time, the metaverse holds the potential for application in education and fostering intercultural dialogue. However, the educational utility remains insufficiently explored, and there is a notable lack of developed educational content. Key challenges include regulation, privacy, and accessibility. One of the main policy gaps for the metaverse future is regulation, and this is about how to regulate this decentralized, transnational, and technologically evolving space. Questions of state power, privacy, and data protection vary regionally and culturally. Universal digital access by 2030 is a goal based on UN Our Common Agenda, and government and international organizations are working to improve Internet accessibility during digital space as a public arena. In this context, accessibility and affordability are also concerns. Currently, metaverse is primarily being shaped by Western tech giant. However, its influence extends beyond the Western world. Monopolization of metaverse platform could lead to ownership and operation issues. In Northeast Asia, the unregulated metaverse could exacerbate geopolitical tensions and conflict given the region’s geopolitical importance and existing anonymity between nations. As metaverse evolves, addressing these issues is a priority. these challenges is crucial for its responsibility, responsible and sustainable development. So here, I over to Oyuka for recommendation part.

Oyundalai Odkhuu:
Okay, thank you for Yukako and all, and I would like to highlight some components of our policy recommendations regarding the metaverse. And first component of our recommendation is develop Northeast Asian metaverse platforms. In many Northeast Asian countries have world-class technological capacities, and yet they have been heavily influenced at Western cultures. But also, it’s so appreciative that some Northeast Asian countries have already developed their own metaverse platform. And each country in Northeast Asia should take the initiative to foster increased interaction between relevant industries, research institutions, academia and governments in order to develop platform or originating from Northeast Asia and prevent monopolies and agopolies by a small number of Western countries. And that is also so important in terms of our recommendations. And first, the component of our recommendation is focused on promoting the development of inclusive algorithms. Of course, in metaverse is very hot topic and currently in technology-focused world. And so openness and inclusive algorithms is so important in the metaverse space. In the metaverse, the physical distance doesn’t matter anymore. And while traditional cooperation among countries in the Northeast Asia region can be tricky due to historical differences, territorial disputes and increased tensions leading to hate speech. and climbers and regional collaboration remains vital. And so domestic discussions with Northeast Asian countries have typically held in their native languages and creating limited exposure to views from other nations. To foster feasible relations, governments and should collectively develop algorithms for cross-language information sharing and measures to counter excessive filter bubbles. And this legislation in each country and regional agreements foster the creation of shared narratives that support fees in region and also even the world. And the third component of our policy recommendation is to focus, foster regional collaboration and mostly stakeholder dialogues between private sector and public sectors and even governments and youths and also intergenerational. It’s so important. Yeah, in the metaverse where the physical and the virtual worlds are approximated, people from fields other than internet and new technologies and policy fields should be engaged and to be heard and consulted, including marginalized communities, youth, people of different social classes and gender and sexuality and people with disabilities. And last point of our recommendation is regulation. There is no single players in the regulation of the metaverse and we need to more discuss about the regulation and code of conduct and kind of this conference, Internet Governance Forum should serve as a model for a similar regional initiative in Northeast Asia and which could. contribute intra- and intra-regional collaboration and services. Yeah, that’s four issues that we focused on in our policy recommendations, and okay, thank you.

Ijun Kim:
Thank you, Manjiang, Jerry, Yukako, and Oyuka for presenting our recommendations. I find these opportunities fascinating not only because we have the chance to share with the audience, but it also brings back memories, makes me reflect on the processes that we underwent to develop these recommendations. We have some topics that we want to surface through a more open discussion, elements of the programs that we hadn’t quite been able to touch upon through the presentation. But before I launch into that, I wonder if there are any questions, immediate questions from the audience. Interactivity and engaging a wide range of stakeholders is the key value of our program, so you’re welcome to address any questions you have. While being trained on futures literacy, I was instructed to not be afraid of silence, and I have come prepared to essentially really leverage the silence that we have. So like I mentioned, there are some elements that we want to really share with you of the program. So shall we start the panel discussion? Ready? So let’s see. We are at the IGF, and specifically I want to hear your thoughts on why Internet governance should engage young people in building consensus, possibly regulations, and moving forward so that digital spaces can become safer and more inclusive. Any takers?