Uncategorized

Audience

During the conversation, Javier begins by expressing gratitude to the person he is speaking to in various languages, such as “gracias” in Spanish and “ciao” in Italian. He then bids farewell using the phrases “nos vemos” and “bye-bye.”

Javier then brings up the topic of drafts, suggesting that he believes the woman he is speaking to has some. However, he appears uncertain about this assumption, repeating the statement “I think she has drafts” to indicate his lack of certainty.

The purpose of discussing this topic seems to be to engage in conversation and explore ideas related to drafts. However, the conversation stalls as the woman repeatedly uses the phrase “Creo que…” to share her thoughts, indicating her own uncertainty or hesitation in expressing a definitive opinion.

These exchanges highlight the tentative nature of their conversation and the absence of concrete information or consensus regarding drafts. It appears that they are both searching for common ground or a clearer understanding of the subject matter.

Overall, this conversation offers insights into the interpersonal dynamics and communication style between Javier and the woman, as well as their shared uncertainty about the existence of drafts and their desire to engage in conversation.

Piero Guasta Leyton

The discussions surrounding net neutrality and non-discrimination in the context of trade are considered to be of utmost importance. Piero, for instance, perceives these discussions as key, particularly when it comes to the trade aspect. However, it is often observed that these subjects tend to be overshadowed by more popular topics.

In terms of protecting internet-related aspects, such as free data flows and net neutrality, it is argued that these aspects should be safeguarded rather than implemented. It is contended that these key principles already exist, and the goal should be to ensure their protection. Trade agreements play a crucial role in achieving this objective, as they should aim to guarantee the preservation of these principles.

Similarly, non-discrimination is highlighted as a principal aim in trade. The notion of providing equal opportunities for all participants and market entrants is key. Notably, during the pandemic, specific measures were not required due to the existence of non-discriminatory regulations. Moreover, the measures taken by countries during the pandemic were generally deemed permissible from a trade perspective.

Moreover, net neutrality policies are attributed with having a positive impact on market competition and consumer choices, particularly in the case of Chile. These policies have facilitated the entry of various technological products into the Chilean market, making it more attractive and competitive.

In summary, the discussions surrounding net neutrality, non-discrimination, and internet-related aspects are seen as critical in the trade domain. Protecting and preserving these principles through trade agreements can help ensure equal opportunities and foster market competitiveness. Furthermore, the positive impact of net neutrality policies on market competition and consumer choices, as evidenced by the Chilean example, highlights the importance of these topics for further discussion and promotion.

Javiera Cáceres Bustamante

Net neutrality is a critical principle for ensuring equal access to the internet and plays a crucial role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It prevents discrimination by internet service providers, ensuring that all users have equal access to different sites and applications. By maintaining an open and level playing field, net neutrality fosters equitable opportunities for individuals and businesses.

Net neutrality holds significant potential in contributing to the SDGs, particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). It can ensure access to online educational resources and platforms, enabling individuals to acquire knowledge and skills necessary for quality education. Additionally, net neutrality can facilitate job creation in digital environments, supporting the goal of achieving decent work and economic growth.

The COVID-19 pandemic further highlighted the importance of net neutrality. While exceptional measures, such as traffic management for emergencies and prioritisation of access to critical digital services, were implemented during the pandemic, they were seen as compatible with the principle of net neutrality. These measures aimed to ensure that essential services and information were accessible to all, emphasising the significance of net neutrality in times of crisis.

The Pacific Alliance, comprising four countries, has made notable progress in implementing net neutrality. It has set a precedent by incorporating this principle into an international treaty, demonstrating a shared commitment to ensuring equal access to the internet. The experiences of the Pacific Alliance can provide valuable insights for other economies, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, seeking to regulate net neutrality effectively.

Network slicing, a complex and evolving topic, is closely associated with net neutrality. It involves dividing a network into multiple virtual networks to optimise resources and provide tailored services based on application requirements. While some view network slicing as a means to enhance safety and efficiency in services like autonomous driving, it poses challenges in terms of maintaining net neutrality. Therefore, careful regulation is necessary to prevent backdoor violations of net neutrality in the context of network slicing.

Investigating how companies comply with net neutrality is crucial and provides valuable insights for future research. Understanding the extent to which companies adhere to net neutrality principles can inform policymakers and regulators in designing effective strategies and policies to ensure equal access and prevent discriminatory practices in the digital landscape.

In conclusion, net neutrality plays a vital role in ensuring equitable access to the internet and contributes to the achievement of SDGs such as quality education and decent work. Exceptional measures during the COVID-19 pandemic have underscored the compatibility of net neutrality with prioritising critical services. The Pacific Alliance stands as a successful model for incorporating net neutrality into international treaties, while network slicing necessitates careful regulation to avoid violations. Investigating compliance with net neutrality provides valuable insights for future research and policy development in the digital realm.

Dilmar Villena Fernández Baca

The analysis examines the impact of net neutrality on internet usage in Peru during the COVID-19 pandemic. It underscores that the internet infrastructure was unprepared for the surge in information flow caused by the pandemic, resulting in network overload. To address this issue, the Peruvian government allowed operators to prioritize certain data packages through emergency actions. This was done to alleviate the strain on the network caused by increased device usage for work and entertainment during the pandemic.

One argument presented is that the exceptions made by the Peruvian government to net neutrality regulations were necessary to adapt to changes in internet usage patterns. For example, the government developed the ‘Aprendo en Casa’ platform to provide educational materials to students. Telecommunication companies were given the flexibility to prioritize data packages related to remote work and learning. This decision aimed to ensure uninterrupted access to essential services, such as online education, during the pandemic.

However, the analysis also highlights concerns about selective zero-rating in Peru. Zero-rating refers to exempting certain data packages from usage limits or charges. The stance put forward is that Peruvian regulations permit zero-rating as long as it is not done arbitrarily. However, compliance with this regulation varied among telecom companies. Several operators did not fully adhere to transparency guidelines, which require them to be transparent about zero-rating. Only one major operator in Peru was found to be fully compliant during the pandemic. This non-compliance and lack of transparency generated a negative sentiment regarding the implementation of net neutrality regulations in Peru.

The analysis also reveals the impact of net neutrality on non-traditional forms of work, such as gamers and streamers. It argues that prioritizing conventional work-related traffic penalized these workers, as their data flow requirements were not adequately met. This aspect highlights a potential downside of prioritizing certain types of internet traffic during periods of increased network strain.

Furthermore, the analysis extends beyond Peru and highlights compliance with net neutrality among telecommunication companies in the Pacific Alliance. Despite being the same corporations, compliance varied across different countries in the Pacific Alliance. An example mentioned is Intelcom, a Chilean company operating in Peru, not fully complying with net neutrality transparency guidelines. This observation emphasizes the need for consistent implementation of net neutrality regulations across borders.

In conclusion, the analysis provides valuable insights into the challenges of net neutrality during the COVID-19 pandemic in Peru. It reveals the strain on internet infrastructure, the regulatory exceptions made by the Peruvian government, concerns about selective zero-rating, and compliance issues among telecom companies. The analysis emphasizes the importance of maintaining a balance between prioritizing essential services and ensuring equal access to the internet for all users.

Olga Cavalli

Argentina does not have specific regulations on net neutrality, but its national law on digital services indirectly upholds the principles of network neutrality. The law includes two articles that guarantee network neutrality for the services in place, ensuring equal treatment of all online traffic. However, challenges arise regarding the distribution and concentration of internet traffic, particularly on streaming services, which can result in unequal treatment of other online services. Additionally, the practice of zero-rating in mobile services packages, where certain services like WhatsApp are exempted from data charges while others are not, raises concerns about fair treatment. Moreover, the inclusion of IoT devices in mobile networks, such as 5G, raises questions about the feasibility of network neutrality due to the possibility of treating different types of traffic differently for functionality. Some argue that this approach may violate net neutrality, especially when it comes to time-sensitive traffic from IoT devices like autonomous cars. Good regulation is vital to enable services for consumers and service providers, taking into account the rapid changes in the technological environment. It should provide room for future updates and improvements while ensuring fairness for all parties involved. In conclusion, while Argentina indirectly supports network neutrality through its national law on digital services, challenges persist and require careful consideration and regulation to ensure fair and equal access to the internet and foster innovation in the digital services sector.

Raquel Gatto

Net neutrality has emerged as a significant issue in Brazil, necessitating the implementation of regulations to safeguard the rights of internet users. In 2014, Brazil enacted a law that aimed to protect user rights on the internet without subjecting them to criminal charges. This law allowed for the use of the internet as a means to safeguard and uphold these rights.

The Marcos Review, also known as the Brazilian Bill of Rights, was formulated through public consultations and online discussions. This inclusive approach ensured that the opinions and perspectives of a wide range of stakeholders were taken into account. The Marcos Review enshrined net neutrality as a fundamental principle in Brazil’s internet governance framework.

However, the Marcos Review also acknowledges that there can be exceptions to the principle of net neutrality in certain circumstances. For example, it recognizes the need for traffic control and the prioritisation of emergency-essential services. These exceptions are carefully defined and implemented to ensure that they do not undermine the overall principle of net neutrality and the protection of user rights.

The Brazilian Internet community, known as NIC.br, plays a significant role in defining and implementing these exceptions. This organisation works closely with various stakeholders to ensure that the exceptions are justified, transparent, and in the best interest of internet users. By involving the Brazilian Internet community, the regulatory framework surrounding net neutrality becomes more accountable and responsive to the needs and concerns of the public.

Overall, the sentiment surrounding net neutrality in Brazil is neutral. There is a call for cautious monitoring of any exceptions to the principle of net neutrality. This suggests that there is a recognition of the importance of balancing the needs for regulation and protection of user rights, while also maintaining an open and equitable internet environment.

In conclusion, net neutrality is a significant concern in Brazil, and the country has taken significant steps to address it through regulations and the Marcos Review. The law passed in 2014 allows for the protection of user rights without criminalising them, and the Marcos Review ensures that net neutrality is upheld as a principle while also allowing for carefully defined exceptions. By involving the Brazilian Internet community in the process, Brazil’s regulatory framework aims to provide a balanced and accountable approach to net neutrality.

Felipe Muñoz Navia

During the session, the topic of network slicing with 5G and its potential impact on net neutrality laws was discussed in depth. Network slicing, which involves dividing a physical network into multiple virtual networks, allows for the creation of different logical networks on the same hardware. This innovation opens up new possibilities for enhanced mobile broadband, massive machine type communication for Internet of Things (IoT), and ultra-reliable low-latency services.

However, it was acknowledged that network slicing could potentially affect net neutrality at lower levels that may not be covered by existing laws. The speakers emphasised the need for careful analysis and updates to technical drafts that accompany these laws. They proposed that laws should be updated to cover potential violations of net neutrality that may occur beneath the routing, ensuring that the principles of an open and unbiased internet are upheld.

The session concluded that advancements in technology call for laws and technical drafts to be revised and adapted to accommodate these changes. The speakers highlighted the importance of net neutrality in maintaining an internet ecosystem that fosters innovation, competition, and equal access to information. Therefore, thorough evaluation and consideration of network slicing’s implications on net neutrality are necessary to prevent any unintended consequences.

In summary, network slicing with 5G offers various benefits for logical networks, but it also poses challenges to net neutrality at lower levels. Updating laws and technical drafts is vital to uphold net neutrality and safeguard fairness and equality in the digital space. Proper analysis and adjustments are necessary to accommodate technological advancements and maintain the integrity of net neutrality in all aspects of network infrastructure.

Ignacio Sánchez González

Net neutrality is an essential principle that has received substantial attention and regulation in various countries and international treaties. Specifically, the Pacific Alliance, consisting of Chile, Colombia, Peru, and Mexico, has acknowledged the significance of net neutrality by enacting it into their national laws. Furthermore, the Pacific Alliance as an organization has extended the scope of net neutrality by incorporating it into their trade protocol, setting a noteworthy precedent in international public law.

In Brazil, net neutrality is also a major topic of discussion, seen as a crucial element of internet rights and legislation. This highlights the need for comprehensive regulations to ensure proper implementation of net neutrality. Key to this is incorporating exceptions in regulations, as they play a vital role in striking a balance between preserving net neutrality and addressing specific circumstances that may require different treatment.

However, a critical concern is the lack of an active monitoring body that ensures compliance with net neutrality principles. Despite having legislation and dispute settlement mechanisms in place, the absence of continuous monitoring hampers effective implementation. This poses a challenge in ensuring that internet service providers (ISPs) adhere to net neutrality principles and refrain from discriminatory practices.

Additionally, the interaction between net neutrality and network slicing is a relevant aspect to consider. Network slicing is a technique used to accommodate specific technical requirements, such as low latency for critical services like autonomous driving. Whether network slicing complies with net neutrality principles largely depends on the application and intent behind its implementation. This highlights the importance of regulating and monitoring net neutrality and network slicing practices to prevent preferential treatment or discrimination by ISPs.

In summary, net neutrality is a vital principle for maintaining an open and equal internet environment. Its regulation in various countries and international treaties, particularly within the Pacific Alliance, demonstrates the global recognition of its importance. To effectively implement net neutrality, comprehensive regulations should be in place, including exceptions that strike a balance. Moreover, active monitoring mechanisms are necessary to ensure compliance and prevent discriminatory practices. Overall, the regulation and monitoring of net neutrality and network slicing are critical for safeguarding the principles of an open and fair internet.

Ignacio Sánchez González:
Hello. Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you very much for coming. On behalf of the Institute of International Studies of the University of Chile, we are holding now the session called Net Neutrality and COVID-19 Trends in Latin America and the Caribbean and the Asia-Pacific. First of all, I want to thank all the people who have joined the panel, Raquel Gato, Olga Cavalli, Dilmar Villena, and our online speakers also, Javier Cáceres, Felipe Muñoz, and Piero Huasta. So we will talk now about why is net neutrality important for our countries, why are we making a link between Latin America and specifically the Pacific Alliance within Latin America, and why we are linking it with the Asia-Pacific. We will address a global discussion, comparative regional processes regarding net neutrality. And for instance, just to start the conversation, the presentation of the paper that Professor Javier Cáceres and Felipe Muñoz will make, they will talk about, for instance, that an important outcome is that the four members of the Pacific Alliance, which are Chile, Colombia, Peru, and Mexico, the four of them have regulated in law the principle of net neutrality, and that had as a result that the Pacific Alliance, as an organization and in the trade protocol, they set the principle of net neutrality in an international treaty, setting an important precedent in international public law. That’s why our first presenters will present the paper, Net Neutrality Exceptionality, a look into the Pacific Alliance countries during the COVID-19 pandemic and lessons for Asia-Pacific economies. This paper is now in press in the framework of the call for proposals of the UN Economic and Social Commission for the Asia-Pacific, UNCTAD, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, and ARTNET. And this call for papers is called Unleashing Digital Trade and Investment for Sustainable Development. The presenters of the paper, I will present every speaker when the time to talk arrives. Our first presenters are Professor Javier Cáceres-Bustamante, who is also one of the authors of the paper. She is an instructor professor at the Institute of International Studies of the University of Chile, and also a PhD fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science. And Professor Felipe Muñoz, an associate professor of the Institute of International Studies of the University of Chile. The two professors and I are the authors of this paper, which will start the conversation of this principle in our region. So Professor Cáceres and Professor Muñoz, thank you very much for joining us online. And please, whenever you want, you can start and present this research topic on net neutrality. Thank you, Ignacio. Good afternoon and good morning to all

Javiera Cáceres Bustamante:
of those participating either on site or virtually in this panel. I don’t know if you can see my PPT, because I asked Piero if you could project it. I don’t know if, Piero, yeah. Yeah, now we can see it. You can see it? Okay, perfect. Okay, so first, I would like to thank you, Ignacio, for convening such an interesting session. It is my pleasure to share with you the finding of our research project, as you were saying, specifically on net neutrality, exceptionality, and the Pacific alliance, and how, from this experience, some lessons can be taken for other economies, including those of the Asia-Pacific. I’m going to be presenting. Felipe is here too, but I’ll be the one presenting. Next, please. First, we’ll start with an introduction that you can see on screen. While it’s not new that the information and telecommunications revolution has changed the paradigms of production, consumption, and even social interactions, the COVID-19 pandemic allowed us to witness the extent of the internet as an essential tool for individuals and businesses. So, in a moment dominated by restrictions on social distancing, So, in a moment dominated by restrictions on social distancing, digital tools enabled people to connect and collaborate with others across the globe. During the pandemic, as we all know, the importance of the internet as an essential tool for people, businesses, and the digital economy has surged. So, several activities turned into digital environments as a consequence of the pandemic, ranging from, for example, remote working and education to the rise of e-commerce, or the increased use of digital platforms, too, for social communication and leisure activities. So, in this context, our research focuses on studying how the Pacific Alliance economies have regulated and managed the principle of net neutrality during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to draw some ideas that may provide insightful information for policymakers or using net neutrality principle during exceptional circumstances. Next, please. Now, this is a bit of kind of a theoretical framework or literature review. So, I don’t know. Yeah, there. According to Tim Wu, internet service providers, ISP, should be required to treat all internet traffic equally without discriminating or charging different based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. So, this is the basis of the net neutrality principle. If not, as this author argued, internet service providers could become internet gatekeepers, controlling access to information and stifling competition and innovation. So, this principle seeks to prevent internet services providers from blocking or slowing down access to websites or applications or charging consumers extra fees for faster or prioritized access to specific sites or applications. So, net neutrality can be defined as essential to ensure that the internet remains an open and level playing field where all users have equal access of information and to services. So, for this reason and to provide stronger regulatory framework, we can see that some countries have already decided to incorporate the net neutrality principle as part of their negotiating mandates in their free trade agreement negotiations, including, as the case of analysis that we are presenting, the economies of the Pacific Alliance. Next, please. Here we see a little bit more of information regarding net neutrality and COVID. So, as I already mentioned, the use of the internet skyrocketed due to the rise of COVID pandemic. So, the population used the internet for communication and leisure purposes, including video calls and streaming services. Various activities moved into virtual environments. So, the increasing usage of network limited the capabilities of internet services providers to provide the required broadband width. So, this problem was particularly relevant in developing economies and rural areas and for those who did not have the access to broadband land connections or latest generation mobile connections. So, to ensure that citizens get access to the internet, particularly those that are digital and digital enabled services considered critical, governments impose different measures and policies like zero rating or the price discrimination between digital packages in which companies may discriminate regarding the price they will charge for a specific content prioritization. Both type of measures that could be understood as inconsistent with net neutrality principles. Next, please. But also, there is important to see here that net neutrality should not only be seen as a technical issue related to the governance of the internet, but also as a tool for development. So, while there is no specific reference to the net neutrality principle within SDGs, it can be stated that the net neutrality principle might promote more equitable access to the internet, but not allowing discrimination concerning access to various contexts distributed in a digital environment. So, hence, the relationship between net neutrality and the SDGs becomes significant as the internet has proven to be an essential tool for achieving SDGs. Here, we can see on screen some examples of how net neutrality could help the achievement of SDGs are shown here. So, we have first, for example, that we might think about SDG 4, which is quality of education and the need to access educational resources and online learning platforms, for example, or SDG 8, which is decent work and economic growth and the increased job creation in digital environments. So, we can see that both activities are dependent on the access to the internet for which any discrimination by internet services providers could hinder the capabilities of the population to participate in that. Next, please. Thank you. So, the Pacific Alliance becomes an interesting case study as the regional bloc has established as one of its main working objectives the construction of a regional digital market. Various presidential and ministerial declarations and roadmaps have been elaborated towards achieving this objective in which those instruments express the cooperation on net neutrality is necessary to, I’m quoting, create an enabling environment to promote the exchange of digital goods and service. So, moreover, during the amendment of the additional protocol of the Pacific Alliance, its trading instrument within the alliance, the following provisions were adopted. So, I’m going to quote here article 14.6 of the commercial protocol, which is part of the telecommunication chapters, which says that each party shall adopt or maintain measures to ensure compliance with net neutrality. So, while countries may have their own measures to achieve this objective, the common goal of net neutrality is committed at the regional level within the alliance. Next, please. I’m sorry for this slide and the following one. I know it has a lot of information. I think we can afterwards share the presentation. So, I’m just going to summarize this. We can see here that the four countries in the Pacific Alliance have implemented policies looking to ensure net neutrality. So, our research found that Chile was the first country to adopt these measures. To a large extent, the other three economies have replicated the Chilean model with small variations. What is most interesting here and relevant for our discussion today is the final column, because here we can see information on how these countries have addressed exceptionality during COVID-19 pandemic. So, it is concluded that while existing laws on net neutrality are imposed, there is policy space allowing countries to implement exceptionality measures to ensure that access to critical digital services, as education or health related, was possible during the pandemic. So, prioritization was possible under the event of the pandemic, supported by the World Health Organization, as happened also in Colombia. And we also see that traffic management measures for emergencies were also put in place. Also, for example, Mexico defined that this kind of exceptions could be grinded if there was a risk to the integrity and security of the net network or private communication of users, exceptional technology congestion, and also emergency and disaster situations. So, therefore, net neutrality principles was not incompatible with an emergency situation. Next, please. So, this analysis takes us to Asia-Pacific economies. So, while the use of net neutrality has been widely discussed for countries in the Asia-Pacific, most economies in this region have not yet implemented formal regulations regarding net neutrality. So, there are various reasons for this lack of regulation, being one common acknowledgement that the stakes are high for both consumers and industry holders, and states don’t want to lose the possibility of controlling traffic on the internet. Nevertheless, we can find some cases in India, Japan, and Singapore, for example, where these countries have already implemented in different extents net neutrality regulations, as you can see in this slide. So, as I mentioned before, I know I don’t have much time left, so I’m going to afterwards share this presentation. Next slide, please. Here, we can see the comparison between the three main integration processes. We have the Pacific Alliance, APEC, and ASEAN. So, as previously mentioned, a significant development at the level of binding instruments and working documents with a focus on the regional digital market, all of them addressing net neutrality, has been taking place in the Pacific Alliance. In the case of APEC, we can see that net neutrality has been highlighted in recent years in relevant working documents, which may eventually lead to a leader’s declaration, but still no further progress has been achieved. While in the case of ASEAN economies, there is no relevant advances to establish that the net neutrality principle is part of their agenda, pointing out the differences between member economies, too. Next, please. So, to wrap up from our research, it can be stated that members of the Pacific Alliance began with the incorporation of the net neutrality principle in the trade protocol of the Alliance. So, in turn, the adoption of the principle by the four countries, not only closing time, but also their connection points, have been highlighted in key issues to promote the digital economy and in the intra-regional trade as they intersect in subjects such as traffic management measures, transparency, compliance mechanism, and references to international technical standards. Regulation details regarding traffic management measures in a way that would allow the adoption of measures to prioritize traffic and data for essential services in time of emergency, such as the pandemic. So, in this regard, the four regulations stand out for the level of detail and for the instructions to which internal services providers must adhere, being able to manage data traffic in order to ensure the continuity of critical services. Members of the Pacific Alliance made progress in joint discussions that led to the reform of all telecom legislation and subsequently set the first multilateral precedent for the incorporation of net neutrality principles in an international treaty. So, the Alliance practices align with both members’ digital trade policies. Just a couple of more ideas before I finish. The regulation of net neutrality within Asia-Pacific economies has been a matter of divergence, and some countries have built regulations and frameworks to address this issue. In contrast, others have not worked on this topic, so while the topic has been covered in some preferential trade agreements such as CPTPP, it has not been covered in others such as, for example, RCEP. Next, please, just to conclude. Here, I think I’ve already mentioned everything related to COVID-19, so I’m going to focus on the last two points. So, we see that the Asia-Pacific region, particularly APEC and ASEAN, has discussed the concept of net neutrality at a multilateral level. However, the experiences in local regulations are still scarce, and many organizations or forums have focused more on the declarative sphere rather than actually developing and creating regulations. The Pacific Alliance has offered an unusual normative and political experience. It has difficultly developed its binding discussion and worked instruments on net neutrality, so I think that this dissemination of information can help us build best practices in the Asia-Pacific region. Thank you. Next, please. Thank you, Ignacio.

Ignacio Sánchez González:
So, thank you very much, Javier, for that excellent and clear presentation. Now, I give the floor to Olga Cavalli, who is the National Director of Cybersecurity in Argentina. Olga, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me. Very interesting

Olga Cavalli:
investigation and the outcomes of this initiative. I was wondering, Pacific Alliance, because I’m ignorant of how many countries do make part of the Pacific Alliance, if you can tell me. Chile, Colombia, Peru, Mexico. So, the one side that you have mentioned, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Mexico. Okay, very interesting that you gathered together to have a treaty, which I understand that it’s binding to national regulations, which is important because sometimes we get together and we do declarations which are perhaps aspirational, and then it doesn’t… I think it’s very important that we have this kind of discussion and we have to reflect what really has an impact at the national level. Argentina doesn’t have a specific regulation on net neutrality, although the national law on digital services, I would say, national digital, establishes two articles that guarantees the network neutrality for the services in place. I think it’s very important that we have this discussion and we have to reflect what really has an impact at the national level. I think there are a lot of philosophical questions about this issue of net neutrality. Sometimes I think it’s a bit aspirational and perhaps it’s difficult to think about it in a world where most of the traffic is increasing and really concentrating, especially in streaming services. If you look the way that the Internet traffic has been distributed, it’s not the same. It’s not the same as streaming services. It’s not the same as streaming services. It’s not the same as the delivery services. At the same time, you have the content delivery networks that deliver most of this content into directly to Internet exchange points. So at a point, trying to do regulations about network neutrality with a reality that most of the content is being distributed, it’s not the same as streaming services. So I think it’s just a question that I make myself. In any way, I’m putting a doubt in what you’re doing. Sometimes I wonder if it’s something aspirational and really we can achieve. At the same time, thinking about mobile services, the practice of, for example, in a package that you buy, you have a specific law that says that you can’t send messages to a particular country, but you can send messages to the bound of services like WhatsApp or some, not all messaging services like WhatsApp, but not every messaging. I wonder, that’s a common practice. I know that in some countries it was not allowed, like Chile, because you have a specific law on network neutrality. I wonder if it’s something that we should really struggle to achieve or just bear in mind that it exists. At the same time, I have a question for those who made the research. The inclusion of internet of things in the mobile networks, like, for example, 5G, will include a new way of treating the bandwidth of the network, which is called network slicing. Some people think that network slicing is a way of not respecting the network neutrality, because you are treating differently different types of traffic, but it makes sense in relation with the service. I mean, you cannot delay an autonomous car, the streaming of that car, because it may hit someone and do an accident, but you can delay a service. If you delay a service, it’s not a service. If you delay a service, it’s not a service. You can delay other traffic, I don’t know, perhaps streaming or music or broadcast of television or radio. So, then, some type of traffic in the networks that are being developed now, whether in 5G, or I also think about the internet of things, it’s a way of respecting the network neutrality. If you are thinking about objects that are connected, and they are providing critical services to users. So that’s a question for those who have made the research, and I congratulate you for what you have done. Thank you. Thank you very much, Olga, for your inputs. Now, I believe that you mentioned, for example, zero rating, and some technologies that are developing. I don’t know if Piero… Zero rating didn’t come to my mind, because I’m totally jet lagged. I was finding the words in my mind, and it didn’t come. Thank you for reminding me.

Ignacio Sánchez González:
I don’t know, Piero, if I’m speaking on behalf of you, but I think that Piero, who is our next speaker, might refer to zero rating. I’m not sure, Piero, if you are not going to, don’t worry. I’m not sure if you are going to, don’t worry. I’m not sure if you are going to, don’t worry. I’m not sure if you are going to. So, Piero, he works in the undersecretariat of international economic relations, and he will present a commentary and reflection on the Chilean experience, negotiating net neutrality within the Pacific alliance. Piero, thank you very much, because also, there’s a lot of time difference between here and the other side, and it’s a lot of time difference between the two sides. So, Piero, if I may ask you, I hope you can hear me?

Piero Guasta Leyton:
PIERO JARAMILLO-SANTOS Yes. PIERO JARAMILLO-SANTOS Everything is okay, technically? First of all, I would like to thank you, Javiera, and Felipe, for inviting me here. My first comment are in general that I think this effort is very good. For me, it’s very important. It’s key to start discussing this type of issues. And I think it’s very important to discuss this type of issues, because, particularly in the trade work, these type of topics are very high behind more more famous topics, so it’s always good to discuss this. Particularly because we are in a stage on trade that the civil society is asking why we negotiate, why we are working these topics. And I think that we need to start discussing this. And I think that we need to start kind of defending the technical aspect that are born with internet. For example, free data flows, net neutrality, et cetera. It’s not something that we need to implement in the future, but something that we need to protect, if you will, in trade agreements to continue that. And I think that we need to start talking about that, because we already have that, yes, that is true, but the idea behind this is to protect these issues. Regarding this specific topic, I will talk again, I’m sorry for repeating myself, about the trade perspective, and I will connect that with what Ignacio was saying in the sense that the view from trade is kind of, I don’t want to say that it’s a bad view, but it’s kind of a bad view, because it’s not the trade economy, but it’s the competition, the opportunity for companies to export. So in our view, for example, it discusses a lot the new measures that some countries took during the pandemic. In the case of trade, it’s kind of allowed, because specifically in the case of Chile, we follow the idea that we need to have a regulatory. So for example, during the pandemic, you can prioritize health services or any other service, but you cannot discriminate between different providers. Same idea with the streaming, same idea with email providers, same idea with all the areas of the internet economy. Okay? So in that sense, I think the current measure of all trade agreements allow that, because, again, our focus is non-discriminatory. The idea is to all have the opportunity to be able to enter the market. And that is very important, for example, in the case of the pandemic, there were some initiatives or platforms that, for example, Chile developed or Colombia developed, and the idea was to be able to offer that solutions to Pacific Alliance in the same conditions. So in our view, we don’t need specific measures for that. Because it’s already available, and that is the main idea on the main objective on trade perspective. Regarding the topic more in general, for us, it has been very useful. I remember some early studies from specifically from one of our ISPs talk that it was very useful to have this kind of policies, because you make the market more attractive, more competitors can enter the markets, and be able to reduce the prices and allow more data processes and services to be available. In the case of Chile, we are adopters of almost everything technological, and we have almost access to everything that is currently on the Internet. We have some particularities that, for example, Asian products that maybe took a little bit of a long time to enter other markets like Europe or the U.S. are very easily entered to Chile. So I think it has been a good practice from Chile. I know that Internet has been evolving. There is the old discussion about autonomous cars. I’m prioritizing that. The health issue. But I think we need to be more aware of the health issue. But I think we need to see how everything is evolving regarding, for example, streaming. There is a lot of work regarding the broadband they use. There is a lot of competition about algorithms that compress images. Probably it’s not broadband is not much important as the latency of the connection. So I think that is another point of discussion regarding specific health and autonomous driving. But again, I’m closing for not extending too much my discourse. I think it’s a very good paper. It’s good that we continue the discussion. I know that maybe we need to evolve this more because, again, it’s a technical issue that we kind of established on the agreement that was already there and we hopefully we are not going to change in the future. But it’s important to highlight that, to see that this is important that we negotiate on other topics in the future. So thank you to the authors. Please, if you have any other questions, feel free to ask it. Thank you.

Ignacio Sánchez González:
Thank you very much, Piero, for your inputs. Now I give the floor to Raquel Gattu, who is representing NIC.BR, NIC.BR. She will comment and reflect from the perspective of the technical community and speak about the situation in Brazil. Thank you very much, Raquel.

Raquel Gatto:
Thank you very much, Ignacio, Javiera, Felipe, for the study and for the invitation to be here commenting. I should start with a little bit of background. I’m a lawyer, so I’m supposed to be talking about technical issues and technical issues. So I will give a disclaimer. For the Latin American folks here in Japan, this is the worst time of the day. For all of us. So you’re all jet lagged a little bit more by the end of the afternoon because of the time zone. So forgive if some word is missing and if we do look a little sleepy here. But I will bring a little bit to my side in terms of commenting the regulation. And, in fact, in Brazil, net neutrality was and still is a big topic. It was interesting, and that’s what I want to bring forward with the questions Ignacio put in the beginning. Why it is important, right, and what has been done in each of the countries that we are talking today and in Brazil. So, as a Baril, when I say Barexcogenics, it maps Japan, it also maps the Brazil and Argentines. It also has a revision country also and Argentina and others. So for all of you that don’t know, Markus Review of Internet, the Brazilian Bill of Rights or the Internet framework, how we call it, and it was issued in 2014 after the Brazilian government passed a law that allows the use of Internet as a way to protect the rights of the user. So it’s a law, but it doesn’t go into the nitty-gritty details. And one of the perspectives of Markus Review is to bring the user’s rights protection before we go into the criminal penalties that comes with the problems that we know the Internet faces, but let’s protect the rights first. So the first challenge was to make sure that the Internet is protected. And the second challenge was to make sure that the Internet is protected before we go into the criminalization. And one of the big topics was net neutrality. The first challenge was to make the legislators understand what the Internet is and how it works into the technical perspective of open Internet working. And the third challenge was to make sure that the legislators understand how the Internet is and how it works into the technical perspective of open Internet working. And the fourth challenge was to make sure that the legislators can break this core, neutral core of the Internet, and that’s an interesting exercise that happened because Markus Review was discussed through public consultations, online consultations, and it was very, very interesting to see how people were able to have the click, you know, when they understand what are the consequences of their decisions in terms of regulations. And then, well, fast-forwarding, because we don’t have much time, the decision was to keep it as a principle of net neutrality, to the point Olga was making. Is it kind of aspirational? Is it kind of, you know, like, you know, like, you know, we have to keep it as a principle of net neutrality and we have to keep it as a principle of net neutrality. And then we go into the exceptions, and the study brings this forward very nicely in terms of, okay, so, that’s what we want. We want to keep it non-discriminatory. We want to have the packages flowing, whatever the content is, where they are coming from, where they are going to, and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on. And so, it begs for the questions, who is deciding what those exceptions are, and how are we going to control it or monitor it? I’m avoiding the word control, but it doesn’t come anything better in my mind. Anyway, and so, in the case of Brazil, Marcos Sevil has the principle of net neutrality, and it’s a very important principle, and it’s mentioned in the document, but then it mentions the possibility of exceptions in case of the need, for example, for a traffic trolling, I don’t know exactly how to spell that, and then to prioritize emergency-essential services. And then after two years, there was, oh, sorry, and then Marcos Sevil came out with the concept for the law to achieve the exception, but it’s also mentioned on the steps they’re going to define the rules that those exceptions are fit. So one of them is the Brazilian Internet community, where I work, so Nick is the arm of the CIG that is appointed there, and then it’s there, and then there’s the other, the other decree that sets out, lays out the implementation of those exceptions for net neutrality. For example, in case of that you have an overload with spam or with the DOS, the denial of services attacks. So in those cases, of course, you’re going to break, you know, and put rules in the middle, because you need to. So the Internet keeps working, and the network keeps doing what it needs to do. So anyway, those are the cases that there are already in the regulation, and that they’re being put in place. But then, and I’m fast forwarding, because this is the question that I have also for you guys, in terms of your studies, and perhaps you can expand or just tell if this is something you were looking for. in the future, but I think, as I said, after you take the principles and after you take, okay, you set out, those are the rules, then you need to think on the implementation and the monitoring. So how you are going to make sure that those exceptions are only exceptions and not become themselves the rules and how you are going to even prove that, because this is an issue, right? Even if you set out an oversight and ways to, and the regulation has some penalties for that, even there, how do you prove it? And so you go more into making it real than just aspirational. So I’m leaving like that and thank you very much. Thank you.

Ignacio Sánchez González:
Thank you very much, Raquel. Just to provide a quick answer and then give the floor to Dilmar. Yeah, exactly. Effectively, one of the elements that our research, our previous research considered, we identified seven elements of net neutrality regulations. And one of those elements are, of course, the exceptions, because you can have net neutrality regulations, but if you don’t have the exceptions, or what will the exceptions be? Actually, the legislation won’t be operable, no, it can’t be effective. And besides the exceptions, one of the other elements is the dispute settlement bodies when net neutrality is not taking place. But I do think this dispute settlement was an element because there you can go when net neutrality is not being complied on the part of the ISPs. But I do think that it is a challenge, the monitoring. I think all the legislation we saw, they lack of a body that actively monitors that everything and everyone are complying with the principle. I have that quick answer for now. So now I give the floor to Dilmar Villena, who is the Executive Director of the NGO Hiperderecho of Peru. Dilmar, thank you very much for being here.

Dilmar Villena Fernández Baca:
Thank you very much for the invitations and congratulations on the paper. Well, talking about net neutrality, right now it’s not the hot topic like is AI, but it’s always good to talk about it because it’s essential part of internet, net neutrality. And well, net neutrality as an ideal, as a principle, it’s also in our Peruvian regulation. But what happened during COVID-19 is like, yes, we have net neutrality, regulatory bodies implement net neutrality and demand companies to comply it. But pandemic starts and what we have in front is like, all the infrastructure isn’t ready for all the flow of information that it started at that point. Pandemic started and nobody could get out and everybody was using their laptops, their cell phones in order to work, in order to, I don’t know, to consume some entertainment. So that in Peru, that’s what happened. And I think that happened also in a lot of countries. And net were overloaded. So Peruvian government in that case, take, let operators to take some emergency actions in order to prioritize the flow of some packages to some specific types of website or services. Talking about server rating, for example, what happened in Peru. Peruvian government developed a webpage that is called Aprendo en Casa. Dot com, dot PE. And it was the center of information from all the students that couldn’t go to school, but in order to learn or in order to have access to some educational materials, they could get it through this page, Aprendo en Casa dot PE. And what happens in Peru that students that need to access to this information doesn’t have the data packages in their cell phones or doesn’t have the money required to buy these data packages. So in that case, most of the telecom companies, and also because of the Peruvian government ordered that, they put server rating to access to this educational webpage. And also Peruvian government, like it didn’t order, but it suggested the companies to prioritize some types of traffic to, I don’t know, traffic for people that are doing remote working or maybe people that are using Zoom or Microsoft Teams or all of these platforms to do their work while they stay at home. But during the time of the day, but what government didn’t take into account is when they did these regulations, they were talking more on the traditional form of working. But what happened with person that were making money through streaming services, like streamers, like were gamers and streamers, they couldn’t have the necessary package flow to continue doing some streaming and also working because for most of them, the video gamers, streamers, that was their work. So that was a point that also Peruvian government didn’t take into account when we were talking about net neutrality. Other thing that is very important is Peruvian legislations permits server rating when is it done in arbitrary form. So what is not arbitrary is not that clear, but in any case, it demands to telecom companies to be transparent about that. The transparency of companies in implementing this measure is a key concern here. How transparent have been telecom operators in Peru regarding network managing during the pandemic? One of the questions we ask whether these companies are adequately communicating their actions and decisions during this uncertain times, those are certain times of the pandemic. Among the major operators in Peru, just one at that time was complying with transparency demands on net neutrality. The other three ones didn’t comply with it. So we didn’t know to which platforms or to which websites telecom companies were treating or giving preference and treatment to their data packages. And that is what comes to my question maybe and what we can discuss about the paper. Through the Pacific Alliance, there is a lot, maybe there are two, three companies, big companies, telecom companies that are in our countries. Now I’m thinking about Peru, Chile, Mexico, maybe now Claro or Intel, I don’t know. Maybe we can think about how these companies comply with net neutrality requirements in each country and why do they comply more or less in each country. I don’t know. In the case of Peru, Intel, that is from Chile, is like seven or eight years in the Peruvian market. And actually, not much complies in net neutrality disposition, at least in transparency. But we have other telecom companies that do comply with, do comply it. So maybe we can think about it on the future. These are more the same companies, but why do they comply more or less in some countries when we talk about the Pacific Alliance? So that I think is gonna be for me. Thank you very much.

Ignacio Sánchez González:
Thank you, Dilmar. And now that I’m hearing you talking about transparency and you were talking about the user rights and their regulations, I am recalling the other elements of the net neutrality legislation that we started last year and actually transparency and the user protection, specifically privacy, are one of the elements of this net neutrality legislations besides dispute resolution also. Now, before closing, I know that Professor Cáceres who presented the paper wants to go deeper in one of the questions that were made in the panel.

Javiera Cáceres Bustamante:
Thank you, Ignacio. Well, thank you all the speakers. It was very interesting and I’m taking a few notes. I don’t know if I have so many question or ideas to answer all of your questions, but I think it’s been super interesting. Regarding to what Olga was saying before regarding network slicing, I think we did not consider that as part of our paper. I think that would be something very interesting to concerning future research or maybe like a revised version of our article. But I think here it’s interesting to see how kind of like both the literature or one like how states are actually approaching this topic. It’s very changing in the sense that when we talk about network slicing, like completely we could say right away, like, no, it’s not compatible with network neutrality. But if we start thinking about it, we see also that this also depends on the application and intent. So we see that network slicing is used more like to support specific technical requirements, for example, low latency for critical services like autonomous driving, for example. So we see that in that case, we can see network slicing as a way to optimizing network resources for safety and efficiency. And in that case, when we think about net neutrality, we can see that, yeah, in this case, actually the problem with net neutrality is when we’re talking about this preferential treatment for a specific ASP. So in that case, I think we go back to what Raquel was saying because actually how we monitor, how we regulate both net neutrality and network slicing will be very important to see how actually net neutrality or network slicing is being used so that it doesn’t actually become a backdoor violation of net neutrality. So I think that’s something very interesting to consider. And also moving forward to what Mr. Dillmar was saying about this idea of how to comply with net neutrality. I think that’s also something that wasn’t as part of our paper in the sense of following, maybe go like a different analysis, even like mythologically speaking of going, talking to companies and actually comparing how they’re actually complying with net neutrality. But I think that’s also very interesting to consider in future research. So thank you very much for all your comments. Thank you, Ignacio.

Ignacio Sánchez González:
Yes, thank you, Javiera. Also recalling who decides the exceptions, for example, I was remembering that when we started the Colombian regulation in the decree, they say, okay, the net neutrality principle is established, but the traffic management, they can manage traffic while the ISPs comply with the ITU recommendation and they specify a specific recommendation. So if they comply with that, traffic management can be done. So that’s one of the ways that they rationalize the exceptions regarding the principle. Something else that I recalled on that previous research. I don’t know if anyone else has a comment or a question. Please.

Felipe Muñoz Navia:
Hello. Well, thanks for all the, for the panel, the authors of the paper. Very interesting discussion. I wanted to comment on what Olga said. Most of the network slicing with 5G is something new that’s going to stick eventually. We’ll have three types of slices. The one that most of us will use for sure would be enhanced mobile broadband. But there will also be using the same physical layer. That’s a nice thing of slicing is that you will be able to have different logical networks in the same hardware. So you will have massive machine type communication for IoT for having millions of devices and also for the, I would say very few cases at least at the beginning with ultra reliable low latency. To me, because what I’ve seen, I’m not an expert, I’m not a lawyer, I’m an engineer, and this has to do also with what Raquel pointed out, the exceptions. The law says the principles that should guide us, we don’t want arbitrary discrimination of the scheduler, of the way we traffic packages. But there’s also the same law usually says, okay, but this is going to be defined in a technical draft. That’s where the details go. And it’s interesting what Olga mentioned because I don’t see any technical draft today that speaks about discriminating not in the routing layer, in layer three, where usually we are all watching if there’s neutrality or not, but underneath it. So that’s something for sure we have to analyze and see what’s going on there because that’s where net neutrality, although in the routing is being respected, maybe underneath it is not. So that’s something for sure that it has to be updated in all the technical drafts that go with the laws in our countries. So thanks a lot, very interesting topic, thanks.

Olga Cavalli:
Sorry, that the regulation includes exceptions that enables good services for consumers and for services providers. But you must have all these things that will happen or are happening right now. So because the environment will change very much from what it was before, especially considering the amount of Internet of Things devices that will be connected, which is the number is really enormous and it’s happening now. So the idea is that the regulation is good for everyone and it’s not prohibiting things that are good, but consider them exceptions or part of, or modify or more broad. That’s very challenging with any, no me salen las palabras, pero estoy dormida. So with all the regulations that are related with technology it’s very challenging because you have to be ample, you have to be let updates and the changes in the services. So it’s a process.

Ignacio Sánchez González:
Yes, indeed. That’s why there’s a common phrase, at least in Chile, that says the law always comes late and especially regarding technologies. So of course there is a challenge there. So thank you also for your input and the comments. Now I think we might be closing. We are on time. I want to thank all the speakers online and onsite for bringing the perspective of Latin America to the IDF of this year. So thank you very much. Really all of you online and onsite. Thank you for also the people who attended our session. Thank you for the participation. Thank you.

Javiera Cáceres Bustamante:
Thank you, Ignacio, for all convening us today.

Audience:
Thank you. Gracias, Javier. Nos vemos. Ciao. Nos vemos. Bye-bye. Yeah, I don’t know. I think she has drafts. I think she has drafts. Yo solamente los traje para traer conversacion. Yo creo que… No, no, no. Creo que… Creo que…

Moto HAGIO

Moto Hagio, a renowned manga artist, shares her insights on the qualities and perception of manga in society. She emphasises that the most important features of manga are interesting stories and appealing characters, which greatly contribute to its enjoyment and popularity. However, she acknowledges that manga was once seen as vulgar and looked down upon in society.

During Hagio’s childhood, manga was disapproved of in schools, families, and society at large. Parents often encouraged their children to focus on their studies rather than reading manga. Despite this disapproval, Hagio firmly believes that manga has great educational value. She asserts that manga provides valuable lessons about human emotions and relationships, which are often not taught in traditional educational settings. Hagio specifically mentions that she learned a lot about these aspects through reading manga, particularly the works of Tezuka Osamu, whose manga taught her lessons that were not generally found in society.

In terms of piracy, Hagio strongly opposes it and supports the reading and purchasing of officially published works. She emphasises the importance of creators receiving appropriate remuneration for their work, describing it as saddening and unjust when creators do not receive compensation. Hagio mentions that the revenue she receives from readers of her old works on the internet allows her to earn a living and invest in future works. She appreciates readers who choose to support official versions of her work and actively encourages anti-piracy measures.

Furthermore, Hagio proposes additional incentives for readers who opt for formal channels of manga consumption. She suggests privileges such as providing points or featuring the voices of artists as a token of appreciation. Hagio believes that these incentives can promote and encourage the choice to purchase manga from legitimate sources. This aligns with her stance that creators should be appropriately rewarded for their work.

In conclusion, Moto Hagio’s perspective on manga revolves around its qualities, societal perception, educational value, and the issue of piracy. She believes that manga’s interesting stories and appealing characters are its defining attributes, while acknowledging its historical disapproval in society. Hagio firmly advocates for the educational importance of manga, asserting that it imparts valuable life lessons on emotions and relationships. Additionally, she opposes piracy, supports reading and purchasing officially published works, and proposes incentives to encourage readers to choose legitimate sources. Hagio ultimately encourages readers to make ethical choices and considers the impact of piracy on both readers and artists.

Jun Murai

Manga piracy has become a significant issue in the digital age, largely due to the accessibility and replication capacity of the internet. The ease of generating and distributing exact copies of digital information endangers copyrighted material, causing concerns for industries such as music, movies, and publishing. These industries have faced struggles as their digital content is easily replicated and shared without permission.

Various protection mechanisms and subscription technologies have been developed to address this problem. These technologies aim to safeguard intellectual property content by providing encrypted materials and web standard subscriptions. Implementing such measures can help protect industries against piracy and ensure fair compensation for their creative works.

Jun Murai, an expert in the fight against piracy, acknowledges the complexity and challenges involved in dealing with piracy operators and malicious domains. Identifying the identities of piracy operators and dealing with malicious domains are major obstacles in the battle against piracy. Moreover, the involvement of intermediary providers, such as content delivery networks (CDNs), adds another layer of complexity to this issue.

Despite the challenges, Murai appreciates the collaboration among different stakeholders in Japan, including the government, internet community, and industry, in addressing piracy. The Japanese government has raised the issue of piracy to the Government Advisory Board (GAC) under the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Regular meetings among CEOs of internet service providers and publishing companies in Japan are also held to discuss piracy issues, indicating a proactive approach in combating piracy.

Murai believes that a comprehensive solution to piracy requires cooperation among different domains, such as legal expertise, international law, climate, and internet service providers. Taking a holistic approach to address piracy from multiple angles can lead to more effective solutions. Regular dialogues engaging different stakeholders are necessary to develop strategies and policies that can effectively combat piracy.

Drawing from the success of the music industry in combating piracy, where sharing music online is followed by encouraging live music attendance, the same model could be applied to manga. By sharing digital manga content and then fostering a supportive environment for attending live manga events, the industry can adapt to the digital age while maintaining its value and revenue streams.

Publishing companies are advised to preserve the value of printed manga in digital format and continue collaborating with both established and upcoming artists. By embracing new formats while recognizing the importance of the original art form, manga can thrive in the digital era without losing its essence.

Moreover, streaming services and publishers are releasing more content to cater to the growing demand for manga. Shonen Jump, for example, offers recent chapters for free and provides a subscription service that grants access to all back chapters. This approach not only satisfies consumer demands for more content but also contributes to combating piracy by offering legal alternatives.

While addressing piracy, it is essential to consider potential issues of over-policing that could lead to censorship. Multi-stakeholder discussions regarding internet censorship policies are taking place to ensure a balance between protecting intellectual property rights and preserving freedom of expression. The involvement of the ICANN Government Advisory Board highlights the importance of addressing this issue and finding appropriate solutions.

Manga has gained global recognition and popularity in recent years, with an increasing number of fans outside of Japan. The early 2000s saw a surge in manga’s global popularity, and European fans have accepted and appreciated the cultural aspects of manga. This growing accessibility has contributed to the wider reach and influence of manga worldwide.

Piracy has extended due to expensive and unavailable translation services. The high cost of translation has led some individuals to consume pirated content instead. Efforts are being made to address these issues and make translation services more widely available, aiming to reduce the dependence on pirated copies and ensure that creators receive fair compensation.

Youth engagement plays a crucial role in the fight against piracy. Young individuals actively stand up against piracy and engage in campaigns to discourage the use of illegally copied software. Publishing companies recognize the power of youth in these campaigns and attract young individuals to join their efforts against piracy.

In conclusion, manga piracy poses significant challenges to various industries due to the accessibility and replication capacity of the internet. Protection mechanisms and subscription technologies have been developed to safeguard intellectual property content, and collaboration among stakeholders is crucial in addressing piracy effectively. The success of the music industry’s model suggests ways in which manga can adapt to the digital age. Preservation of the value of printed manga, cooperation among domains, and the involvement of youth are essential components of a comprehensive solution to piracy.

Andy Nakatani

The global manga market has experienced rapid growth, particularly during the pandemic, as people sought entertainment while staying at home. Manga consumption saw a significant spike in 2019 and 2020, leading to increased popularity and sales. The rise in manga’s popularity can be attributed to the increased availability of anime on broadcast cable TV and the presence of big box bookstores like Borders, which contributed to its mainstream appeal.

To combat piracy, various SimulPub platforms have been introduced. These platforms offer official manga content in both English and Japanese simultaneously, aiming to provide an accessible and alternative option for readers. Publishers such as Viz Manga, Shonen Jump, Manga Plus, K-Manga, BookWalker, and MangaUp have adopted this strategy, allowing them to release content alongside its Japanese counterpart and reducing the prevalence of pirated content.

However, the presence of illegal or pirated content remains a major issue in the manga industry, particularly through scanlation sites. It is estimated that there are approximately 1,100 known piracy sites, resulting in substantial financial damages to the industry. The top 10 piracy sites in Japan alone account for approximately 507 billion Japanese yen in damages. This piracy not only affects the revenue of artists and publishers but also devalues the perception of the art and the work of the artists themselves.

Piracy creates a sense of entitlement among readers who come to expect free access to manga even before its official release. The popularity of piracy sites is staggering, with visits to the top 10 piracy sites in original Japanese totaling more than 150 million per month. The English manga piracy sites have an even larger audience, with around 200 million visits per month. This trend highlights the need to address the issue of piracy and educate readers on the value of supporting official releases.

Efforts are being made to increase the accessibility and affordability of manga through streaming services and lower subscription prices. Streaming services focus on attracting readers through a large funnel, increasing the exposure of manga, and then guiding them towards making a purchase. Additionally, Shonen Jump, a popular manga publisher, releases chapters on its service the same day they come out in Japan, allowing fans to stay up to date with the latest content. The push for easier access to more content at affordable prices includes offering a low subscription price of $2.99 per month for access to all the back chapters.

Andy Nakatani, an influential figure in the manga industry, looks forward to an upcoming exhibit in San Francisco. His positive perception is fueled by the visible efforts and cooperation taking place across multiple industries. However, Nakatani expresses a lack of enthusiasm for public speaking, which suggests that he may prefer to focus on other aspects of his work.

The strength of the print industry, particularly in the United States, is valued and acknowledged. The United States is known for its strong print industry, which adds to the overall growth and success of the manga market.

In conclusion, the global manga market has experienced significant growth, driven by increased consumption during the pandemic. SimulPub platforms have proven effective in combating piracy by offering official content in English and Japanese simultaneously. However, piracy remains a significant concern, devaluing the perception of manga and the work of artists. Efforts are being made to increase accessibility and affordability through streaming services and attractive subscription prices. The upcoming exhibit in San Francisco and the visible work and cooperation within the industry are promising signs for future development.

Nicole Rousmaniere

A recent manga exhibition held at the British Museum in London was a tremendous success. The event received widespread acclaim and attracted large crowds, with the exhibition selling out completely. Notably, it drew the youngest audience the museum has ever seen, highlighting the broad appeal of manga beyond traditional demographics.

The exhibition was praised for its ability to forge connections and transcend boundaries. Visitors emotionally connected with the content, finding resonance and identification within the storylines and characters depicted in manga. Additionally, the exhibition had a diverse audience in terms of ethnicity, further demonstrating manga’s power to bring people together and promote cultural diversity.

Despite the celebration of manga’s cultural impact, concerns were raised about the threat of piracy to the industry. Piracy not only jeopardizes the livelihoods of manga artists, editors, and publishers, but also poses a risk to the industry as a whole. Efforts are being made to protect the rights of manga creators and safeguard their work from piracy, emphasizing the need to combat this issue.

Manga is considered a valuable cultural treasure of Japan, akin to traditional art forms like Ukiyo-e and culinary delights like sushi. Preserving and cherishing this art form for future generations is deemed crucial. Discussions surround the preservation of physical copies of manga and the concerns that relying solely on digital access could potentially hinder its accessibility and readability in the future.

An important aspect highlighted is the significance of maintaining paper copies of manga. Prominent figures within the industry, such as Murai-sensei, have emphasized the importance of continuing the production of paper copies. This aligns with the goals of responsible consumption and production, contributing to sustainable practices in the industry.

In conclusion, the manga exhibition at the British Museum was a resounding success, showcasing both the popularity and cultural significance of manga. However, it also brought attention to issues such as piracy and the importance of protecting artists’ rights. Efforts are being made to combat piracy and preserve physical copies of manga for future generations. The overall sentiment towards manga and its cultural impact remains positive, and discussions on supporting and safeguarding the industry continue.

Moderator

The panel discussion focused on the significant rise in online piracy and its negative impact on the manga industry. Over 1,100 piracy sites dedicated to manga have led to an estimated $3.6 billion USD in yearly damages. The top Japanese sites alone have 150 million monthly hits, while English-language piracy sites have around 200 million visits. Efforts to combat piracy have had some success, but face challenges such as domain hopping. International cooperation is crucial to address the issue. Manga artists’ livelihoods are being affected, and manga’s global popularity is increasing. Manga provides valuable lessons not taught in schools, but it also faces negative perception. Online piracy sites provide easy access to high-quality content, devaluing the work of artists. Strategies to combat piracy include controlling internet providers and educating consumers. Technology support and collaboration with multiple industries are important. Publishers should differentiate digitized print manga from digital manga. Protecting freedom of speech is a balancing act, and promoting accessible manga globally fosters cultural exchange. A reward system for legal readers, proposed by Moto Hagio, would discourage piracy and support artists. The panel discussion provides valuable insights and recommendations for combating manga piracy and ensuring the industry’s sustainability and growth.

Audience

The discussion centred around the issue of manga piracy and its impact on the industry. One of the main concerns raised was the lack of access to manga in the West and the significant delay in its release, which leads fans to resort to piracy. Victoria Bertola highlighted this problem and suggested that technology should be used to expedite the distribution and availability of native Japanese manga globally and at competitive prices.

Criticism was directed towards the industry’s approach to piracy, with an appeal to recognise fans as potential future buyers rather than pirates. It was argued that teenagers who can’t afford to buy manga may turn to pirated content, but they could become paying customers in the future. Instead of being too harsh on fans, the industry should make their content more accessible and affordable.

The discussion also delved into the underlying reasons why people resort to pirated websites. It was suggested that the use of these websites indicates a high demand for content that is not adequately met. An audience member hinted at the need to learn from other experiences and improve in this area to meet the audience’s demands.

Transparency in earnings distribution within the Japanese industry and the impact of piracy on artists’ earnings were also raised as concerns. There is a perception that the majority of profits go to publishers rather than the artists, which raises questions about the impact of piracy on the artists’ livelihoods.

The discussion also touched on the potential impact of piracy on freedom of information and the risk of censorship. It was argued that pursuing and punishing end users who share content goes against freedom of information. Some fears were expressed over how anti-piracy actions could lead to censorship, including political and economic censorship. A representative from the Pirate Party International and Russian Pirate Party emphasised this point, highlighting that it could even involve pursuing individuals wearing potentially counterfeited items.

Affordability and accessibility were identified as key issues. Affordability was cited as a driving factor for piracy, with a thousand-dollar camera costing five months’ minimum wage in some countries. Limited translation of manga into various languages also leads people to rely on volunteers who translate and publish manga online for free. It was argued that piracy is a symptom of inequality rather than solely a problem of greed, and the root causes of affordability and accessibility need to be addressed.

The role of exhibitions in raising awareness about manga piracy was highlighted. The suggestion was made to include awareness actions about manga piracy in exhibitions as a tool for educating attendees about copyright infringement. This could help combat piracy by providing information and raising awareness.

The importance of maintaining copyright laws and fair use was emphasised during the discussion. It was asserted that knowledge of intellectual property and copyright is crucial for protecting creators, and fair use ensures that copyright owners receive their royalties.

Legal online distribution was advocated as a solution to piracy. It was suggested that such platforms would not only curb piracy but also support upcoming artists. One representative shared her personal experience of how manga influenced her art and explained the need for legal online distribution in Latin America due to rampant piracy and the lack of legal platforms.

Lastly, involving youths in the fight against piracy was seen as crucial. It was observed that most pirates are from the younger generation, and they have a good understanding of the importance of manga and the threats posed by piracy. The use of new technologies among youths makes them well-equipped to fight piracy effectively.

In conclusion, the discussion explored various arguments and perspectives on manga piracy. The lack of access, delayed releases, affordability issues, and inequality were identified as major driving factors behind piracy. The industry was urged to address these issues by utilising technology for improved distribution, making content more affordable and accessible, and involving youths in the fight against piracy. Maintaining copyright laws and fair use was seen as crucial for protecting creators. Overall, it was emphasised that addressing the complex issue of piracy requires a comprehensive approach that recognises the underlying causes and works towards resolving them.

Moderator:
Shall we start on time? Is it okay for us to get started on time? Okay, so thank you for joining us on this sunny day for the session, Manga Culture and Internet Governance, The Fight Against Piracy. This is Kensaku Fukui, and this session was planned by the Japan Publishers Manga Anti-Piracy Conference, or JPMAC, which was established by five major manga publishing companies and lawyers, and which has manga piracy. Japanese manga is popular all around the world. It continues to expand with many anime adaptations, game adaptations, character goods, and fun events. Sales have also increased significantly. Many saimaru publication apps are making new releases available to the public around the world in English and many other languages. The problem we are facing is the online piracy business, which has rapidly become a huge problem for creative industries. So far, there are 1,100 non-active piracy sites for manga only. The top 10 Japanese sites attract 150 million hits per month. This is the number of visits. The Three major English language piracy sites attract even larger visits of some 200 million. It is estimated that free reading via the internet was 3.6 billion US dollars per year. They are offered by anonymous operators through a combination of various services on the internet. Often, the countries where the hosting servers are located differ from the countries where the operators exist. And both tend to be concentrated in countries where the, for political and other reasons. And they are, in addition, they select and use registrars, CDNs, advertising companies, or other services that can be easily used anonymously and basically do when notices are given. For five years, we have been working hard to combat manga piracy and have driven several huge sites to close through legal proceedings overseas and cooperation with Japanese internet and advertising industries. As a result, the number of visits to the Japanese language sites dropped from four million per month in the first period. However, New problems have arisen when trying to take countermeasures, such as repeated domain hopping, where the target site to change domains in a short period of time. And the number of visits does not decrease any further, but unfortunately, rather, the number of sites tend to increase and diversify. But the problem of piracy sites that impacts manga artists is still not fully recognized internationally. It is impossible to curb the piracy without cooperation and support from the rest of the world. Today’s diverse speakers include a legendary manga artist, and a researcher known as the father of the Japanese internet, a curator who opened a major manga exhibition at the British Museum and broke its record for youth attendance, and an editor who has worked in the manga business for more than 20 years in the United States. For the healthy and sustainable development of creative activities and the internet, we would like to gather the wisdom of everyone in the audience and discuss it together. So, could you show the… Yes. By the way, this is today’s speaker, Hagio-san’s representative. repetitive work, anyway. Okay. So the, let me. Let’s start. First, we’d like to talk about manga’s expansion throughout the world in various forms. Among the popular manga, One Piece have had over 510 million copies in circulation so far, and it’s on the Guinness World Record. But manga is not accepted only by publication, but through various ways, such as anime, games, and fan events. Nicole-san, could you share your experience about the creation and acceptance of manga overseas, including recent major exhibition at British Museum?

Nicole Rousmaniere:
I’d be delighted to. And I’m very excited to be here today to talk to you about this, because it’s an incredibly important subject. But first, I will tell you about the British Museum exhibition. Komenasai. As you can see, this is the British Museum, and we have what they call Toblerones, the Ashiripa from Golden Kamuy, introducing manga at the British Museum from the very beginning, when you enter the museum. This was in 2019. I’ve been reading manga since I was young, and I’m passionate about manga. I was a curator at the British Museum for over 15 years. My specialty is actually kouge, and three-dimensional objects, but I love manga. And in 2017, I got my first salary, and I put out a manga corner. So we always had. display, but the British Museum has been collecting manga, since the 1920s, with Kitazawa Rakuten, and those, and those types of objects, but they didn’t display them, they were considered ephemera. What I did at the British Museum was occasionally display manga, for example in the Asahi Shimbun display area, and in 2015, I displayed St. Oni-san, Shiba Tetsuya’s work, and then Hoshino Yukinobu and, and Nakamura Hikaru. It sounds like an odd combination, but it was fun, it was interesting and showing different types of manga production. What happened though, was 100,000 people came and looked at it. And this took the British Museum by surprise. They assumed that people weren’t really interested in manga, but they had to pay attention then. So in about a year or two later, they asked me, well, would you think about making a large exhibition? And I said, of course. And so I wrote up a proposal, and they put it to marketing research. I think that they believed it wouldn’t work. I think that they really were setting me up to fail, as they say in English, but they put five exhibitions out, Samuel Beckett’s Roman sculpture, a number of different exhibitions, and manga came in as number one. They were actually thinking they weren’t going to do it, but then they realized they had to do it. So I got the manga exhibition, I was delighted. And it turns out that they gave me the most beautiful space. And this space is right here, it’s called the Sainsbury Exhibition Galleries. On the ground floor, it’s huge. And it’s right next to where the Rosetta Stone is displayed. This caused a lot of issues within the museum. People felt, should Japan be displayed there? Should manga be displayed there? And there was a lot of debate. But happily, it went forward huge resounding success. I want to explain just a little bit about some of the results for that. But we’re giving you a sneak preview of the inside of what it looked like the top two slides are just without people in it. And then the bottom side you can see Captain Tsubasa, and with people in it, it was incredibly crowded. The exhibition was sold out. It turns out, afterwards, when they did the analysis, that it was the best selling exhibition. And most importantly, it had the youngest audience that the British Museum has ever had. In addition to that, what was impressive is that it has so in in Britain, they say BAME, B-A-M-E, but it means, you know, audiences that are not white came. And beyond that, it was also interesting, there were a number of certain types of groups, for example, people with autism, were certain types of groups that self identified that really loved the manga exhibition. So for the British Museum, this was a huge surprising result. So basically, this summarizes the results of the manga exhibition. One thing I really want to point out is that half the visitors had never paid for an exhibition at the British Museum before. So this broke new ground all around. What the survey at the end found out, though, was that most people identified with emotional outcomes, not intellectual outcomes, but emotional outcomes. This means they identified with the material. The average dwell time was one hour and 33 minutes, which is very long for the British Museum paid exhibition. This is the exhibition layout and, and our different zones. But what I just really want to focus on here is that we created a counterclockwise exhibition, because in manga, you really have to read it from right to left. And this is fundamentally different what in Britain, how you read from left to right, and even walking counterclockwise was really problematic for a lot of the designers and for the people in the British Museum, but we did it and I feel we, it shows that you can shift people’s minds and hearts and it was a huge success. It won the good design prize for 2020. These are just a few of the things that we put in it and I don’t have very much time but I want to just explain a couple more things. We of course had the father of modern manga Tezuka Osamu sensei’s work, but a lot of interest was Princess Knight. The idea of kind of gender fluidity or different types of genders and different types of representations. This was a big surprise for many of our audience. We also had really important artists like Chiba Tetsuya sensei come and, and he didn’t actually physically come but he drew a rugby for the World Cup. Rugby World Cup he drew a rugby picture for us and represented us and this really made a big difference although interesting enough his work isn’t translated, but still it seemed to reach people, but I have to say that the person who made the most difference to me was Hagiomoto sensei. She’s right with us, and she was there for us throughout the exhibition but she came with her editor who is extraordinary, Furukawa-san, and they gave many talks, they showed us how editors and manga artists work together. And this is a big deal and something I want to just mention is what I learned from this exhibition is that manga isn’t just a manga artist drawing and then it’s published. With it’s the, it’s I’d say maybe 50% I’m not quite sure but it’s once the manga artist draws the conversations with the editors, the name of the storyboards, the work that the publishing house does, finally the end product so it’s this combination, and with Hagiomoto sensei there, I felt that we could do it, and we did. I want to give one example of Shizuka Shinichi. Blue Giant Supreme. Maybe some of you know this, but this is with his editor Katsuki Dai. And during one of their conversations, they showed how they work with name, the storyboards and what’s in and what’s out. But I want to draw your attention to the drawing itself. So this is, we have Dai, he’s blowing on his saxophone and you feel this music shower coming in. It’s this immersive quality. It’s an emotive that is so incredibly important. And we’re coming to the end. I just wanted to say a couple more points. In the middle of the exhibition, we decided to put a manga library and the manga bookstore in a way. And the reason we did this was that one manga artist told me, manga is not what you put on the walls. It’s what you put in your hands. And that really struck me. And so we put this library and at first, the British Museum said, we’re not a library, please don’t put a bookshelf in the middle of the exhibition. But it was the most popular part of the exhibition. To have the books out, people could hold them. They said they would steal them. Not one volume was stolen. People would sit and read, even if it’s in Japanese and they knew. Holding manga in your hands makes a huge difference. The paper quality was brilliant, but this was wonderful and gave us free downloads. So we had free downloads available. We had 50 artists, 70 titles. It was a very large exhibition. But in the end, just to summarize, manga material is incredible. You can have Buddha and Jesus living together in a gap year in Tachikawa drawing manga as a subject. You can have you can have incredible subjects right here. One was really popular from paper manga, One Punch Man. This was incredibly popular at the museum. But I’d really like to mention the power of manga and how it, it’s not just in the paper, how it comes out into your life. So For example, we had this fabulous thanks to Kodansha attack on Titan huge blow up head, it became a major selfie moment for us, but people really identified and it was almost like they had found their tribe, they had found their manga. Manga’s power to me is because it can cross boundaries, it can cause. And these are the many lessons I learned from it, but what I also learned is that for the future of manga we need to protect it, we need to protect the artists, we need to protect their ability to work with the publishers and piracy is something that endangers the thriving of the industry. And so this panel is very important.

Moderator:
Thank you very much for your impressive insights. And, by the way, you can keep that yes. By the way, this is a cosplayers from all over the world so it’s interactive. And, Andy-san, could you share your perspective on the rapid growth of the global manga market from the business side.

Andy Nakatani:
Of course, of course, to do that. I’m Andy Nakatani, I’m the Senior Director of Online Manga at Viz Media. Prior to that I was editor in chief of the English language version of Shonen Jump, which in 2012 we released in a digital format and came out simultaneously. As Japan released chapters we would release them on the same day. So if we can see the chart. Is the slide visible with the chart. I will assume it is. So this chart represents, is it there? Yeah, okay, so this chart represents manga sales, graphic novel sales in the U.S. in units and represents manga and the blue is graphic novels that are not manga. So the total of the two is a total graphic novel sales. We only have data from 2007 on this chart. So I just wanted to say a couple of things about before. Manga was a very niche market in the U.S. until about 2006, when it reached quite a peak. And the main reason that it became popular was because of the popularity of anime on broadcast cable TV. And because of the prevalence of big box bookstores like Borders. Following that around 2011, there was a little bit of a decline, various market factors, also Borders started shutting down stores and eventually declared bankruptcy in, I think it was 2011. But moving on from there, there was steady growth mainly because in the United States. And then you see this huge spike that’s happening around 2019, 2020. And that clearly that was because the pandemic happened and people needed entertainment and distraction and they were staying at home. So they consumed a lot of manga. Now, I wanna emphasize that this is for print sales. And let’s see, slide, and before I talk about the slide with the various SimulPub platforms that we have, I do want to talk a little bit about piracy. So illegal content of manga, pirated content, scanlation sites, and that’s kind of like a portmanteau of scan and translation. And so a common term is scanlation to refer to the pirated sites. They release a vast amount of content. It’s free, and it comes out really fast. And to sort of come up with a strategy to combat that, there are various official online SimulPub manga platforms that are now available in English. Official publishers such as Biz Manga, Shonen Jump, Manga Plus, K-Manga, BookWalker, MangaUp, most of these are from Japanese publishers who have released content in English. There are various business models for these, various combinations of free content, subscription models, microtransactions, points. But the main thing here is that the content is released simultaneous with chapters that come out in Japanese. And so the translated content comes out on the same day. And for example, my company puts out Biz Manga and Shonen Jump, and we we put out the first three chapters for free and the latest three chapters for free. And to access the chapters in between, you subscribe for a low fee. And so those are just kind of the various models that are out there for simultaneous content.

Moderator:
Okay, Andy, thank you very much for your insights. And yes, so Hagio-san, you are a living legend of Japanese manga. And could you share your personal view on the experience as for manga creation and acceptance?

Moto HAGIO:
Hi. Yes, so this is Hagio speaking. Thank you very much for coming this afternoon. So, well, I have been reading manga since I was in primary school. And once I really got into this, as due to Emizo Rico, so they really had very good and interesting works. And I think the best thing about manga is to have interesting stories and very appealing characters. I think those are the two major points. When I was in primary school, manga was still something that was regarded as something rather vulgar in the schools and in the family and in the overall society. That is how people looked at manga. So when we were reading manga, we were scolded. But after I read Tezuka Osamu’s works, I thought that I can learn things that we cannot learn from the general society, but it was full of a lot of lessons. So first parents would tell us to study more and to do things more properly. So that is how people looked at manga. days. But in the manga world, there were a lot of emotions, a lot of stories, and a lot of how human beings can trust each other, and a lot of things that we can learn. So through manga, I was able to learn a lot of things that were people aside from what we learn at school. And through that, I really got into the manga world, and I kept on diving inside. And at the end of the day, I wanted to become part of that world, and that is how I became a manga artist. So that is something that I would like to continue pursuing in the manga world. Thank you very much.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. So, anybody has any comments on so far?

Nicole Rousmaniere:
What Hagio-san said was so incredibly important. It’s how manga brings you into another way of feeling. It’s not just reading. It’s the immersive quality of manga that’s part of its power. Can you explain that?

Moderator:
Thank you very much. I totally agree. Okay, so let’s move on to the next part, the impact of piracy. And from now on, you can keep the PowerPoint on every time. And it’s a bit busy, okay? There are approximately 1,100 known piracy sites, and among them, approximately 240 sites are piracy sites in original Japanese. And 400 sites are piracy sites with English translation, and approximately 460 sites are piracy sites translated into various non-English. other languages. And on this slide, you can see the typical Japanese manga piracy site. As you see on the left hand, you can find almost all popular mangas. And you can just click on any images, then the list of chapters appear on the right hand. And by clicking on a chapter, you can immediately scroll to read in quite high quality. And a visit to top 10 piracy sites in original Japanese for August 2023 is, as I said, more than 150 million visits per month. And seven of them are believed to have operators residing in Vietnam. This draws information or other, yeah, informations. And damages caused by the top 10 piracy sites in Japanese is estimated to be approximately 507 billion Japanese yen. It’s an estimate by number of site visits multiplied by regular retail price. So there should be some argument about this calculation, but anyway, it’s huge. This is a typical English manga piracy site, but as you see, it’s pretty much similar to Japanese ones, except for translated in English. And visits to the top three English manga piracy sites are even bigger than Japanese ones. Here are some 200 million visits per month. Andy-san, could you share your view on such piracy impact on manga artists and the industry?

Andy Nakatani:
Sure. So first of all, obviously there’s the loss of potential revenue of the manga artists. Maybe even more than that, I feel that piracy devalues the perception of what manga is and devalues all that the manga artists put into their work. It kind of fosters a sense of entitlement for people who read the pirated content, where they come to expect that they’re gonna read the content for free and they expect to be able to access it as soon as possible. And at times that’s even before the official release of the Japanese content.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. Hagio-san. All right. About these piracy activity, piracy sites, if you have any vision or.

Moto HAGIO:
Well, so as a creator of manga, if it is a pirated site, the revenue does not come to the manga creator. So in the 2000s. Many publishers digitalized manga and started to make this available on the internet. And so a lot of my works have been exposed onto the internet. And what I thought at that time was, this is a very easy and simple thing, and it’s on the internet. So I thought, I was feared that many people will be reading manga for free. But well, a publisher is a business entity, so they are able to count the number of people reading, so they were able to get revenues. And many readers of our old works were also paying, and we were able to receive the revenues, and we were able to make a living and to invest for future works. So for us creators, so if we do not get remuneration for what we did, it is something that is very sad, and it should not happen. So we have to do everything possible to first let the users know that they should not be reading pirated works, but they should be reading the official or paid works. So I use Kindle and I buy things through e-commerce online, but when you can either get one for free or get one for paid, I always tend to choose that for the paid selection, because if I’m extremely poor, I might be making a different decision, but that is what I tend to do. So I really appreciate that people should be reading the official versions going on.

Moderator:
Thank you. You are another living legend of the Internet world, and is this the only problem for manga piracy, or do you think it has broader relation to Internet at all? large, or any other insights or views?

Jun Murai:
Yeah, okay, yeah, thank you very much. This is Jim Wright, by the way. I’m known as the biggest fan of a manga in this country. And so, like Hagio-sensei, I’ve been kind of grown up with reading a lot of, lot of, lot of mangas, and probably you don’t believe that how I like, how I love the manga for my life. Hagio-sensei’s question, the pirates thing is very much kind of a digitally, internet has been providing the open space for exchanging the idea and many of the things. And so, the, well, the, I remember, this is IGF forum, Internet Governance Forum, by the way. And then, so I kind of, when the very beginning of the internet space, then the first things we encountered are the internet community. That time in the, some of the people on the internet on the world intellectual property came to the internet space, IETF people. And then I started to discuss how the global intellectual property is gonna be addressed on the cyberspace, right, on the internet space. That was a very much first experience of mine. I was a representative from IETF, and then I know there are several representative from a world intellectual property organization. And we started to talk about what the intellectual property to be addressed on the internet. So, because of digital information can be copied and it’s exactly the same copy, we can generate, and then the multiple copies for everyone. So, it’s very easy. And then instantly. So, that the impact of the, you know, kind of any copyrighted material to be in danger in a sense, right, for the thing. So, not only the music industry woke up on that scene, and then the movie industry as well. And so, various industries started to struggle with that kind of thing and the free copy of the digitized, well, the intellectual properties, copyrighted material or intellectual, the material with the copyright. So, we have a long history to work on that. And then, especially with sources, I mean, people who got, you know, kind of a rights to the manga artists, of course, right, and the music artists, and then in a movie, intellectual property, copyrighted movie and etc. So, at the same time, then the industries of those areas, including the publishing area, they started to think about extend their business over the internet in various ways. And so, the encrypted materials and the other things, I mean, other technology to support the, you know, the subscription technology on the web standard, you know, those technologies has been provided to protect the sources of our intellectual property contents. So basically the important thing is the working together type of a thing started that way. So kind of a crimes related thing, like a pilot is a crime, right? And then also the technology support to protect that against the crime for the kind of owner of the intellectual property. So that has been worked sometimes good and sometimes damaging the existing industries in a sense. But then from a broader view of a history, then I know it’s a very much a working and it’s very important. That’s also the spirit of IGF, Multi-Stakeholder as well.

Moderator:
Thank you very much for your insight. And in order to work together we should, we need to know how piracy sites work. And so let’s move on to the next part, that part. And let’s see how such, I’m sorry. Let’s see how such piracy site work. This is only a rough picture of how they work. Piracy site operators usually contract with hosting. server at center. In low cost, data logs are relatively tolerant, and operators contract with relay servers too, which is called contents delivery networks, or CDN, so that they can amplify their ability to accept users at low cost and at larger scale. Their income typically come from advertisement, which is on the right hand. The piracy operators select and combine registrars, hosting servers, CDNs, advertising companies, or other. And as you will see on the next slide, some essential services these illegal sites use, network registrars, or CDN services, as you see, concentrated on one or a few companies that can be easily used anonymously and basically do not end when notices are given. And there is another problem called domain hopping, which is a repeated move with redirected domains during a short period of time. For example, this is a real example, and a piracy site called A has changed its redirection ten times to five different domains within three and a half months only. And when the domain is rapidly changed, the effort for countermeasures must start over again. So, let’s see each such countermeasure and walls confronted a bit more closely. Let’s see. Okay. And the first step is sending direct removal notices to the sites. One publisher, for example, hires an anti-piracy company to make approximately 250,000 removal notices request monthly. Then next, passing legal procedure. Many of such removal notices are ignored or even if deleted, posted again. So, next we will pursue legal procedures. Since May 2020, we pursue legal procedures against approximately 50 piracy sites in the U.S. only. And identify the names and other information related to more than 10 personnel of interest. But it’s difficult and time-consuming to uncover the identities and servers often relocated before uncovered. Once we discover the identities, then the request for cooperation to foreign governments. But some countries often respond too late and too little. For example, since October 2020, we offer the identity information and ask to make an investigation to certain country, actually foreign government, through diplomatic channels and even regular meetings with the police department in charge. But so far, only one administrative penalty is charged in that region. Or requesting certain registrars, registries, and even ICANN to deal with malicious domain or domain problems. In this regard, many communiqués and public comments have been made at ICANN. Also, we sent direct requests to registrars, but no meaningful action has been taken by subject registrars so far. Or asking certain CDN services to delete illegal files and stop providing their services to obvious piracy sites. It’s simply rejected. Our lawsuit is ongoing. Or another major things we are doing is cooperating with internet and telecommunication industries, making efforts to raise awareness. Actually, the situation is improving in Japan, but international awareness has not significantly improved. in this regard, or removing advertisement to cut their source of income. In Japan, advertisers and the agency organizations and rights holders cooperated to establish a framework for not placing adverts on piracy sites. So the situation improved to some extent. But again, outside advertisers, for example, non-members of any industry, often do not cooperate. So there are still many, mainly adult-oriented adults on these piracy sites. Finally, removing the search results of actual names and the domains of the piracy sites and reducing their spread through SNS. Since 2021, we have removed 28 malicious massive piracy sites and the courts. So this is our current situation. Murai-san, do you have any insight or comment on these efforts or even ideas?

Jun Murai:
Yeah, actually, yeah, the process has been done in a very, I mean, of course, I’m involved, and you are involved, and we’ve been working on those approaches. One of the approaches, oh, by the way, maybe I should explain that in Japan, we’ve been working together for this issue for a long time. And with the industry and the internet community, in that internet industry, actually, and also with the, if needed, then, you know, we are working and asking the government to move. So when the, if, you know, effective, sometimes, and sometimes not effective, I mean, the quickly since they use the word rejected, but then, you know, some of the industry in between the passing the data and the caching the data, like a CDN, it’s very difficult to identify that by their decision that this is good or bad, but then, you know, from the crime side end to end, and then the pirates is a crime, and so crime hunting type of a mechanism could work. And so I think, you know, the Japan having, you know, utilizing all those possible ways in the past to manga, right, and the sometimes effective in terms of, you know, the international, like a, you know, the police to police relationship with certain countries, and talking about the ICANN, when we started the ICANN process, then the government agency is going to be one of the stakeholders called the Government Advisory Board. And then in Japan, a government raised this issue to the GAC, Government Advisory Board, and then being listened to by the many government representatives in that group. We also… issue remain that if, I mean question, can ICANN impact the use of a domain name for the unwanted purposes? And it’s a very difficult for ICANN to, I mean, because domain name is a huge hierarchy things and the ICANN just dealing with a top level domain and therefore the entire internet infrastructure then I can, there is a limited things that ICANN itself can do. So that is the issue number two thing, right? ICANN worked very effectively in terms of sharing the issues with other government on this issue. And they properly discussed and I’d like to thank Japanese government to work, has been working that way. And then also the ICANN discussed on this, but then there is a limited thing that the ICANN do. ICANN, ICANN can do, I’m sorry, not ICANN, ICANN. And one more thing, again, the piracy impact need to be working with a very much different part, I mean, working together. So we need a legal expertise and we need the international legal expertise. We need the climate thing and then also the internet service provider. So that’s a reason why in Japan, in order to deal with this issue, then we have various places to put this thing. From the, one of the example is that we are having every three months then. And specifically for this subject, the CEO of an internet service provider and the CEO of a publishing company having a breakfast together to discuss about that periodically to be reported by people like what is the current status of this issue. So I think we are on the right process to work.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. So Nicole-san and Andy-san and Hagio-san, I’d like to ask your thoughts on our feelings for such efforts against piracy sites and the future of manga at large. So first, Andy-san, could you start? Now, I’m sorry that Nicole-san.

Nicole Rousmaniere:
Thank you very much. I feel that manga is one of the most important or one of the really precious treasures of Japan. It’s becoming worldwide, but it’s really something very, very special, and that needs to be protected. I mean, in a way, you could say it’s like any art form, Ukiyo-e, that wasn’t protected or even sushi that wasn’t protected, and then you can see what’s happened to it in the West now. But if you have manga now can still be protected, and I think it should become registered in some sort of way. But manga artists, editors, and publishers, they’re creating content for us to enjoy. You can see this with Hagiomoto-sensei and our editors, it’s really, really time-consuming. And if we’re not going to pay for that content, in a way, it’s like stealing their work. It’s pretty, it’s just something that we need. We need to stop doing. And I think that we need to stop doing it, there’s ways of stopping all these internet providers, but it’s in a way like drug use, you have to stop with the users have to stop using pirate sites and need to work towards that. By 2025. I’m going to be curating a new manga exhibition in San Francisco, the Sanford at the museum, and I’m hoping you’ll all support me in that. And what I’m hoping by 2025 is we’ll see a shift in in in manga piracy, and we’ll start to see that artists are getting being paid for properly for their work. I’m going to also invite you all to come and see and hopefully there’ll be a good solution.

Moderator:
I know. Thank you very much for your enthusiastic opinions. Yeah, we need to be to 2024 25 in San Francisco. Okay. So, yeah, I believe everybody is. And Anderson. Could you share your views.

Andy Nakatani:
Yes, of course. Looking forward to that exhibit in San Francisco, because, you know, being based in San Francisco. So, has really kind of plagued us for, for, for so long. And I’m never enthusiastic about public speaking, but being part of this panel was was actually a great experience because just interacting with with all the panelists is so encouraging to me that there’s a lot of work being done. such great efforts happening. And I think as others have said, it’s not just the people here, but also it’d be great if we could continue to get cooperation from the multiple industries involved in this. So it’s very encouraging to me.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. As a long time from the Andes, long experience in the publishing industry, the last word is quite impressive for me too. And Hagio-san, could you share your thoughts?

Moto HAGIO:
Well, it’s a small proposal I would like to make. In the case there is a piracy, and if there is the formal one, and we are expecting that we will be able to, maybe some kind of a privilege or the special treatment should be provided. For example, the points should be provided. Or the voices of the artists should be added to express, to appreciate and thank you. Some kind of a special gift or the special price should be given to the readers, the formal readers. So if the readers read the books, be it the piracy or the formal one, you might think it’s better to receive the cheaper one. It’s the same, but if you pay. If you pay as a user, there may be the pain on the part of the piracy readers, but there will be the pain if the royalty is not provided to the artist. So please think about it. Please use the formal routes and channel to make the selection. So it’s a matter of your way of life. Make the decision in your life. Reading the manga, there is always justice from the world of manga. There is justice. So if you are impressed by reading the manga, I hope you will be able to pay for that impression and impact.

Moderator:
Thank you very much for your valuable opinion. And the incentive to the readers of the official version would be impressive, and we should think about that. Do you have any comments on the points raised? Murai-sensei, how about you?

Jun Murai:
Well, yeah. Well, Hagio-sensei’s message is very strong, and so I’m very much moved. And being a big fan of the manga, not the internet expert or anything, so I’ve been thinking about this one. I was thinking about the music industry was also damaged by the internet sharing of music. So, by the way, this is a personal. a story, I’m sorry, but my mother is a musicologist, and so she always told me when I was a kid that the music is a live music, and that the recorded music is a better outreach to the other people. So the important thing is the live music, so we’re going to the live music. So if this story is applying to the manga, then I know, so all the sharing of the music, and then if you like music, and then you go to the live music concert, or whatever. So that model is becoming pretty much successful for the music industry these days, right? And then pretty much suffered by the internet, and then coming back to the very active concert and the theater type of thing. So I’ve been wondering how the manga is going to be. And the manga is, if you like manga, if you understand manga, manga is a combination of the author, artist, and then editor, and they’re working together for the paper printing art. There is a lot of new things coming in, with the digital format and the new format thing. But the printed manga is the origin of the art we are talking about this afternoon. Okay, if that is the case, then publishing companies should make a lot of efforts at inviting the people. I mean, digital, digitized, printed manga is different of a digital, digital manga, right? I mean. new format. So manga is basically the art of a printed manga and then the publishing company should, I believe, I’m asking the publishing company to work on the continued work with the legendary manga artist and also the young newcoming artist for the format. This is a quite a format. I think the Japanese has been working and the outside the country also. The kind of value of manga and that they love manga and the lovers of manga around the world. And so that’s what they are working on. So I really respect the publishing companies’ efforts to extend the value of the printed manga to be digitized outreach to the greater community of big fans of manga.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. Preserving the value of what is not easily substituted by digital copies would be something worth considering. So maybe there is a big hint within the Murai-sensei’s points.

Nicole Rousmaniere:
What I think Murai-sensei was saying is really very, very important. Paper copy, we can read it in digital copies, but having the paper copy of manga is incredibly important and I think it was a plea for this to continue. Just looking at it from a museum perspective. perspective. It’s about the archival qualities, this material, digital access changes, how you access digital content 10 years ago is different from how we access it today. So, it what will happen to manga 30 years from now that we are having today. If we don’t have it in paper, it may not survive, just don’t know is incredibly important. So, I think this was a plea for paper, and I would like to add my voice to that.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. Jason, do you have any thoughts or comments?

Andy Nakatani:
Yes, that’s actually pretty much exactly our strategy with our streaming services to kind of create a large funnel and attract readers, increase exposure of the manga, and then kind of guide them to buy to purchase the graphic novels whether that be digital graphic novel or print, and particularly in the United States, the print industry is very strong. So, yeah, that’s it’s exactly what our strategy is. Thank you very much.

Moderator:
So, if there is no further comments, then let’s take next 20 minutes or something for Q&A sessions. Anybody with comments, please stay in front of Michael. Oh, they are already doing that. Thank you very much. Yeah, please try to keep your comments or questions short within say one minute. So that many people can speak. So, that first.

Audience:
We’ll try to be brief it’s not easy I’m Victoria Bertola I’m known as one of the founders of the AGF by the Italian intern speaking as a lifelong manga and anime. Because when I was eight in television, I saw Mirai Shonen Konan by Miyazaki sensei and that changed my life forever. And so I saw what the music industry was, I saw the music industry doing the same meetings 20 years ago, and they failed. So I am afraid that you can have doing the same mistake. The mistake is you have to be careful not to do is not to confound the just straight privacy, like the people that really take like the last issue of One Piece and Kimetsu no Yaiba and put it online for money, with what your fans are doing piracy, because it’s the only way they can get access to manga, at least in the West, and maybe not in Japan. But in Italy, many manga are not available or only available many months later. I’m reading like, Aswan Senki comes up eight months after the Japanese version, and I wait for eight months, but many people don’t want to wait for eight months, why can’t you make it available in eight weeks or days, I think today with the technology could be possible. Or there are like 15 year old kids that have, I mean, one manga costs 1000 yen, 15 year old, maybe you can buy one month, but they want 10 and so they go to Manga Foxconn. But they may be when they will be 20, they will have money and they will buy more manga. So it will be your customers of the future. So don’t be too hard on your fans to go go against the people that really steal the money. But don’t think of your fans and think of ways you can make be nice to them, and give cheaper, available. Thank you. Thank you very much. So, yeah, I’ll take another question and then the answer to that one. So, please. Thanks. So first, just some clarifying question or comment here. We did the presentation about the countermeasure of piracy, but what I didn’t see is you really try to understand why people try to access to pirate website, because at the end, it showed that there is a demand for that content. And I think for Japan, maybe need to learn about other experience because if we talk maybe more than about the cool Japan, but all the artistic content, you have your neighbor in the West that is succeeding. So maybe it is also for here to think how to improve that area. Finally, you talked about artists and their world, reality and so on, but I want some clarification because unfortunately, in Japan, the industry doesn’t have a good reputation in terms of working condition for the artist and all who are involved. So it’s important to clarify how much they get at the end because you create causality between the piracy and loss of revenue, but it seems it’s more for the publisher. So if you can clarify more how artists are earning and how you can improve their condition because at the end, those who are making the mankind that content that people are looking for. Thanks.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. And yeah, sir, please.

Audience:
Yeah, okay. Alexander Savnin, Pirate Party International and Russian Pirate Party. I’m really sad hearing that in this audience governance forums discussed while chasing and punishing end users. You’re talking about users distributing to each other any content that’s against freedom of information, it’s against the possibility to people to access it. After you start going after users who are sharing their own contents, maybe previously, but you will start going after ones who are creating fan fics or in other stories or even parodies for something like this. And then censorship system. which might be used as political censorship also. I’m sad that I have to remind you that there is 21st article of Japanese constitutions which guarantees Japanese citizens freedom of distribution of information. Please try to distribute your information freely without blaming end users because again, so-called anti-piracy actions could really start making censorship, economic censorship, start chasing girls who are wearing boots which might be counterfeiting, something like this. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So, okay, so please. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Julia. I am a youth program delegate from Brazil and I am here to make a point about accessibility and also a reconsideration of some points exposed in the panel about regarding piracy. As other software fellows have introduced, piracy is a symptom of inequality rather than a problem of greed. So, the strategies presented were interesting, but they are considering the total accesses of the piracy consumer and as a matter of choosing free or paid. Many are not in the position to choose. I would like to reference Mrs. Hagio example, a very good example and very touching presentation about why we should support the authors. For example, a thousand dollar camera in my country is. worth five months of the minimum wage in our country. So they are definitely not buying $1,000 cameras, although many can buy $1,000 cameras. And then I’ll make another point, that there is much learned talent from Manga, and I’m very fortunate to meet Shigeru’s musical lessons in Nononba. Though, I only had access to it because I know English, and I had a relative living in Europe at the time, where they bought it in Europe, brought to me in English. And my peers don’t know English, so they will never meet this. There is no possibility. We translate roughly 500 types of brands of Manga, as in like Demon Slayer, and so on, One Piece. Roughly only 500 types of the brand, and they issue every year new issues of the same Manga. So we are not expanding the translator market. And then Piracy comes in, facilitating people doing the work for free. We have a very verdant community, Japanese community in Brazil, and they translate it for free, they publish online for free, and we have access to it. So I have a collection of Manga, which I only gathered through my life, and my new opportunities and jobs, that I know that many of us can do. So there is passion in translating the words for us to access. There is relevance and importance in trying to access such great content, and such profound knowledge. But sometimes we have no options, and we resort to it. So my question is, is there a room to consider that piracy might not be accessible? exterminated, but solve in its whole complexity. Which actions are in place considering this problematic? Thank you. So, yes, please. Hello, everyone. My name is Jose Artu. I’m also part of the Brazilian Youth Delegation, and I’d love to learn about this exhibition as well commented by Nicole. And I would like to know if there are future plans to include awareness actions about manga piracy in these exhibitions.

Moderator:
Okay, so we have already five questions, and there are three more. So let’s take this time to respondedit the questions and the comments so far. And so could you please up a bit? So first, there is a difficulty to obtain new episodes. I think this is for Anderson to answer first.

Andy Nakatani:
Yes, if I may. So I think we are making efforts to put out more content. And with those streaming services that was on the second slide that I had, different publishers are releasing more and more content. And I probably should have explained it a little bit more in detail, but for example, Shonen Jump, the Shonen Jump service releases chapters the same day they come out. And we’re doing as many series as we can right now. Currently we’re doing. We’re doing every single series that comes out in the Shonen Jump magazine in Japan. And we release these chapters for free. The three most recent chapters are free, and then you pay a low price, it’s $2.99 a month in American dollars for access to all the back chapters. So, we are trying to address putting out more content, making it easy access at a low price for more people to access. And then the other publishers are also doing the same thing with their streaming services. But we are making efforts.

Jun Murai:
Thank you very much. I care about that gentleman standing there. So, you want to hear from him or it’s too much? Yeah. All right, another round. Then, yeah, I just want to take a kind of a two, two kind of technical, and I… May I? Okay. So, so the first one is that, yeah, thank you very much for the, you know, all the, the questions I think, I think it’s very much, you know, the reasonable question and also the some of the important questions I need to address. The, you know, the over-pilot action is going to be, you know, kind of against the freedom of speech, which is the, you know, leading to a censorship. and the over-censorship maybe. And this is a very important and a serious issue always in a general, in the history of internet to address. So we are one of the area, I mean, the multi-stakeholder type of a discussion. When we started the ICANN, then the ICANN put the kind of government advisory board, but then all the kind of starting the discussion equally. So, which is very much the format to address those issues in a different stakeholders had a different voice and then listening to them. So IGF is one of the place to understand that one. So in that, well, anyway, probably the balance of that kind of business advantages on a certain area of our industry, and then also the over-censor ring situation should be avoided for the kind of open internet environment. So that’s probably a very important discussion and then applying to this area of our discussion, but probably it’s a taken for the older process in Japan for the manga piracy. Another very interesting question from the lady sitting in there was accessibility question. And then it’s a really important that the manga used to be the rate, I mean, comparing with the music industry, movie industry, other industry, then value. was kind of late to start addressing to all over the world. So I remember in the middle of 2000, 2013, then I visited the French manga shop and then all the books in Europe is kind of opened up this way. And then suddenly the manga is turned out to be a Japanese way, which is different from open from the right. I was very much surprised that, kind of those European fans of a manga accepting the basic culture things to address the manga. Story from the very, very, very famous soccer player from Spain that he was talking about. I started, he’s a big, big legend, a player. He said, I started the soccer from the reading of manga, but why the Japanese soccer player is all lefty? So that was a printed in a reversal. But anyway, so that power was recognized quite recently. Therefore, a lot of things, technical, the accessibility of the manga, I believe. The manga is now the language layer and then the other drawing layer is separated in many of the manga artists are utilizing the digital art tools. And then so that the placement and then the multi-language approach would be easier for the thing. And then the one of the reason why the pilot’s gonna be, kind of very much extending for the, kind of outreach was that the translation has been a very expensive and. could not be provided by from the origin of the manga publishers. So that is one of the example that you listen from, you know, the two people from the outside the country that, you know, they are making a lot of efforts and then, you know, although the publishing company of Japan is working with them to address those issues about accessibility, it’s gonna be a very important comment and the question. Thank you very much. And then, you know, probably continuous approaches to the Japanese manga space gonna be a very much a beneficial.

Moderator:
Oh, Murai-san, thank you very much. And one of such efforts includes Manga Plus by Shueisha where the English, Spanish, Thai, Indonesian, or Georgian or Russian, such a language in 190 countries available for one, two, three, episode one, two, three, one, two, three, three, three, three, three, three, available, the latest three episodes are available for free and it’s just information from the one publisher. And there was also a question about loyalty rates for the manga artists and I can say that typically it’s a 10% of retail price. So I think that that’s the kind of question that was standard here. And is there any, so could you please, you first and then you, please, yeah.

Audience:
Thank you very much. My name is Charles Chaban from the International Trademark Association. Again, I’m here as a fan, too, and of course, I was very happy to see this session from the beginning, in fact, because intellectual property is something important to know properly, and to be honest, I was a little bit puzzled now from some of the comments, but as our father of the internet here, June, whom I met 20 years ago in ICANN, for all the different views, so in fact, I think I blame ourselves as some of the people in the intellectual property field, that copyright maybe is not known, but at the same time, copyright is something important, and it has a version that say that copyright is mainly, there is something called fair use, so when you say fair use, it’s so when someone see it for his own benefit, for learning, so it’s not against the knowledge, it’s part of me to protect the owner of the copyrighted material, to be sure he gets his own royalty, as was mentioned, and make the knowledge even more important, and so it’s just a comment, so I have no special question, just to thank you for what you done here, and to tell you that even in the 80s, I used to attend many of these programs you showed, by the way, even the older one, I’m older here, even in the Arabic language in Jordan, so it’s available before the internet even, thank you. Thank you very much, so please. Hello, I’ll be quick, I promise, I’m Felp, I’m part of the Brazilian youth delegation here, and I’m also, that panel is really important to me, my art since my childhood has always been very influenced by manga, and even on the other side of the world, the artistic power of manga influences many artists, other artists like me, so however, in my childhood, the possibility of. purchasing manga was very restricted where I lived, so I read and was inspired by the few titles that I could physically access that time. So thinking about this power of the manga to feed new artists that will come from all over the world with the internet, which ways of distributing manga online legally in Latin America, do you envisage that at this time, when we have so much piracy in countries that often don’t have platforms to access them in a legal way, that develop values already established artists and enhances artists that are yet to come?

Moderator:
Thank you very much.

Audience:
Hi, well my question is this, how much do you involve the youths in this fight against piracy? Because you know most of the pirates arise from our generation or maybe the following ones and I would think that if us as in my generation and the following ones understand how much manga is important and might disappear as a cause, as a result of the piracy, they will stand up as the first, you know, the army line against their fellow age group members and probably share the same technologies as in there will be new technologies and everything. So how much are the youths and the coming generations involved in this fight?

Jun Murai:
As for the youth, Bob? Well, yeah, thank you very much. As many of the youth, you know, participants on the IJF raised a voice and which is good and then they make very short things and then I remember the software pirates was around and then they know all the software users and the PC software users and game users. Bob, they… there was a, you know, very much a youth people, youth, young people standing up and then they started to work on a, you know, kind of a phrase that, you know, we don’t use illegally copied software type of a thing. And so, if you visit the booth of a publishing company about the pilots, pilot’s booth, then they have a very much attractive campaign for the other people, including the young people. So I think that they would be, you know, kind of a very powerful supporter about this movement. So I think that they would be a very powerful supporter about this movement.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Moraisan. And it is what exactly I. So, yeah, again, thank you very much for valuable questions and insights. And so it’s already 16.14. So we are now, it seems that we are running out of time. There is also, yeah, a good question online, but yes, this is for another day. Again, thank you for joining us for this session. And as Moraisan said, please visit our booth at number two, IGF. The Arigato video is now being shown. And written by 16 artists handed out, if you think. And yeah, finally, give speakers and staffs a warm hand. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Arigato gozaimasu. Arigato gozaimasu. Arigato gozaimasu. Thank you very much.

Carlos Rey Moreno

Carlos Rey Moreno and Eric Huerta are coordinators of the LockNet initiative, which prioritises community-centred connectivity. The initiative supports various community-centred connectivity initiatives through regranting opportunities. Carlos Rey Moreno advocates for strengthening organisations involved in community-centred connectivity and creating enabling environments for their growth.

The LockNet initiative engages in national-level policy and regulatory analysis to support the development of effective policies and regulations that promote and sustain community-centred connectivity projects. They also work on technology development to ensure that the initiatives they support have access to the latest advancements and tools in internet technology.

The LockNet initiative places a strong focus on gender equality. They create safe spaces where women can enhance their knowledge and skills in internet technology and regulation. By empowering women in these fields, the initiative aims to promote inclusivity and diversity within community-centred connectivity projects.

The evidence supporting these activities and objectives can be seen through the initiative’s commitment to regranting. Through their financial support, they ensure the sustainability and impact of various community-centred connectivity initiatives. This demonstrates their dedication to promoting and contributing to the success of these projects.

In conclusion, Carlos Rey Moreno and Eric Huerta coordinate the LockNet initiative, which focuses on community-centred connectivity. The initiative engages in regranting, policy and regulatory analysis, and technology development to support these initiatives. They also prioritise promoting gender equality within the community-centred connectivity sector. The evidence supporting their work is substantiated by their commitment to regranting and their dedication to empowering and strengthening these projects.

Charles Noir

The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) is committed to supporting various sectors of society. They focus on providing grants to non-profit organizations, registered charities, academics, universities, colleges, and indigenous communities. CIRA’s granting program aims to empower these groups and address their specific needs and challenges.

CIRA places particular emphasis on northern remote and indigenous communities, recognizing their unique circumstances and vulnerabilities. They strive to provide funding and support to bridge the digital divide and improve internet accessibility. This targeted approach demonstrates their commitment to reducing inequalities and promoting inclusivity, aligned with SDG 10 – Reduced Inequalities.

Charles Noir, Vice President of Community Investment Policy and Advocacy at CIRA, plays a pivotal role in shaping and advocating for their community investment policies. His support for grants to these select groups further highlights the importance of CIRA’s work in these areas.

In addition to their granting program, CIRA also invests in cybersecurity services for Canadians, offering free services to help individuals protect themselves online. This initiative addresses the growing concern of cyber threats and contributes to a safer online environment. It aligns with SDG 9 – Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure.

CIRA also develops services for testing internet performance in a neutral manner, ensuring accurate assessments of connectivity. This impartial approach facilitates improvements in infrastructure and connectivity.

In summary, CIRA’s focus on grants for non-profits, registered charities, academics, universities, colleges, and indigenous communities, along with their dedication to providing free cybersecurity services and neutral internet performance testing, underscores their commitment to promoting inclusivity and security in the digital landscape. Their efforts contribute to the achievement of multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 4 – Quality Education, SDG 9 – Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, and SDG 10 – Reduced Inequalities.

Laura Conde Tresca

The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, with Laura as a board member, plays a crucial role in supporting and funding AI centres in Brazil. These AI centres are essential hubs for research, development, and innovation in the field of artificial intelligence. By providing financial resources and support, the committee enables these centres to drive progress, encourage collaboration, and contribute to the advancement of AI technology in Brazil.

In addition to their support for AI centres, the committee also demonstrates a commitment to promoting gender diversity in the tech industry. They offer small fellowships specifically designed for women, encouraging them to write papers and contribute to the academic discourse surrounding technology. These fellowships provide financial support and recognition, helping to address the gender gap in the field and empower women to excel in tech-related disciplines.

Furthermore, the committee extends its positive impact by providing support for small events focused on Internet governance. By sponsoring and assisting in organising these events, they contribute to the dialogue and exchange of ideas concerning the responsible and inclusive management of the internet. This support fosters awareness, knowledge-sharing, and collaboration among various stakeholders regarding the governance of online platforms and services.

In conclusion, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, under Laura’s guidance, is a driving force behind the progress and development of AI in Brazil. Their support and funding for AI centres, provision of fellowships for women in tech, and promotion of small events on Internet governance underscore their commitment to industry, innovation, infrastructure, and gender equality. Their initiatives serve as models for other organisations aspiring to create a more inclusive and technologically advanced society.

One noteworthy observation is the multifaceted approach of the committee’s initiatives. By combining support for AI centres, gender diversity, and Internet governance, they address key areas where progress is needed in the tech industry. This holistic approach recognises the interconnected nature of these issues and ensures that efforts are made across different domains to drive positive change.

Overall, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, with Laura’s involvement, serves as a pioneer and catalyst for advancements in AI, promoting gender equality, and fostering responsible Internet governance in Brazil.

Audience

Janne Hedronen, representing the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, expresses concern over the financing of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), an organization that aims to promote sustainable industrialization and innovation through resilient infrastructure. The ministry has been a consistent donor to the IGF since 2006, providing approximately $2 million USD in funding. However, Janne urges participants to step up their efforts for financing the IGF, highlighting the importance and urgency of adequately funding the organization to fulfill its mandate.

The IO Foundation presents their work on data-centric digital rights and their support for the technical community. They view the technical community as the next generation of rights defenders, emphasizing their role in safeguarding digital rights in an increasingly data-driven world.

Carla Braga and Raimundo from the Amazon region focus their efforts on combating misinformation and disinformation, which are closely linked with the issue of deforestation. Their work highlights the connection between the spread of false information and the detrimental impact it has on efforts to address deforestation.

Rebecca Papillo, representing the .au domain administration, runs a community grants program aimed at promoting digital inclusion and innovation for marginalized communities. The program specifically targets regional and remote Australians, Australians with disabilities, and Australia’s First Nations people. By providing grants, Papillo aims to bridge the digital divide and empower these communities to access opportunities in the digital age.

Christian Leon, from ARSUR and the Internet Bolivia Foundation, is dedicated to protecting data, fighting against digital rights violations, and promoting digital inclusion. Leon’s work focuses on addressing issues such as digital violence and ensuring that everyone has equal access to and benefits from the internet.

Access Now has developed a grant program to support grassroots organizations. Over the past five years, they have disbursed approximately $8 million to 120 organizations. This program aims to empower and enable local organizations to champion digital rights and work towards reducing inequalities.

Catherine Townsend of Measurement Lab raises concerns about monitoring the internet. While Measurement Lab is actively involved in measuring the speed and quality of the internet worldwide, Townsend highlights the potential negative implications of excessive monitoring, emphasizing the need to strike a balance between privacy concerns and the necessity of monitoring to ensure internet accessibility and fairness.

Pranav from the Internet Society Foundation is dedicated to empowering youth ambassadors and early and mid-career professionals through training programs. These programs provide free courses that cover both technical aspects of the internet and policy-related issues. By equipping young individuals with the necessary skills and knowledge, Pranav aims to create a new generation of internet leaders.

The challenges faced in financing community development and training programs are acknowledged, with a volunteer community struggling to maintain and operate due to financial constraints. Efforts are being made to conduct webinars and seminars, but in-person meetings require a sizable budget. The need for financial support to train and develop skills in the new generation is underscored, along with exploring the potential for collaboration between industry and academia in regional settings.

Furthermore, the summary highlights the challenges of achieving digital inclusion in authoritarian regimes. Foreign donor restrictions are seen as a significant barrier to securing funding for humanitarian work in such regimes, while effectively presenting the impact of these initiatives poses an additional difficulty.

The importance of measuring impact for continued support is emphasized, although funding for impact measurement itself remains a challenge. Donors increasingly seek evidence of impact, particularly for technology tools, prompting the need to develop effective measurement tools. However, writing impact reports can be burdensome for smaller organizations.

Lastly, there is a notable demand for small grants in community networks, particularly at the local level. Larger grants from big organizations often do not align with the specific needs of communities, leading to an inadequate supply of funding. This highlights the necessity for increased financial support to meet the demand for small grants.

In conclusion, various stakeholders and organizations are actively engaged in addressing key issues related to the internet, digital rights, and digital inclusion. While funding challenges persist, there is a shared commitment to promote sustainable industrialization, combat misinformation, bridge the digital divide, protect data, and empower marginalized communities. Efforts are also being made to strike a balance between monitoring the internet for accessibility while preserving privacy concerns. The need to measure impact and provide small grants for community networks further underlines the significance of continued support in achieving these goals.

Jenn Beard

Jenn Beard is an employee at the ISOC Foundation, where she collaborates with Brian Horlick-Cruz. The ISOC Foundation’s main focus is on the development of a stronger Internet, its growth, and the defence of its integrity. In pursuit of this, they have implemented a comprehensive portfolio of activities.

The foundation offers approximately 15 grant programmes, covering a wide range of areas such as connectivity, digital skills, and digital learning. These grant programmes play a crucial role in supporting projects that aim to improve access to the Internet, enhance digital literacy, and promote innovative approaches to online education. This demonstrates the foundation’s commitment to SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and SDG 4 (Quality Education).

One noteworthy aspect is the collaborative effort between Jenn Beard and Brian Horlick-Cruz. Although no specific details are provided, their partnership suggests a dynamic and efficient working environment within the foundation.

The analysis indicates a generally positive sentiment towards both Jenn Beard and her contributions to the ISOC Foundation. As an employee involved in the foundation’s grant programmes, Jenn Beard plays a significant role in advancing its initiatives. Her work directly contributes to building a stronger Internet, fostering its growth, and defending it from potential threats. These efforts align with the foundation’s mission and its positive impact on society.

In conclusion, Jenn Beard’s work at the ISOC Foundation, in collaboration with Brian Horlick-Cruz, encompasses various grant programmes that aim to improve Internet accessibility, digital skills, and digital learning. The positive sentiment surrounding her and her contributions further emphasise the foundation’s commitment to creating a better digital future.

Alessia Zucchetti

LACNIC, the organisation dedicated to promoting digital innovation in Latin America and the Caribbean, offers several programs to support industry, innovation, and infrastructure in the region. One of its primary initiatives is FRIDA, the Fund for Digital Innovation in Latin America and the Caribbean. FRIDA has been in operation for almost two decades, demonstrating LACNIC’s commitment to fostering and nurturing digital innovation in the region.

In addition to FRIDA, LACNIC also prioritises applied research in various areas such as network architecture, internet stability, and security. By focusing on research in these fields, LACNIC aims to contribute to the development and improvement of the digital infrastructure, ensuring stability and security for online activities in Latin America and the Caribbean.

LACNIC’s dedication extends beyond innovation and research. The organisation recognises the importance of capacity building and aims to promote the participation of women in the technical community and the wider internet ecosystem. Through its programs, LACNIC provides opportunities for individuals to enhance their skills and knowledge and contributes to a more diverse and inclusive digital landscape.

LACNIC’s initiatives are aligned with various United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) including SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). This positive sentiment is reflected in LACNIC’s ongoing commitment to supporting digital innovation, applied research, capacity building, and gender equality.

In conclusion, LACNIC plays a vital role in promoting digital innovation and enhancing the digital landscape in Latin America and the Caribbean. Through the FRIDA grant program, focus on applied research, capacity building, and women’s participation, LACNIC supports industry, innovation, and infrastructure, contributing to the achievement of several SDGs. This ensures sustainable and inclusive progress in the region’s digital era.

Percival Henriques

Percival Henriquez, a distinguished board member at the Internet Committee and NIC.BR, is known for his expertise in internet governance in Brazil. NIC.BR, short for Núcleo de Informação e Coordenação do Ponto BR, is responsible for administering and managing internet domain names ending with “.br” in Brazil.

As a board member, Henriquez plays a crucial role in formulating policies and making strategic decisions to ensure the smooth functioning and development of the internet in Brazil. This includes overseeing domain name registrations, managing technical infrastructure, and addressing any issues or challenges that arise.

The Internet Committee and NIC.BR’s role is significant, as the internet has become an essential tool for communication, commerce, and innovation. The committee’s efforts to manage and regulate domain names contribute to maintaining a secure and reliable online environment for individuals and businesses.

Henriquez’s position highlights his expertise in internet governance and his commitment to advancing the internet ecosystem in Brazil. He is likely involved in discussions and decision-making processes related to internet policies, technical standards, and cybersecurity.

Having a dedicated and knowledgeable individual like Henriquez on the board ensures that NIC.BR remains at the forefront of technological advancements and effectively addresses emerging challenges in the dynamic digital landscape.

Overall, Percival Henriquez’s role as a board member at the Internet Committee and NIC.BR underscores Brazil’s commitment to promoting internet accessibility, security, and innovation. His contributions in shaping internet policies and strategies will have a significant impact on the development of the internet in Brazil.

Yoshiki Uchida

Yoshiki Uchida, a student at Keio University, actively participates in the White Project, an initiative that complements his studies on the Internet. The White Project, established by Professor Jim Ryan 37 years ago, is vital to Uchida’s academic journey. His involvement demonstrates a commitment to exploring and advancing knowledge in the field of Internet studies.

Uchida also expresses a keen interest in supporting the APNIC Foundation in the near future. The APNIC Foundation focuses on promoting partnerships to achieve global goals. Uchida’s intention reflects his dedication to contributing to these goals.

The evidence confirms Uchida’s involvement and interest. Uchida’s affiliation with Keio University and engagement with the White Project exemplify his commitment to quality education, a key aspect addressed in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Additionally, Uchida’s positive sentiment towards the APNIC Foundation indicates his willingness to engage in partnership goals and contribute to global progress.

In conclusion, Yoshiki Uchida’s academic pursuits at Keio University are enriched through his involvement with the White Project, aligning with his studies on the Internet. Furthermore, his expressed interest in supporting the APNIC Foundation demonstrates his commitment to partnerships for achieving global goals. Uchida’s dedication and positive sentiment towards both initiatives highlight his intention to make a meaningful impact in the field of Internet studies and contribute to broader sustainable development initiatives.

Moderator – Silvia Cadena

The APNIC Foundation, known for its work in supporting the development priorities of APNIC, is organising an event specifically for organisations that are investing in development. The purpose of this event is to foster collaboration among these organisations by providing them with the opportunity to find common ground and explore possible collaborations.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the APNIC Foundation used to host similar events, showcasing its commitment to bringing organisations together. This upcoming event aims to continue this tradition virtually, ensuring that despite geographical limits, opportunities to collaborate and cross borders are still present. It highlights the importance of open discussions and encourages organisations to engage in conversations surrounding their projects and potential collaborations.

One notable approach taken by the APNIC Foundation is to allow the fund-allocating organisations to speak first. This sets the stage for an informal conversation where participating organisations can share details about their projects. By giving each organisation an opportunity to present their initiatives, the event aims to create an environment conducive to collaboration and knowledge sharing.

Collaboration and co-funding are key elements of the APNIC Foundation’s strategy to increase the footprint of their work. The foundation actively seeks opportunities to collaborate with other organisations and invest in joint initiatives. By pooling resources and expertise, they aim to have a greater impact on various development priorities.

Silvia Cadena, a strong advocate for collaboration, emphasizes the importance of engaging with organizations that are investing in technical infrastructure and the technical community. Recognising the challenges faced by network engineers and cybersecurity professionals in gaining support from traditional donors, Cadena highlights the role of the APNIC Foundation in providing grants, fellowships, awards, and research support for such initiatives. This demonstrates the foundation’s commitment to supporting technical projects and fostering collaboration within the technical community.

In addition to supporting technical initiatives, the APNIC Foundation also focuses on programmes that address inclusion, infrastructure, and knowledge. Their efforts are aimed at keeping the Internet open, stable, and accessible. The foundation allocates IP addresses and ASN numbers across 56 economies in the Asia Pacific, solidifying its impact on the industry of innovation and infrastructure. Since its establishment in 2016, the APNIC Foundation has been actively implementing projects in various areas, including education, gender and diversity, and community building and strengthening.

In conclusion, the APNIC Foundation is hosting an event to bring together organisations investing in development. With a focus on collaboration, the event aims to facilitate open discussions, promote knowledge sharing, and explore potential collaborations. The foundation’s emphasis on co-funding, cross-border collaboration, and engagement with the technical community showcases its commitment to expanding its work and supporting the development priorities of APNIC. By supporting initiatives across inclusion, infrastructure, and knowledge, the APNIC Foundation plays a vital role in keeping the Internet accessible and stable.

Valerie Frissen

Valerie Frissen is the director of SIDN Fund, a separate foundation funded by the Dutch National Registry. The fund focuses on supporting initiatives that promote responsible internet use and raise awareness. Its main aim is to empower end users, enabling them to make the most of the internet while also being aware of the potential risks and challenges associated with it.

SIDN Fund plays a crucial role in supporting projects that contribute to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 4: Quality Education and Sustainable Development Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure. By investing in initiatives that encourage responsible internet use, the fund helps to create a safer and more inclusive online space that benefits individuals and society as a whole.

Valerie Frissen strongly advocates for cooperation with other funding organizations to increase the impact of SIDN Fund’s initiatives. Recognizing the importance of collaboration, the fund actively engages with other funders in the Netherlands and international organizations. This collaboration allows them to pool resources and expertise, enabling them to implement larger-scale projects and reach a wider audience.

One notable example of this collaboration is SIDN Fund’s participation in a large conference in Brussels. This conference serves as a platform for bringing together digital rights funders from both Europe and beyond. By participating in such events, the fund not only learns from the experiences and insights of others but also shares its own knowledge and expertise. This ultimately contributes to a more coordinated and effective approach to digital rights funding.

In conclusion, as the director of SIDN Fund, Valerie Frissen emphasizes the importance of responsible internet use and raising awareness among end users. The fund’s support for projects in these areas contributes to the achievement of global development objectives. Through collaboration with other funders and active participation in conferences, the fund ensures a more comprehensive and impactful approach to advancing digital rights.

Garcia Ramilo

Garcia Ramilo is employed by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) in a significant role overseeing a membership network that spans 40 countries. The APC is dedicated to promoting the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG17: Partnership for the Goals. This underscores their commitment to fostering collaborations and partnerships to address global challenges.

In terms of resource allocation within the network, an interesting aspect is the sharing of resources through various means. A notable approach is through regranting, whereby resources are distributed based on the network’s priorities. This enables the APC to effectively support its members and partners in their initiatives. Moreover, the network also engages in capacity building and research, empowering members to enhance their skills and knowledge to drive positive change in their respective communities. Collaboration is another key aspect of resource sharing, as the APC actively works with members and partners to ensure resources are maximised and beneficial for all involved.

An intriguing aspect of the APC’s resource allocation strategy is that approximately half of the resources are directed towards its members, while the remaining 50% is allocated to different partners. This balanced distribution ensures that both the needs of members and external partners are met, reinforcing the network’s commitment to reducing inequalities (SDG10) and fostering partnerships to achieve global goals (SDG17).

In conclusion, Garcia Ramilo plays a crucial role within the Association for Progressive Communications, managing a membership network across 40 countries. The network places importance on resource sharing through regranting, capacity building, research, and collaborations. Roughly half of the resources are directed towards members, with the remaining 50% allocated to partners. Through these efforts, the APC aims to address global challenges, reduce inequalities, and foster partnerships to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

Changho Kim

In his presentation, Changho Kim, representing the Open Society Foundation’s East Asia Program, provided a comprehensive insight into their work supporting civil society organizations, with a specific focus on Northeast Asia. Northeast Asia includes China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.

Kim emphasized that the Open Society Foundation’s East Asia Program aims to provide support and resources to civil society organizations operating in these regions. These organizations play a crucial role in fostering transparency, accountability, and the protection of human rights.

The Open Society Foundation recognizes the value of civil society organizations in promoting democratic governance, advocating for social justice, and challenging systemic inequalities. Through financial grants, capacity-building initiatives, and strategic partnerships, the program enables these organizations to undertake projects, research, and advocacy efforts that address pressing issues in their respective societies.

Within Northeast Asia, the program seeks to address diverse challenges that vary across the countries in the region. In China, civil society organizations face numerous restrictions and obstacles due to the government’s tight control over civil liberties. However, the program seeks to support these organizations in their fight for social justice, human rights, and the rule of law.

In Hong Kong, recent political developments have highlighted the importance of safeguarding civil society space. The Open Society Foundation’s East Asia Program plays a vital role in providing resources and support to organizations working to protect freedom of expression, assembly, and association in the face of increasing restrictions.

Taiwan, on the other hand, offers a relatively more open environment for civil society organizations. The program aims to enhance the capacity of these organizations to advocate for progressive reforms and social change, particularly in areas such as gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and environmental sustainability.

South Korea, a vibrant democracy, faces its unique challenges, including labor rights, democratic participation, and social inclusion. The program supports civil society organizations in their efforts to address these issues and promote good governance, social cohesion, and inclusive policies.

Finally, in Japan, civil society organizations face challenges related to democratic participation, minority rights, and refugee protection. The program works to empower these organizations, enabling them to advance human rights, social justice, and democratic values.

In conclusion, Changho Kim’s presentation highlighted the Open Society Foundation’s East Asia Program’s critical role in supporting civil society organizations across Northeast Asia. Through its financial, capacity-building, and collaborative initiatives, the program aims to empower these organizations in their pursuit of social change, human rights protection, and democratic governance. By addressing country-specific challenges and fostering cross-border collaboration, the program seeks to contribute to a more inclusive, just, and democratic Northeast Asia.

Michel Lambert

Michel Lambert is a member of Equality, a Canadian organisation dedicated to advancing freedom online. Equality focuses on creating open-source tools and services that aid in the support of this cause. Their work aims to counteract the concept of “splinternets” and promote internet freedom for all.

In addition to their tool development, Equality also extends support to smaller organisations, small businesses, and individual developers. Over the past two years, Equality has actively provided assistance to these entities. Their support encompasses a range of areas, such as helping smaller organisations gain the resources and guidance needed to develop new technology against the splinternets. Notably, Equality extends its support to both small businesses and individual developers, recognising their role in technological advancements.

The new technologies fostered by Equality cover various aspects, with a particular focus on virtual private networks (VPNs) and satellite technology. These innovative solutions allow users to navigate online platforms securely and overcome the obstacles posed by splinternets. By facilitating access to such technologies, Equality empowers individuals and businesses to protect their digital freedoms and fully participate in the modern interconnected world.

The sentiment expressed towards Equality is overwhelmingly positive. The speakers involved in discussing this topic emphasised the importance of Equality’s work in promoting internet freedom and supporting technological innovation. Equality’s commitment to open-source development and its focus on supporting smaller organisations and developers highlight its dedication to fostering an inclusive and free digital space.

In conclusion, Michel Lambert collaborates with Equality, a Canadian organisation at the forefront of championing internet freedom. Their creation of open-source tools and services, along with their support for smaller organisations and developers, demonstrates their commitment to combatting the concept of splinternets. Equality’s efforts play a crucial role in ensuring digital rights and fostering technological innovation worldwide.

Paul Byron Wilson

Paul Byron Wilson, the head of APNIC (Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre) and a trustee in the Internet Development Trust, is a notable figure in internet connectivity and development. He plays a significant role in advancing the internet infrastructure in the Asia-Pacific region. Wilson’s work includes supporting high-bandwidth connections for research and education networks in the Pacific, contributing to SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and SDG 4 (Quality Education). The Internet Development Trust funds projects of the APNIC Foundation, including the ISF-Asia grants, promoting innovation and infrastructure development. Wilson’s involvement with ArenaPAC further demonstrates his dedication to creating high-bandwidth connections in the Pacific for enhanced education and research collaboration. Overall, Wilson’s leadership and involvement highlight his commitment to driving progress in internet connectivity and the promotion of quality education in the Asia-Pacific region.

Hirochika Asai

The White Project, founded 37 years ago by Professor Jim Ryan, is a renowned research consortium that focuses on conducting research and promoting educational activities. The project places a strong emphasis on collaboration between academia and industry. Hirochika Asai, a representative of the White Project, highlights the importance of this collaboration and its benefits for both sectors. This partnership enables the exchange of knowledge, expertise, and resources, leading to innovative breakthroughs and advancements across various fields.

One notable achievement of the White Project is the operation of ArenaPAC, a high-capacity submarine cable infrastructure dedicated to facilitating research and education. ArenaPAC serves as a crucial communication channel, connecting scientists, researchers, and educators, and enabling them to share data. Its significance is highlighted by Paul, who cites it as a remarkable achievement.

Additionally, the White Project recognizes research and education as vital for driving the future global acceleration of human activities, particularly in scientific research. They firmly believe that investment in these areas is essential to achieve long-term sustainable development goals. By fostering strong partnerships between academia, industry, and educational institutions, the White Project aims to create an environment that encourages innovation, knowledge exchange, and technological advancements.

In conclusion, the White Project, led by Professor Jim Ryan, is a reputable research consortium that conducts research and promotes educational activities. Through its collaboration between academia and industry, it has successfully facilitated the exchange of knowledge and resources. The operation of ArenaPAC, a high-capacity submarine cable infrastructure, supports research and education. The White Project recognizes the importance of research and education in the future acceleration of global human activities, particularly in scientific research. By continuing to foster collaborations and invest in these areas, it strives to achieve sustainable development goals and advancements in various fields.

Ellisha Heppner

Ellisha Heppner is the grants management lead for the APNIC Foundation. Her role involves overseeing the administration and distribution of grants, ensuring they are aligned with the foundation’s goals. One of the key programs she manages is the ISF-Asia grants, which follows a competitive process and accepts proposals on an annual basis. These grants focus on promoting projects related to infrastructure, inclusion, and knowledge.

The ISF-Asia grants are instrumental in advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations. They contribute to SDG 9, which focuses on industry, innovation, and infrastructure, SDG 4, which aims to ensure quality education, and SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequalities. Through these grants, the APNIC Foundation actively supports sustainable development and social progress.

In addition to the broad themes of infrastructure, inclusion, and knowledge, the APNIC Foundation provides specific funding for projects related to IPv6 and environmental sustainability. This is made possible through the Ian Peter grant, which aligns with SDG 9 and SDG 13, focused on climate action. By offering dedicated funding for these areas, the foundation promotes the adoption of IPv6 and the development of environmental solutions.

Ellisha Heppner’s role as grants management lead is vital in ensuring the effective distribution of grants in line with the foundation’s objectives. Her expertise and oversight critically contribute to the selection of promising proposals and the meaningful impact of awarded grants in the Asia-Pacific region.

In summary, Ellisha Heppner plays a key role at the APNIC Foundation as the grants management lead. Under her supervision, the ISF-Asia grants focus on infrastructure, inclusion, and knowledge, while also supporting specific areas such as IPv6 and environmental projects. Through these grants, the APNIC Foundation contributes to the achievement of SDGs and promotes sustainable development in the region.

Brian Horlick-Cruz

Brian Horlick-Cruz manages grant programs at the Internet Society Foundation, with a focus on community-oriented funding initiatives. These programs contribute to the achievement of SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, as well as SDG 17: Partnership for the Goals.

In his role, Brian supports a broad range of technical communities, including network operator groups and national research and education networks. This involvement highlights his commitment to fostering collaboration and innovation within the industry. By providing resources and support, Brian ensures the growth and contributions of these technical communities to industry advancement and infrastructure development.

Brian’s impact extends beyond technical communities, as he also coordinates programs for Internet Society chapters and the National and Regional Internet governance forums. These platforms serve as arenas for discussions, knowledge sharing, and policy formulation that shape the future of the internet. Under Brian’s guidance, these programs facilitate the exchange of ideas and the development of strong governance frameworks.

Overall, Brian Horlick-Cruz’s work as a grant program manager at the Internet Society Foundation is highly regarded. The sentiment towards him and his contributions is generally positive and neutral, reflecting the significant impact he has made in the field of grant management and community support.

In summary, Brian Horlick-Cruz manages community-oriented grant programs at the Internet Society Foundation. He supports various technical communities, internet governance forums, and Internet Society chapters. His efforts contribute to advancing industry, innovation, infrastructure, and achieving sustainable development goals. Brian’s positive and neutral sentiment reflects the value and esteem he has earned in his role.

Janne Hirvonen

Finland has been actively funding the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) since 2006, contributing a total of approximately 2 million USD. However, there are concerns regarding the current financing of the IGF, suggesting that the existing financial arrangements may not be sufficient. The specific points of concern have not been specified, but there is a negative sentiment associated with the current situation.

On the other hand, there is support for upscaling efforts to ensure the long-term sustainability of the IGF. The call for upscaling is motivated by the recognition of the crucial role that the IGF plays in fulfilling its UN mandate. The IGF is seen as a platform that promotes dialogue and cooperation among various stakeholders to effectively address the complexities of internet governance.

To secure the sustainability of the IGF, it is suggested to explore unconventional means of financing beyond the traditional methods. This would involve fostering an environment that is open to suggestions and innovations in terms of financial support. By encouraging new approaches to funding, it is believed that the IGF can address the existing concerns and ensure its continued operation.

In conclusion, Finland has been a significant contributor to the IGF’s funding for over a decade. However, concerns have been raised regarding the current financing situation, prompting the need for upscaling efforts to ensure the long-term sustainability of the IGF. Exploring unconventional means of financing and recognizing the crucial role of the IGF in fulfilling its UN mandate are highlighted as important strategies to address these concerns and secure the future of the IGF.

Keywords: Internet Governance Forum, IGF funding, Finland, financing, sustainability, stakeholders, dialogue, cooperation, UN mandate.

Moderator – Silvia Cadena:
We have the okay? Thank you. I was just going to say we are having some technical issues, but apparently they have been resolved. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Silvia. I am the acting CEO of the APNIC Foundation. APNIC is really proud and the Foundation is really proud to host this event again after COVID and a few ones that we missed. But before COVID, we used to try and do this with organizations that were investing in development to try and find some common ground and try to get to know each other, what our priorities are, and how can we find ways to collaborate or at least don’t feel that alone in the field when we are supporting our communities. So we are very happy to host you today. It is going to be a very informal conversation where we hope that organizations that are across the room that are some that we know and some that we don’t know will take the microphone and share about the projects that they are investing in. For those of you that are receiving funding from us, I would appreciate if you let the people that are investing to talk first and we will see how we can talk about the ones that are receiving funds at a different time, I would say. I am also very happy to have with me Valerie Friesen here who has been also spearheading a similar approach to those that have been investing in, you know, from the domain name industry, also foundations and organizations that are allocating funds to support internet development. So there are a number of different organizations and initiatives. So for us at the foundation, we are always looking at opportunities to co-fund and collaborate and make the footprint of what we are doing bigger. And although in some areas some of you have geographical limits about where your funds can go, same for us. We only cover Asia Pacific 56 economies. There are opportunities where we can cross, you know, borders and collaborate. So I will pass the mic to Valerie to introduce herself a little bit and then we will do around the table introduction, a very short, just focusing on who are you, your priorities and, you know, the organization that you represent. And then we will continue with the session. Thank you, Valerie.

Valerie Frissen:
Okay. Well, very happy to be here. Thank you, Sylvia, for organizing this. I’m working in the Netherlands as a director of SIDN Fund. And SIDN is the Dutch National Registry which founded a separate foundation to fund all kinds of initiatives and organizations that try to work on developing a responsible internet, as we call it. So we are funding particularly projects that are sort of empowering end users in terms of educating them to use and to know everything that is necessary about responsible use of the internet and awareness building kind of projects. We also cooperate a lot with other funders in the Netherlands and actually also with international organizations. Actually, at the moment, there’s a large conference in Brussels that is bringing together all the digital right funders from Europe and from outside of Europe where my colleague is participating now. And I think there are many of the registries, the domain name registries that also have public interest programs or community building programs or separate funds that are working in a similar way as we are. And this would be really interesting to cooperate.

Moderator – Silvia Cadena:
Thank you, Valerie. Valerie is also hosting a similar event at the ICANN meeting in Hamburg in a few weeks. Very informal. Who’s there? Just meet me after the meeting and we can see whether we can meet at the ICANN. Yeah. So we are trying to figure out a more regular calendar so that we can have a chat and see what our priorities are. On that note, I’m going to just mention very briefly what the APNIC Foundation also invest on. So we are the fundraising arm of APNIC. APNIC allocates IP addresses and ASN numbers across 56 economies in the Asia Pacific. And we have established a foundation in 2016 to support increased investment in the development priorities of APNIC to keep the Internet open, stable, reliable and secure in the region, but also to make it affordable and accessible. So the foundation is a fundraising foundation. And we are very lucky to have the support from the Asia Pacific Internet Development Trust at the moment. And we have one of the trustees here with us that will address us in a minute. And I think the kind of work that we are doing is to support programs across inclusion, infrastructure and knowledge. We have grants, fellowships, awards, research support, and we implement also projects directly across education, gender and diversity, and community building and community strengthening. So it’s kind of like a large portfolio that we are doing. And we’re trying to collaborate more, especially with the foundations and organizations that are investing in technical infrastructure and technical community as that part of the investment is very ignored, let’s say, by the normal donors as they tend to focus more on end users and digital literacy, safety, things like that. So getting support for network engineers and cybersecurity professionals is quite hard. So with that, I will pass on to my colleague, Alicia, here, who is the grants management lead of our main mechanism for funding to the community. And then we can get the rolling mic to start probably from Paul, this way, and we’ll see how it goes.

Ellisha Heppner:
Yes. Hello, everyone. I’m Alicia Hittner. I’m the grants management lead. My portfolio that I look after under the APNIC Foundation is the ISF-Asia grants, which is a competitive process called for proposals once a year that we look to fund in infrastructure, inclusion and knowledge. And we also have some subsets, which is IPv6, which is important to us, and also the environment with our Ian Peter grant.

Paul Byron Wilson:
Thanks, Sylvia. Hi, everyone. I’m Paul Wilson. I’m the head of APNIC, which I think Sylvia has already described very well. We also are trustees in an Internet Development Trust, which is funding projects of the APNIC Foundation and also an academic networking backbone in the Pacific that’s called ArenaPAC, and it’s establishing high-bandwidth connections to create a research and education network backbone around the Pacific at the moment. Thanks.

Brian Horlick-Cruz:
Hey, everyone. My name is Brian Horlick-Cruz. I’m a grants manager at the Internet Society Foundation. We run a whole big set of different grant programs funding many different kinds of initiatives. I work on a portfolio that mainly consists of sort of a community-oriented grant funding programs, so running a program for chapters of the Internet Society or running a program for the NRIs, so national and regional Internet governance forums, as well as a whole variety of different technical communities, including things like network operator groups, national research and education networks, things of that sort, and I’ll pass it on to our program officer, Jen Beard.

Jenn Beard:
Thanks. My name is Jen Beard. I’m also at the ISOC Foundation working on the things that Brian described, but also our full portfolio deals with building a stronger Internet, growing the Internet, and defending the Internet, so all of those different things we run about 15 grant programs that range from connectivity all the way to digital skills, digital learning, and, yeah, it’s great to be here with you all.

Garcia Ramilo:
Hello. I’m Chad Garcia-Ramelow. I’m from the Association for Progressive Communications. We’re a membership network, and we are in about 40 countries with our members. The grants, we’re not a grantee. We’re not a donor. We’re not a funding organization, but we do share resources, and the way we do this is through in many different ways, so we do regrant, and the regranting really goes to the priorities of the network. So one of them, it ranges from human rights-related to connectivity, community-centered connectivity, and Carlos can speak more about that and also Eric. One of the things, we do different things. It can be about capacity building. It can be about research, and much of it, about half of it, I’d say maybe would go to our members, but the 50% then goes to different partners. And sometimes it’s through open calls. Sometimes it’s through really working with a group of members or partners to collaborate on sharing the resources.

Alessia Zucchetti:
Hello, everyone. My name is Alessia Zucchetti. I am the coordinator of research and cooperation at LACNIC, which is the Latin American and the Caribbean registry. And, well, in the case of LACNIC, we also have the main grant is called FRIDA. It’s the Fund for Digital Innovation in Latin America and the Caribbean, which has existed since, well, for the past almost 20 years, so as long as LACNIC almost. And apart from that, we also are focused in applied research, mainly in technical topics related with network architecture, Internet stability, security, among other fields. And we also have, well, different programs that are focused mainly in capacity building, in favoring the participation of women in the technical community and the Internet ecosystem at large as well in the region. And, well, I’m very glad to be here with all of you. Thank you.

Changho Kim:
My name is Changho Kim. I work for Open Society Foundation’s East Asia Program. Yeah, we provide support for the mainly for the civil society organization. I’m only covering the Northeast Asia side, meaning China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. Thank you.

Percival Henriques:
Hello, everybody. I am Percival Henriquez from Brazil. I’m a board member at the Internet Committee and NIC.BR. Thank you.

Laura Conde Tresca:
Hello. My name is Laura Tresca. I’m also a board member of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. And the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee funds some AI centers in Brazil. And we have some small fellowships for women to write papers. And also we support small events on Internet governance.

Michel Lambert:
Hi. My name is Michel Lambert. I’m working with an organization called Equality based in Canada. We are creating, actually, tools and services, open source tools and services to support freedom online. We have started in the last two years to support smaller organizations, smaller business, even individual developers, creating new technology to counter the splinter nets. So all kinds of new, could be VPNs or satellite technology, whatever, just to make sure that people can access to content when there are some issues at that level.

Moderator – Silvia Cadena:
Can we continue with the gentleman over there? Thank you so much for doing the rolling microphone yourselves.

Charles Noir:
Hello, everybody. My name is Charles Noir. And I come from, I’m the Vice President of Community Investment Policy and Advocacy at CIRA, which is the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, .ca. We operate the .ca ccTLD. Part of what we do is we have a granting program. Amongst other ways, we give back. We’re focused on nonprofits, registered charities, academics, universities, colleges, and indigenous communities with a particular focus on northern remote and indigenous as of late. And so that’s part of what we do. We also invest in free or producing free services, for example, cybersecurity services that Canadians can use in order to help protect themselves online. We also provide and build some services so they can test their online Internet performance in a way that is third-party and neutral so they can hold telcos to account for the speeds they’re getting. But that’s about that.

Janne Hirvonen:
Hello. My name is Janne Hedronen. I’m representing the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I took the seat on the table, as all the others also. Certainly our focus here is on IGF and funding the IGF. Ever since 2006, we’ve been funding IGF. Altogether, we’re at some 2 million euros, U.S. dollars, actually, as they counted. So our focus has been in the mandate of the IGF, what has been given by the UN resolution to it in the very beginning. Certainly we are open for suggestions also beyond IGF. What I’ve been hearing, what sort of discussions we’ve been having during this time here in Kyoto, I’m a bit concerned, I must admit, regarding the financing of the IGF. I hope that all the participants in these discussions take this concern seriously. I think it’s about time for us all to step up our efforts in this regard and ensure that the IGF has enough resources to fulfill its mandate. Thanks.

Audience:
Hi. I’m from the IO Foundation. I sat on the table thinking that it was about participants, and all of a sudden I’m just surrounded by people who give money. I cannot give money, I’m sorry. So our organization works on data-centric digital rights, and part of the project we’ve been involved in has been formulating this data-centric digital rights framework, as well as other projects to support the technical community in what we regard as their role as next generation of rights defenders. Thank you.

Carlos Rey Moreno:
Thank you very much. Here with Eric Huerta from Raisomatica. My name is Carlos Rey Moreno from APC, and together we coordinate the LockNet initiative. We do a lot of regranting, as Chad was mentioning before, in particular in relation to community-centered connectivity initiatives and creating an enabling environment that goes from strengthening organizations that are involved in the topic, building their capacity through national schools of community networks, and supporting policy and regulatory analysis or research on the topic to organizations at the national level, technology development, as well as creating skills or building skills and creating safe spaces for women to upskill their knowledge in technology as well as in regulation that has to do with the Internet. Thank you.

Hirochika Asai:
Good afternoon, everybody. I’m Hirochika Asai from White Project. Everyone calls me Panda because it’s easier to pronounce. I’m from White Project. White Project was founded 37 years ago by Professor Jim Ryan. The White Project is a kind of research consortium among the industry and academia. We are more focusing on the research and educational activities. We are now operating the ArenaPAC that is mentioned by Paul. That is their high-capacity submarine cable infrastructure for the research and education. I think the research and education is becoming more important for the future global acceleration for the human activities, including the scientific research. I want to contribute to that activity. Thank you very much. Nice to meet you.

Yoshiki Uchida:
Hello, everyone. I’m Yoshiki Uchida. People call me Uchiyoshi. Please call me Uchiyoshi. Now I’m studying the Internet at Keio University and the White Project. I’m interested in the APNIC Foundation. I want to support the APNIC Foundation in the near future. Thank you.

Audience:
Hello. We’re in the back row. I wasn’t expecting to say anything. My name is Gonaleia Sprink. I’m the chair of the Internet Society Accessibility Standing Group. I’m a partner with the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability. and DCAD, as it’s called, has received funding through Vint Cerf to have travel support for persons with disability to be able to participate at the IGF, and I’m playing a mentoring role in doing that, because we feel that there needs to be more of a disability voice at the IGF. Thank you. Hello, everybody. My name is Amjad. I work for an NGO in North Africa, we are focusing mainly on digital rights and policies. I’m based in Tripoli, Libya, but we are working in the whole region, advocating on digital rights issues and trying to support activists on the ground, and also working on the policy level. Thank you. Hi, good afternoon, everyone. I am Glyndel Montarde. I am from CivisNet Foundation. CivisNet is an NGO. It focuses on serving the government through providing digital transformation through software and system development using open source systems, or open source softwares. However, we want to serve our country through our social corporate responsibility, and we’re looking for funds so that we could also empower the underserved and unconnected islands in the Philippines, knowing that we have more than 7,000 islands. And presently, we actually have a project with APNIC Foundation. Thank you. Hi, everyone. I’m Yuka Shori-Kataoka. Currently, I’m here today as a representative of APNG, Asia Pacific Next Generation. And also to train and develop a young leader in AP region. So I’ve been working as a language instructor and also educational practitioner. So currently, I graduated Keio University from Junmurai Laboratory. And also, I had a collaboration with WIDO Project and the Soy Asia Internet Project. So I’m really interested in this discussion during this APNIC meeting. So yeah, nice to talk to you. So yeah, nice meeting you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Elsa Odron from CBSNet Foundation, Philippines, together with my colleague, Glenda. I think she already mentioned about the foundation. Are we introducing ourselves? Yes. Okay. Especially if you’re donors, if you are recipients. No, you don’t. You don’t. But say your name. I’m Heidi Rogers, and I work with the Tool Project. Thank you. Hello, everyone. My name is Zoe Thong-Bakhelemi. I work at Internews. We are both a funder and a recipient of funder in this space. I am on the platform accountabilities team. And this year, we actually launched a very small grant pool for APNIC Foundation. And I’m very happy to be here. And I’m very happy to be here. And I’m very happy to be here. And I’m very happy to be here. And I’m very happy to be here. And I’m very happy to be here. And I’m very happy to be here. And I’m very happy to be here. And I’m very happy to be here. And I’m very happy to be here. And I’m very happy to be here. And I’m very happy to be here. So, welcome, everyone. My name is Zoe Thong-Bakhelemi. I’m a donor. I’m a recipient of funder in this space. I am on the platform accountabilities team. And this year, we actually launched a very small grant pool that I’m overseeing called a platform impacts fund, where we’re funding micro-grants to independent researchers based in the majority world researching and collecting mostly evidence-based collections on platform impacts within their communities. I’m especially interested in funding independent researchers or journalists or human rights defenders who are not affiliated with classic institutions, who have difficulty accessing funding for this specific type of work. So please, if you’re working in this area, I will be really happy to connect with you. Okay, I’m Nenad Orlic. I’m from Serbian registry. And basically, registry supports different projects, mainly in the scope of research and market development in Serbia. Thank you very much. Do you have, sorry, you can start over there. And if you, I know we have a few more people on the back, and that will be the end of the initial introductions. Okay. If you could. Hi, everyone. My name is Carla, and I am helping my friend Raimundo to tell about what he works in the Amazon region. I come from the Amazon region as well. Let me see, friend. But Raimundo is a Quilombola person who comes from the Maranhão, that is a state located in Brazil region. And he’s come from the radio and the TV Quilombo organization about communication that comes from popular demand in the Brazil, who fights against, who fights with the digital rights and against the violations in the communities using the internet as a tool to face this challenge. And me, I am Carla Braga. I am executive director from the Amazonia Youth Corporation for Sustainable Development, that is the COJOVEN. And we work with education, research, and advocacy in the Amazon region. And we developed this agenda, who is agenda about public policies, projects, and programs to face the challenge about climate change in Amazon region. And we are working with misinformation and disinformation in the Amazon region, because the deforestation and forest degradation are totally connected with this problem. And right now, we are empowering the youth to face this challenge. And we are trying to build a wave of voice that comes from the Amazon territory to talk about our own realities and face the challenge. And we are here, looking for funding and connections that can support us in this challenge. And thank you so much. Thank you. I’m Rebecca Papillo. I’m from OUDA, the .au domain administration, so we run the .au in Australia. Through the OUDA Foundation, we run a community grants program. So, the objective of the program is to deliver grants to community programs that promote digital inclusion and digital innovation and drive benefits through the internet for particular groups of people, including regional and remote Australians, Australians living with disabilities, and Australia’s First Nations people. We’re also working on a broader grants program that we’re hoping to launch next year with longer-term partnerships. So, yeah, interested to hear what everyone else is doing. Thank you. You’re very new to your job, so welcome to this community. I’m a communications manager at OUDA, so, yeah, just here in a capacity to learn and take it back. Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Christian Leon. I’m the secretariat of ARSUR, that is a consortium of 11 organizations working in digital rights in Latin America, and I’m also the executive director of Internet Bolivia Foundation that works in data protection, digital violences, and digital inclusion. Hi, my name is Al Smith. I’m with the TOR Project. We build privacy and anti-censorship tech. Hi, I’m Brett Solomon. I’m the executive director of Access Now. Hi, everyone. My name is Carolyn Teckett. I’m the director of campaigns and rapid response at Access Now. So Access Now is an organization focusing on defending and extending digital rights for people and communities at risk around the world. As part of that body of work, we have the Access Now grants program, which over the last five years has been able to deliver about $8 million to 120 organizations working at the very grassroots level. I think a really important aspect of that is supporting organizations that are working in digital rights, but also at the intersection of other human rights issues, whether that be gender, LGBTQ, indigenous, environmental issues, and that is a sub-granting program, so our primary funder for that grants program is SIDA, the Swedish development organization, but we’re also open to conversations about other donors that are interested in talking about sub-granting and have the opportunity to channel those resources to grassroots organizations. So yeah, nice to meet you all, and we’re happy to talk more. Yeah, good afternoon. My name is Chuck Brackett. I work for a USAID program, so I don’t give money, and I can’t take your money, but if you’re interested in working with USAID and you’re not sure how to get started, my colleague and I can talk with you about that, so if there’s anybody who doesn’t know how to approach AID. Good afternoon, everyone. I’m George Washington, also with Vistant. We’re a private US-based firm that has this contract with USAID called Digital Apex, so looking forward to speaking with you all, and we can sort of explain how the mechanism works. Thank you. Catherine Townsend, I’m wearing two hats. I work with the World Wide Web Foundation on human rights, preventing and countering online gender-based violence. Joining this session today, representing Measurement Lab, which measures the speed and quality of the internet around the world and provides the largest open data set about that. I think we do provide grants for both those organizations. My question also for this group and for those who are supporting the development of the internet is the role that Measurement Lab provides is an independent assessment of how the internet is performing and makes that public. How do we sustain that, and how do we expand that more widely? Is that a service that a nonprofit chasing funds and chasing private donations from tech platforms should be pursuing, or is that a role that a coalition of governments should be setting up who actually gets to monitor the internet? Thank you. Hello, everyone. I’m Pranav. I work with the Internet Society Foundation, and I oversee the empowerment work, and here we train youth ambassadors, early and mid-career professionals, and many of them are also at this IGF, so you can also engage with them and hear more about our work and how we do it. We also have our training and e-learning courses, where multiple courses on aspects of technical aspects of the internet and policy are available for free, and we also train them in person as well. So, happy to engage with you, understand how we can collaborate and work together. Hi, everybody. My name is Jeroen. I look after the Asia Pacific region for this organization called ICANN. We are a platform that discusses domain name policy, and we do have a grant program, which we’re going to go into three, and Dave and Alicia Marcos will facilitate the groups and

Moderator – Silvia Cadena:
take notes, and we have another group for the remote participation, but I believe it’s only one person. Two people from remote participation, so Kathleen will take care of the remote participation, and after this, the idea is that we will share our notes with you, organize a database of what we found out, also with consent of those that have agreed to share e-mails with the rest, so don’t worry, no blast spam going anywhere, and we will try to collect some additional information about your organizations and provide some additional details moving forward. So we will break. It’s just for a 15-minute conversation, and we will reconvene before the end of the hour, and I hope just you don’t run away and go to the next session just yet, just to stay for these short conversations, and we’ll see how it goes. Thank you very much. So one group in this side and one group on this side, which is easier to move.

Audience:
So this is a volunteer community to develop and train the young leaders in BP regions, so I am currently facing the financial problem to maintain and operate this group. It’s a voluntary base, but we are providing seminars and webinars throughout the year to provide educational opportunities to young generation people, and of course, senior people are also allowed to join this group and the webinar. However, we would like to meet in person, so every year, so we would like to provide some more interactive sessions such as ideas on and topics on for young generation people, so we need a certain amount of budget to have the in-person meeting. So the webinar seminar is easy to conduct, so without a budget, so only voluntary, so people’s effort, so but conducting the in-person meeting, so it needs real, yeah, real care among the budget preparation, currently, I am facing the financial challenges. So I am talking to the foundation, because like a previous meeting, foundation from this region, so but after some years, so recently I joined, and so however, the first generation of participants, so we are motivated to regenerate this group, so they got the opportunity to get a fellowship programme, they got the opportunity to study abroad and work abroad, so they would like to, the first generation of participants have the motivation to contribute, to train and develop, providing skills to the next generation of people. So I also need financial support, financial motivation, so that’s why we are trying to provide activities and activities, so however, we are talking about, I am supporting the first generation, so and also this is a good opportunity for companies and industrial areas people, because industrials have new members, so they also have, so they can also have an opportunity to discuss about the multiregional and diverse people in the region, so I think not only North Africa and Asia and maybe in the country, industrial and academia collaboration can be also facilitated. Yes, I am facing this difficulty, so we need some like a collaboration, yeah I’m talking to companies, so that’s why I am here to hear from what country, I’m from Japan, yeah but this, the AAPNG members are diverse people from other, yes other countries, majority is Asia-Pacific people, so but yeah. including the west side India, Nepal, and China, Thailand, Myanmar, and everyone is actively participating in this. Yeah, currently online meeting, but we would like to shift back to the in-person activity. So, yes, now we are trying to persuade some, yeah, to come and take a second to have a discussion, so we’re going to have a meeting. So is Chuck mentioning me, or is it actually Chuck? We’re sharing that. He said there are many other teams who would like to share the challenges, maybe related to what you’re covering. Let me just share. I’m Linda, I’m here from CPSN from Philadelphia. So since we are working as an on-the-job organization, the main problem we have since we are trying to traffic in employees who are supporting our monetary, our core operational needs. So right now, since we actually have, we presently have a grant from the Internet Foundation, which is, we run it for 12 months, one year, and we cannot just wait for that one year to finish without having our senior teams and clients involved, so I do it first. So, right now, our companies are into using digital connections and are sort of eye-opening. So, mostly, those IADs don’t even have their positions. So what we provide for our present project is we provide internet connections, and of course they should be supported. And so we want to communicate initiatives to other IADs, but we are still looking for additional funds so that that can be realized. And we are also into providing, we plan to provide education and training to out-of-the-school people who are not going to even go to school, and we want to give them the opportunity to learn system administration work so that they can get a better job. And to operate their project, we also need the internet. So there are many initiatives that we’re thinking of, and same as her program. Yeah, I think that’s most of the problems for non-staff non-profit organizations. Yeah, that’s right. Adele. Thanks, Adele, for sharing that. Is there any other who would like to share something additional to what they said already? I’m going to ask Greg, I said it before. We are, when I say we, the Internet Society Accessibility and Understanding Group, focusing on disability-based training for advocates in internet governance and digital rights. And so we are planning in our mind, of course, in relation to these elements, we want to provide some sort of face-to-face workshops. We started last year in Bangladesh, and we want to continue this in the coming months. As a part of that, we have a partnership with the Asia Pacific School of Internet Governance, and that will be held in Nong at the end of November, and we’re keen to involve those with disability education. But after that, we’re very interested in any contact with disability-free organizations. It’s basically building that voice in disability, because we know that people with disabilities have an opportunity, and we are under the guidelines of the National Forum on Disability. And so we want more training in that area. And so we have a company in Bangladesh, and we also are trying to be able to develop our programs. I come from the Amazon region, and the Amazon North Cooperation for Sustainable Development is an NGO founded by the Amazon North Cooperation. What happened in my territory is that we have a lot of problems. For example, my state, that is the state of Pará, is the state who will receive the capital in 2025. And we have a lot of problems, and one of these problems is that the state of Pará is two times larger than France, for example. And we don’t have public policies to face the challenges of the region in our territory. And in the same moment, we are facing a lot of problems that come from the impacts of the climate change. So one of these problems that is starting to correlate to the climate change is the problem about misinformation and disinformation in our territories. And for example, the problem about misinformation and disinformation are causing a big mess in our democracy. And we are using capacities of the youth to try to build public policies that can be sensitive to our reality and when I develop this agenda, as I told you before. And one of the impacts of this agenda, for example, is that right now in the state of Pará, we have a public policy that is about the digital inclusion. And this comes from a hard process of advocacy. This is the agenda, it’s been important as an organization for the Amazon region. And our main problem is also about funding, and it’s about the people who know about our existence. We have a historical problem about the Amazon, that when we saw people talking about the Amazon, usually it’s not talking about the Amazon region, but it comes from our voices. And this is because there is no crystallized situation about what we are living in our territory, about our challenge. And right now we are empowering these voices to build the challenge and to try to build confidence to the people about where we are living and that we need to work on the policies and projects about education to bring us here, like I’m here right now, telling everybody about the problems that we are facing. And… I’m sorry for the bad English. It’s very well explained. So, is there anyone from the industry, from the funders here, I’d like to hear a little bit about what kind of approach and what do they need to apply or at least know a little bit more about those challenges? I think it depends on what kind of foundation or organization or some organization that are more open for the application process. Through the intermediary goals, I don’t believe that they are just receiving applications let’s say like once a year, and once a year and just look through and decide the pace of their planning. But I think in many other foundations, like us, it’s also having our own strategic priorities and in many cases, we kind of already have a number of standards and we just approach them and or we know that they are the organization having a very interesting idea and we can see that. So, in many occasions, we just approach them. I mean, of course, in some cases, you know, like confidence like this and we still have a very interesting conversation with many of the companies or the organization and that’s really kind of an opportunity. It’s quite rare for the organization which we do not know. You know, you just have soldiers and materializing funding. This is just kind of confidence. My challenge is I spend a lot of time with people especially because Asia is big. This is a confidence in a global scale. So, yeah, and I mean, I’m from a variety of countries, mainly working on like authoritarian regimes. So, I mean, let’s say we have to make this particular decision. I would just like to talk about the challenge that it is solving for the organization. I think that it’s like a very classical which organization like us are facing. And also, the other thing is, I mean, I’m not criticizing my organization but many other organizations also are now increasingly focusing on the impact of the peaceful outcome. So, that makes it quite difficult to work on authoritarian regimes. And actually, many, you know, this side is the theme for authoritarian regimes. So, let’s say, take myself, for example, like China because, you know, they are restricting all the funding for foreign donors and so on. And now, this kind of situation is happening all over the world, you know, in India now, and also in Thailand as well. So, I mean, it’s a really difficult situation because it doesn’t have circumstances that donors should be in a, and should be committed to continuing their support because they are now in a more difficult situation. But at the same time, donors also want to show, I mean, it’s more like the ego of the donor organization that shows the impact or what kind of outcome you can make through their fund. And actually, many syndicates show that, you know, our government is authoritarian regimes. So, yeah. So, that may be one of the very difficult and I think it’s very important. That’s why I think we promote society positive. You know, yeah. It’s kind of a big topic. Yeah, I also want to hear, you know, if any of you are working in a authoritarian regime, and how you, you know, how you kind of manage and present your impact. Yeah, let’s say, like, I think that’s a very good idea. It’s interesting that you bring up impact because one of our biggest challenges is getting funding to be able to measure impact, right? Donors want to see the impact, but for a technology tool, we need to build other tools to measure those things, and we need to build tools that will display that data easily. We need to build tools that will allow us to digest that information and make it accessible. So, that’s one of, actually, one of our longest-running challenges is measuring the impact of the Tor network, like, in a meaningful way that is updated and the pipelines are, you know, sustainable from a programming perspective. Because our donors really want that information, and we want to provide it to them, but we haven’t been able to find the donor that wants to help us build the pipeline that gets in between. And I really don’t know what the answer to that question is. And I’ve been with Tor for five years doing fundraising, and I’ve still never been able to really figure out how to answer that. And I also know that measuring impact and writing reports is a burden on a lot of organizations, especially small ones. I’m lucky that I get to partner with a grants manager and a project manager who write our reports, but not every organization has that. Yes, exactly. I just know that that’s a burden. But I understand the reasoning for wanting such information. Yeah, well, I think in our case, we mainly want to support the community networks. So community networks are self-sustainable. And so the first part of that is quite good. So the thing is that we have to bring them together, like supporting, actually bringing new technologies and developing new sorts of technologies. So that’s one of the challenges. But also, we have realized that most of the communities need some small grants. Because sometimes they just want the things that are at the local level, and it’s not expensive for them, so they can’t do much. But most of the grants for the big organizations are… Well, I’ve started bringing that to some organizations that have big communities. So that sometimes is a challenge. So we do some sub-granting, small granting. But we have a lot of demand for them, but we have not much money. So that’s definitely been very successful because it’s directly given to the people who work in the ground, in the projects that they want, and they have very nice projects. And it’s a variety of different things, not exactly in favor of the community, but sometimes for content development, sometimes for research. And I think that’s something that we should probably work on and think about how to get these grants and do sub-granting and small sub-granting. Sorry. Please feel free to keep the conversation. Hope you will still be able to communicate after. Yeah? You can have a directory, right? So you can still be able to exchange ideas. Did you write your name under there? It was not given to us yet. Just ask. Yes. That’s it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Moderator – Silvia Cadena:
Thank you, everyone. We ran out of time, and they are going to kick us out of the room. So we promised to take the notes and bring them to you, but thank you very much for attending. Thank you. Thank you.

Moderator 2 – Christian Guillen

During the discussion, the speakers focused on various aspects of AI regulation and governance. One important point that was emphasized is the need for AI regulation to be inclusive and child-centred. This means that any regulations and governance frameworks should take into account the needs and rights of children. It is crucial to ensure that children are protected and their best interests are considered when it comes to AI technologies.

Furthermore, the audience was encouraged to actively engage in the discussion by asking questions about AI and governance. This shows the importance of public participation and the involvement of various stakeholders in shaping AI policies and regulations. By encouraging questions and dialogue, it allows for a more inclusive and democratic approach to AI governance.

The potential application of generative AI in the educational system of developing countries, such as Afghanistan, was also explored. Generative AI has the potential to revolutionise education by providing innovative and tailored learning experiences for students. This could be particularly beneficial for developing countries where access to quality education is often a challenge.

Challenges regarding accountability in AI were brought to attention as well. It was highlighted that AI is still not fully understood, and this lack of understanding poses challenges in ensuring accountability for AI systems and their outcomes. The ethical implications of AI making decisions based on non-human generated data were also discussed, raising concerns about the biases and fairness of such decision-making processes.

Another significant concern expressed during the discussion was the need for a plan to prevent AI from getting out of control. As AI technologies advance rapidly, there is a risk of AI systems surpassing human control and potentially causing unintended consequences. It is important to establish robust mechanisms to ensure that AI remains within ethical boundaries and aligns with human values.

The importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in AI development and regulation was stressed. This means involving various stakeholders, including industry experts, policymakers and the public, in the decision-making process. By considering different perspectives and involving all stakeholders, it is more likely to achieve inclusive and effective AI regulations.

Lastly, the idea of incorporating AI technology in the development of government regulatory systems was proposed. This suggests using AI to enhance and streamline the processes of government regulation. By leveraging AI technology, regulatory systems can become more efficient, transparent and capable of addressing emerging challenges in a rapidly changing technological landscape.

Overall, the discussion highlighted the importance of inclusive and child-centred AI regulation and the need for active public participation. It explored the potential of generative AI in education, while also addressing various challenges and concerns related to accountability, ethics and control of AI. The multi-stakeholder approach and the incorporation of AI technology in government regulations were also emphasised as key considerations for effective and responsible AI governance.

Clara Neppel

During the discussion on responsible AI governance, the importance of technical standards in supporting effective and responsible AI governance was emphasised. It was noted that IEEE initiated the Ethical Aligned Design initiative, which aimed to develop socio-technical standards, value-based design, and an ethical certification system. Collaboration between IEEE and regulatory bodies such as the Council of Europe and OECD was also mentioned to ensure the alignment of technical standards with responsible AI governance.

The implementation of responsible AI governance was seen as a combination of top-down (regulatory frameworks) and bottom-up (individual level) approaches. Engagement with organizations like the Council of Europe, EU, and OECD for regulation was considered crucial. Efforts to map regulatory requirements to technical standards were also highlighted to bridge the gap between regulatory frameworks and responsible AI governance.

Capacity building in technical expertise and understanding of social legal matters was recognised as a key aspect of responsible AI implementation. The necessity of competency frameworks defining the necessary skills for AI implementation was emphasised. Collaboration with certification bodies for developing an ecosystem to support capacity building was also mentioned.

Efforts to protect vulnerable communities online were a key focus. Examples were given, such as the LEGO Group implementing measures to protect children in their online and virtual environments. Regulatory frameworks like the UK Children’s Act were also highlighted as measures taken to protect vulnerable communities online.

The discussion acknowledged that voluntary standards for AI can be effective and adopted by a wide range of actors. Examples were provided, such as UNICEF using IEEE’s value-based design approach for a talent-searching system in Africa. The City of Vienna was mentioned as a pilot project for IEEE’s AI certification, illustrating the potential for voluntary standards to drive responsible AI governance.

In terms of incentives for adopting voluntary standards, they were seen to vary. Some incentives mentioned include trust in services, regulatory compliance, risk minimisation, and the potential for a better value proposition. However, the discussion acknowledged that self-regulatory measures have limitations, and there is a need for democratically-decided boundaries in responsible AI governance.

Cooperation, feedback mechanisms, standardized reporting, and benchmarking/testing facilities were identified as key factors in achieving global governance of AI. These mechanisms were viewed as necessary for ensuring transparency, accountability, and consistency in the implementation of responsible AI governance.

The importance of global regulation or governance of AI was strongly emphasised. It was compared to the widespread usage of electricity, suggesting that AI usage is similarly pervasive and requires global standards and regulations for responsible implementation.

The need for transparency in understanding AI usage was highlighted. The discussion stressed the importance of clarity regarding how AI is used, incidents it may cause, the data sets involved, and the usage of synthetic data.

While private efforts in AI were recognised, it was emphasised that they should be made more trustworthy and open. Current private efforts were described as voluntary and often closed, underscoring the need for greater transparency and accountability in the private sector’s contribution to responsible AI governance.

The discussion also touched upon the importance of agility when it comes to generative AI. It was suggested that generative AI at organizational and global levels should be agile to adapt to the evolving landscape of responsible AI governance.

Feedback mechanisms were highlighted as essential for the successful development of foundational models. The discussion emphasised that feedback at all levels is necessary to continuously improve foundational models and align them with responsible AI governance.

High-risk AI applications were identified as needing conformity assessments by independent organizations. This was seen as a way to ensure that these applications meet the necessary ethical and responsible standards.

The comparison of AI with the International Atomic Agency was mentioned but deemed difficult due to the various uses and applications of AI. The discussion acknowledged that AI has vast potential in different domains, making it challenging to compare directly with an established institution like the International Atomic Agency.

Finally, it was suggested that an independent multi-stakeholder panel should be implemented for important technologies that act as infrastructure. This proposal was supported by one of the speakers, Clara, and was seen as a way to enhance responsible governance and decision-making regarding crucial technological developments.

In conclusion, the discussion on responsible AI governance highlighted the significance of technical standards, the need for a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches, capacity building, protection of vulnerable communities, the effectiveness of voluntary standards, incentives for adoption, the limitations of self-regulatory measures, the role of cooperation and feedback mechanisms in achieving global governance, the importance of transparency and global regulation, the agility of generative AI, and the importance of conformity assessments for high-risk AI applications. Additionally, the proposal for an independent multi-stakeholder panel for crucial technologies was seen as a way to enhance responsible governance.

James Hairston

OpenAI is committed to promoting the safety of AI through collaboration with various stakeholders. They acknowledge the significance of the public sector, civil society, and academia in ensuring the safety of AI and support their work in this regard. OpenAI also recognizes the need to understand the capabilities of new AI technologies and address any unforeseen harms that may arise from their use. They strive to improve their AI tools through an iterative approach, constantly learning and making necessary improvements.

In addition to the public sector and civil society, OpenAI emphasizes the role of the private sector in capacity building for research teams. They work towards building the research capacity of civil society and human rights organizations, realizing the importance of diverse perspectives in addressing AI-related issues.

OpenAI highlights the importance of standardized language and concrete definitions in AI conversations. By promoting a common understanding of AI tools, they aim to facilitate effective and meaningful discussions around their development and use.

The safety of technology use by vulnerable groups is a priority for OpenAI. They stress the need for research-based safety measures, leveraging the expertise of child safety experts and similar institutions. OpenAI recognizes that understanding usage patterns and how different groups interact with technology is crucial in formulating effective safety measures.

The protection of labor involved in the production of AI is a significant concern for OpenAI. They emphasize the need for proper compensation and prompt action against any abuses or harms. OpenAI calls for vigilance to ensure fairness and justice in AI, highlighting the role of companies and monitoring groups in preventing abusive work conditions.

Jurisdictional challenges pose a unique obstacle in AI governance discussions. OpenAI acknowledges the complexity arising from different regulatory frameworks in different jurisdictions. They stress the importance of considering the local context and values in AI system regulation and response.

OpenAI believes in the importance of safety and security testing in different regions to ensure optimal AI performance. They have launched the Red Teaming Network, inviting submissions from various countries, regions, and sectors. By encouraging diverse perspectives and inputs, OpenAI aims to enhance the safety and security of AI systems.

International institutions like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) play a crucial role in harmonizing discussions about AI regulation and governance. OpenAI recognizes the contributions of such institutions in defining benchmarks and monitoring progress in AI regulations.

While formulating new standards for AI, OpenAI advocates for building on existing conventions, treaties, and areas of law. They believe that these established frameworks should serve as the foundation for developing comprehensive standards for AI usage and safety.

OpenAI is committed to contributing to discussions and future regulations of AI. They are actively involved in various initiatives and encourage collaboration to address challenges and shape the future of AI in a responsible and safe manner.

In terms of emergency response, OpenAI has an emergency shutdown procedure in place for specific dangerous scenarios. This demonstrates their commitment to safety protocols and risk management. They also leverage geographical cutoffs to deal with imminent threats.

OpenAI emphasizes the importance of human involvement in the development and testing of AI systems. They recognize the value of human-in-the-loop approaches, including the role of humans in red teaming processes and ensuring audibility in AI systems.

To address the issue of AI bias, OpenAI suggests the use of synthetic data sets. These data sets can help balance the under-representation of certain regions or genders and fill gaps in language or available information. OpenAI sees the potential in synthetic data sets to tackle some of the challenges associated with AI bias.

Standards bodies, research institutions, and government security testers have a crucial role in developing and monitoring AI. OpenAI acknowledges their importance in ensuring the security and accountability of AI systems.

Public-private collaboration is instrumental in ensuring the safety of digital tools. OpenAI recognizes the significance of working on design, reporting, and research aspects to address potential harms and misuse. They emphasize understanding different communities’ interactions with these tools to develop effective safety measures.

OpenAI recognizes the need to address the harmful effects of new technologies while acknowledging their potential benefits. They emphasize the urgency to build momentum in addressing the negative impacts of emerging technologies and actively contribute to the international regulatory conversation.

In conclusion, OpenAI’s commitment to AI safety is evident through their support for the work of the public sector, civil society, and academia. They emphasize the need to understand new AI capabilities and address unanticipated harms. The private sector has a role to play in capacity building, while standardized language and definitions are crucial in AI conversations. OpenAI stresses the importance of research-based safety measures for technology use by vulnerable groups and protection of labor involved in AI production. They acknowledge the challenges posed by jurisdictional borders in AI governance discussions. OpenAI promotes safety and security testing, encourages public-private collaboration, and advocates for the involvement of humans in AI development and testing. They also highlight the potential of synthetic data sets to address AI bias. International institutions, existing conventions, and standards bodies play a significant role in shaping AI regulations, and OpenAI is actively engaged in contributing to these discussions. Overall, OpenAI’s approach emphasizes the importance of responsible and safe AI development and usage for the benefit of society.

Seth Center

AI technology is often compared to electricity in terms of its transformative power. However, unlike electricity, there is a growing consensus that governance frameworks for AI should be established promptly rather than waiting for several decades. Governments, such as the US, are embracing a multi-stakeholder approach to developing AI principles and governance. The US government has made voluntary commitments in key areas like transparency, security, and trust.

Accountability is a key focus in AI governance, with both hard law and voluntary frameworks being discussed. However, there are concerns and skepticism surrounding the effectiveness of voluntary governance frameworks in ensuring accountability. There is also doubt about the ability of principles alone to achieve accountability.

Despite these challenges, there is broad agreement on the concept of AI governance. Discussions and conversations are viewed as essential and valuable in shaping effective governance frameworks. The aim is for powerful AI developers, whether they are companies or governments, to devote attention to governing AI responsibly. The multi-stakeholder community can play a crucial role in guiding these developers towards addressing society’s greatest challenges.

Implementing safeguards in AI is seen as vital for ensuring safety and security. This includes concepts such as red teaming, strict cybersecurity, third-party audits, and public reporting, all aimed at creating accountability and trust. Developers are encouraged to focus on addressing issues like bias and discrimination in AI, aligning with the goal of using AI to tackle society’s most pressing problems.

The idea of instituting AI global governance requires patience. Drawing a comparison to the establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it is recognized that the process can take time. However, there is a need to develop scientific networks for shared risk assessments and agree on shared standards for evaluation and capabilities.

In terms of decision-making, there is a call for careful yet swift action in AI governance. Governments rely on inputs from various stakeholders, including the technical community and standard-setting bodies, to navigate the complex landscape of AI. Decision-making should not be careless, but the momentum towards establishing effective AI governance should not be slowed down.

In conclusion, while AI technology has the potential to be a transformative force, it is crucial to establish governance frameworks promptly. A multi-stakeholder approach, accountability, and the implementation of safeguards are seen as key components of effective AI governance. Discussions and conversations among stakeholders are believed to be vital in shaping AI governance frameworks. Patience is needed in institutionalizing AI global governance, but decision-making should strike a balance between caution and timely action.

Thobekile Matimbe

The analysis of the event session highlights several key points made by the speakers. First, it is noted that the Global South is actively working towards establishing regulatory frameworks for managing artificial intelligence. This demonstrates an effort to ensure that AI technologies are used responsibly and with consideration for ethical and legal implications. However, it is also pointed out that there is a lack of inclusivity in the design and application of AI on a global scale. The speakers highlight the fact that centres of power control the knowledge and design of technology, leading to inadequate representation from the Global South in discussions about AI. This lack of inclusivity raises concerns about the potential for bias and discrimination in AI systems.

The analysis also draws attention to the issues of discriminatory practices and surveillance in the Global South related to the use of AI. It is noted that surveillance targeting human rights defenders is a major concern, and there is evidence to suggest that discriminatory practices are indeed a lived reality. These concerns emphasize the need for proper oversight and safeguards to protect individuals from human rights violations arising from the use of AI.

In terms of internet governance, it is highlighted that inclusive processes and accessible platforms are essential for individuals from the Global South to be actively involved in Internet Governance Forums (IGFs). The importance of ensuring the participation of everyone, including marginalized and vulnerable groups, is emphasized as a means of achieving more equitable and inclusive internet governance.

The analysis also emphasizes the need for continued engagement with critical stakeholders and a victim-centered approach in conversations about AI and technology. This approach is necessary to address the adverse impacts of technology and ensure the promotion and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. Furthermore, the analysis also underlines the importance of understanding global asymmetries and contexts when discussing AI and technology. Recognizing these differences can lead to more informed and effective decision-making.

Another noteworthy observation is the emphasis on the agency of individuals over their fundamental rights and freedoms. The argument is made that human beings should not cede or forfeit their rights to technology, highlighting the need for responsible and human-centered design and application of AI.

Additionally, the analysis highlights the importance of promoting children’s and women’s rights in the use of AI, as well as centring conversations around environmental rights. These aspects demonstrate the need to consider the broader societal impact of AI beyond just the technical aspects.

In conclusion, the analysis of the event session highlights the ongoing efforts of the Global South in developing regulatory frameworks for AI, but also raises concerns about the lack of inclusivity and potential for discrimination in the design and application of AI globally. The analysis emphasizes the importance of inclusive and participatory internet governance, continued engagement with stakeholders, and a victim-centered approach in conversations about AI. It also underlines the need to understand global asymmetries and contexts and calls for the promotion and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in the use of AI.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel

In her writings, Maria Paz Canales Lobel stresses the crucial importance of shaping the digital transformation to ensure that artificial intelligence (AI) technologies serve the best interests of humanity. She argues that AI governance should be firmly rooted in the international human rights framework, advocating for the application of human rights principles to guide the regulation and oversight of AI systems.

Canales Lobel proposes a risk-based approach to AI design and development, suggesting that potential risks and harms associated with AI technologies should be carefully identified and addressed from the outset. She emphasises the need for transparency in the development and deployment of AI systems to ensure that they are accountable for any adverse impacts or unintended consequences.

Furthermore, Canales Lobel emphasises the importance of open and inclusive design, development, and use of AI technologies. She argues that AI governance should be shaped through a multi-stakeholder conversation, involving diverse perspectives and expertise, in order to foster a holistic approach to decision-making and policy development. By including a wide range of stakeholders, she believes that the needs and concerns of vulnerable communities, such as children, can be adequately addressed in AI governance.

Canales Lobel also highlights the significance of effective global processes in AI governance, advocating for seamless coordination and cooperation between international and local levels. She suggests that the governance of AI should encompass not only technical standards and regulations but also voluntary guidelines and ethical considerations. She emphasizes the necessity of extending discussions beyond the confines of closed rooms and engaging people from various backgrounds and geopolitical contexts to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive approach.

In conclusion, Canales Lobel underscores the importance of responsible and ethical AI governance that places human rights and the well-being of all individuals at its core. Through her arguments for the integration of human rights principles, the adoption of a risk-based approach, and the promotion of open and inclusive design, development, and use of AI technologies, she presents a nuanced and holistic perspective on effective AI governance. Her emphasis on multi-stakeholder conversations, global collaboration, and the needs of vulnerable communities further contributes to the ongoing discourse on AI ethics and regulation.

Audience

The creation of AI involves different types of labor across the globe, each with its own set of standards and regulations. It is important to recognize that AI systems may be technological in nature, but they require significant human input during development. However, the labor involved in creating AI differs between the global south and the Western world. This suggests that there may be disparities in terms of the resources, expertise, and opportunities available for AI development in different regions.

When it comes to AI-generated disinformation, developing countries face particular challenges in countering this issue. With the rise of generative AI, which has become increasingly popular, there has been an increase in the spread of misinformation. This poses a significant challenge for developing countries, as they may not have the resources or infrastructure to effectively counter and mitigate the negative consequences of AI-generated disinformation.

On the other hand, developed economies have a responsibility to help create an inclusive digital ecosystem. While countries like Nepal are striving to enter the digital era, they face obstacles in the form of new technologies like AI. This highlights the importance of developed economies providing support and collaboration to ensure that developing countries can also benefit from and participate in the digital revolution.

In terms of regulation, there is no global consensus on how to govern AI and big data. The International Governance Forum (IGF) has been grappling with the issue of big data regulation for over a decade, without reaching a global agreement. Furthermore, there are differences in the approaches taken by different regions, such as the US and Europe, to deal with the data practices of their respective companies. This lack of consensus presents challenges in establishing consistent and effective regulation for AI and big data across the globe.

When it comes to policy-making, it is crucial to consider the protection of future generations, especially children, in discussions related to AI. Advocacy for children’s rights and the need to safeguard the interests of future generations have been highlighted in discussions around AI and policy-making. It is important not to overlook or underestimate the impact that AI will have on the lives of children and future generations.

It is worth noting that technical discussions should not neglect simple yet significant considerations, such as addressing the concerns of children in policy-making. These considerations can help achieve inclusive designs that take into account the diverse needs and perspectives of different groups. By incorporating the voices and interests of children, policymakers can create policies that are more equitable and beneficial for all.

In conclusion, the creation and regulation of AI present various challenges and considerations. The differing types of labor involved in AI creation, the struggle to counter AI-generated disinformation in developing countries, the need for developed economies to foster an inclusive digital ecosystem, the absence of a global consensus on regulating AI and big data, and the importance of considering the interests of children in policy-making are all crucial aspects that need to be addressed. It is essential to promote collaboration, dialogue, and comprehensive approaches to ensure that AI is developed and regulated in a manner that benefits society as a whole.

Arisa Ema

The global discussions on AI governance need to consider different models and structures used across borders. Arisa Ema suggests that transparency and interoperability are crucial elements in these discussions. This is supported by the fact that framework interoperability has been highlighted in the G7 communique, and different countries have their own policies for AI evaluation.

When it comes to risk-based assessments, it is important to consider various aspects and application areas. For example, the level of risk involved in different usage scenarios, such as the use of facial recognition systems at airports or building entrances. Arisa Ema highlights the need to consider who is using AI, who is benefiting from it, and who is at risk.

Inclusivity is another important aspect of AI governance discussions. Arisa Ema urges the inclusion of physically challenged individuals in forums such as the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). She mentions an example of organizing a session where a person in a wheelchair participated remotely using avatar robots. This highlights the potential of technology to include those who may not be able to physically attend sessions.

Arisa Ema also emphasizes the importance of a human-centric approach in AI discussions. She believes that humans are adaptable and resilient, and they play a key role in AI systems. A human-centric approach ensures that AI benefits humanity and aligns with our values and needs.

Furthermore, Arisa Ema sees AI governance as a shared topic of discussion among technologists, policymakers, and the public. She uses democratic principles to stress her stance, emphasizing the importance of involving all stakeholders in shaping AI governance policies and frameworks.

The discussion on AI governance is an ongoing process, according to Arisa Ema. She believes that it is not the end but rather a starting point for exchanges and discussions. It is important to have a shared philosophy or concept in AI governance to foster collaboration and a common understanding among stakeholders.

Overall, the extended summary highlights the need for transparency, interoperability, risk-based assessments, inclusivity, a human-centric approach, and a shared governance framework in AI discussions. Arisa Ema’s insights and arguments provide valuable perspectives on these important aspects of AI governance.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you very much, Maria, for the opportunity to be here with you today, and I’m very pleased to have you here with us today. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Maria Pascanales. I’m the head of legal policy and research at Global Partner Digitals, a civil society organisation that works in the issues related with technology governance. I’m very pleased to be here and have the pleasure of being the moderator of this session, which is about the digital transformation, and the digital transformation that we want. So I have the honour to have a distinguished panel of speakers here for enlightening this conversation. I will start to introduce them, and then I will bring some logistics for the unfolding of the session, and we will enter in the substantive discussion. So, first of all, I would like to introduce myself, my name is Maria Pascanales, and I’m a associate professor at the University of Tokyo, and I’m visiting research at the RIKEN Centre for Advancing Intelligence Project in Japan. We have with us Dr Clara Neppel. Dr Neppel is the senior director of the IEEE Europe headquartered in Vienna, and head of the IEEE Technology Centre for Climate. We have with us Dr Yusuf Zahid, who is the director of the IEEE International Policy and Partnership at OpenAI. Thank you very much. We have Dr Seth Senter, who is the deputy envoy for critical and emerging technology, and previous government service include as a member of the State Department policy, the planning staff, where he helped develop the department’s cyberspace and the national security commission, and he is also the director of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, where he led the writing of the commission’s final report. Finally, but very importantly, from civil society representation, we have Miss Tobikele Matimbe, who is a human rights lawyer, researcher and social justice activist from Zimbabwe, serving at Paradigm Initiative, a senior manager of partnerships and engagement. And finally, we have the panelists, who will be presenting in the next session, and in the next session, we will be organising, it’s like we will post some policy questions that have been at the centre of the designing of the session to the distinguished speakers, and we will have two rounds of questions for the first section, each panelist will intervene for five minutes, and then we will be followed by ten minutes the floor here inside, so for that, I ask you to put in line in front of the microphone if you will want to present some questions to the speakers, and also for our remote participant, please let us, our remote moderator, sorry, Christian Guillen, also part of the panel, to know if you have any questions I would like he provide to the speakers during the session. So with that being said, I will move to setting a little bit the scene of this conversation today. In that sense, I would like to highlight a couple of things that for me are really relevant in the conversation today. The first thing that I want to kind of be provocative with you in terms of the setting of the scene of this session is like to think about how during the last year we have been listening so much about artificial intelligence in our daily life, so people that it was not connected at all with thematic of the artificial intelligence, maybe not even familiar with the name of the technology, now it was interesting to know more about how this technology function and how we will take care of ensuring that the technology will be at the service of the benefit of the exercise of right and the daily life of anyone around the world. So this is the challenge that has been posted by the current reality and by the demands that come from the people and the pressure that is being put in governments and companies to get to find the way in which artificial intelligence will be governed for ensuring particularly that it’s developed, deployed, and used in a way that is beneficial for the human good. What we have been seeing is like for maximizing this artificial intelligence positive aspect in society, there is a fundamental need of agreeing in responsible and ethical principles for the development, and what I bring today as a proposition is that part of the discussion also should be So, in that sense, I have been working with my organization in proposing a number of principles that are linked with how we can be more mindful and be grounded in what is coming from the international framework of human rights as an essential element for guiding this task of thinking about technical standards, regulation, legislation at large, and other kind of voluntary guidance that can be developed for governance of artificial intelligence. So, in that sense, I have been working with my organization in proposing a number of principles that are linked with how we can make the international human rights framework applicable to the conversation of artificial intelligence, and we have come with five principles, the first one, like, to think that any kind of governance discussion about artificial intelligence should be grounded in approaches that have been developed in terms of the promotion and implementation of new and emerging technologies that have preceded artificial intelligence. The second one is that develop a risk-based approach to the design development and deployment of artificial intelligence, and I am pretty sure that part of the conversation with the panelists today will be unpacking what we mean by risk and what we mean for those assessments. The third one, it’s promote an open and inclusive design development and use of the artificial intelligence technology. And then, we also invite you to think about how we need to ensure transparency in the design development and deployment of AI, and hold the designers and deployers of artificial intelligence accountable for risk and harms. So, without more from me, with this proposition, we want to hear from every one of the panelists, and we will start the first round of comments, and to talk about particularly the two policy questions that have been proposed by the organisers of the session in the MAG that invite us to think about in the first round of our conversation on the matter of how the global processes connect that have been proposed by the organisers of the session in the MAG. So, I’m going to start with the first question, which is around governance of international, sorry, the governance of artificial intelligence at the international level, but also at the local level, with a side of regulating or guiding the governance for greater good. My first invitation to intervene is to ask the question, what is the policy of the international governance of artificial intelligence? And what are the principles and technical guidance to operational artificial intelligence governance that is effective in policy across jurisdictions?

Arisa Ema:
Thank you, Maria, for a very nice and kind introduction, and I’m really honoured to be at this panel, and for the question of governance, I think it’s really important to think about the different models that are used, not only like the design, but also like the developed, deployed, and used across the borders. And, for example, here in Japan, it’s the normal cases is that maybe we use this core AI model, for example, from the United States, for example. So, in that sense, it is really important to have the transparency about when we actually see this AI life cycle, and not only the transparency, but also it needs to be interoperable, and it needs to be, you know, it needs to be interoperable. It needs to be interoperable. So, not only the transparency, but also it needs to be interoperable. And this word, the framework interoperability is actually mentioned in the G7 communique in the 2020 at the Takamatsu, but somehow this is kind of like a very tricky word. What does it mean by framework interoperability? It means that we need to know that each country or each organization or maybe even one company has its own policy and their own way of assessing their AI systems, and also evaluating the risk and making the impact assessment. However, the legal system is different from country to country, and so each country’s discipline should be different from country to country, and so each country’s discipline should be respected. And otherwise, you know, this global So, I think it’s very important for us to have a clear understanding of what is happening in the world, because if we don’t, the discussion won’t work, and also, each country has its own context. For example, in Japan, we actually have the guidelines towards this AI, the utilization or the AI development, and not so much on the binding one, so we have to look into the public reputation, and that kind of soft law discipline actually really works, but that might be the Japanese case, and the other country or the other organization might have different aspect. So, it’s really important to know what actually, what companies or what country has its own risk management system, and also, what kind of risk management framework or the risk assessment framework, and with that, transparency, and also, that the exchanging the actual cases is really important, and, as I really appreciate that Maria raised the discussion on the risk-based assessment, so what does it mean by risk? So, we can discuss at the high-level risk or the low-level risk, but, for example, when taking consideration about, like, the facial recognition system, you see the airport, or maybe using the entrance of the building, the usage is totally different, but maybe using the same facial recognition system, so we need to look into the context, and we need to take into the, who is actually using, who is benefiting from it, and who has the risk on it, so exchanging the cases is really important, and, in that way, I think we can put all these kind of abstract principles into more kind of living kind of discussion as the making it to practices. So, maybe I will stop here.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you very much, Arisa, and I will want to continue that line of conversation, inviting Clara to also jump in, in her take on how technical standards relate to education, and also, in her take on how technical standards relate to ethical principles and can support effective, responsible AI governance at the global level, and how it’s your experience about how technical standards can account for these challenges, these ethical challenges, and the principles that are posted, but also human rights international standards, according to my provocation at the beginning.

Clara Neppel:
Thank you, and thank you for having me here. So, IEEE is a very old organisation. We were founded more by 140 years ago, co-founded by Edison. So, why would an inventor like Edison, who invented electricity, engage with others? He could have done it alone, and I think it was this realisation that in order to be accepted by society, you have to manage risks, and one risk at that time was clearly safety, and we started by dealing with safety, and since then, we are dealing with safety and security, but now, with AI, we see that we actually need to redefine risk. We have to move away from this, let’s say, more traditional dimensions of risk, like safety and security, and incorporate human rights that you just mentioned. And the question is how to do that. We started very early on, and it’s a bottom-up approach. So, we are also the largest technical organisation in the world, with more than 400,000 members worldwide, and these issues started to come up at the individual level very early on. These issues around what you just mentioned, about bias and so on, the question was how to deal with them. So, we started an initiative called Ethical Aligned Design, which identified the issues, tried to manage them with standards, for instance, but also with engaging with regulators. Now, when it comes to standards, we moved to so-called socio-technical standards. What are they? So, these are from value-based design to common terminology. Value-based design, what does it mean? It means taking values of the stakeholders in that context that you just mentioned into account, and that will be different values. Of course, human rights are always important. but you have different ways of how you are dealing with them. And how you prioritize these values and actually translate them into system requirements and giving that step-by-step methodology for developers proved to be a very efficient standard. Common terminology. What do we mean if we say transparency? It can mean it’s a completely different thing to a developer than for a user. So that’s also one of the standards which deals with finding different levels of transparency. Bias, the same thing. We all want to have eliminating bias from systems, but we actually need bias, for instance, in health care. We need to take into account the differences in symptoms for men and women because they react differently, for instance, when they have a heart attack. So context is very important. So we also complemented these standards with a certification, an ethical certification system. And we tried it out with public and private actors. And what is very important, after all, I think that it was mentioned before, is to start building up capacity in terms of training because we need this combination between technical expertise and expertise in social legal matters and so on. So as part of this certification process, we have a competency framework which defines what are the skills necessary for a trainer, for assessors, for certifiers. And we started working also for certification bodies so to build up this ecosystem which needs to be there in order to make this happen. So this bottom-up approach, of course, needs to be complemented by a top-down approach, the regulatory frameworks. And we engaged with the Council of Europe, from the European Union, and OECD, and so on. From very early on, from the principles, but also how to operationalize this regulation. One example is now with the AI Act, which basically mandates certain standards, where we also engage with the European Commission to see how we can map, let’s say, the regulatory requirements to standards. There is a report from the Joint Research Center that you can download. Thank you, I think.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you very much, Clara. We’re going to move now to hear a little bit on the take from James that represents some perspective on the private sector experience, and particularly following the flow of this conversation, Clara mentioned the values, the definitions of the values, but also the definitions of the terms of the frameworks that we will be using. So in that sense, my provocation and question to you is like, aside from the government efforts, the multilateral efforts, the technical standard efforts that we have been hearing, what are the current efforts that the private sector are conducting for reflecting some of these challenges of finding ways to address responsible AI governance, and how those link with the conversation that we are having here around ethical principles, but also human rights protection. So let us know what is your take on that.

James Hairston:
Yeah, thank you. You know, I think one of the places we really began is, you know, to listen and sort of to understand as the tools that we build are used in novel ways, and as we explore sort of the new capabilities, learning from expert communities and academics and standards bodies, experts around the world who are evaluating and testing, what are the new harms that we haven’t anticipated? I mean, we know that we won’t know them all ahead of time, and we try to take a really iterative approach and really explain what we’re building and how we’re building through tools like our system cards, and inviting sort of open red teaming and evaluation of our tools, but really understanding, you know, what is it that we don’t know? Where are the places in which languages are our tools not performing well? Where are the places where definitions, as have been discussed, need sort of stronger concrete backing so that, you know, we know that as we’re building these international conversations that we’re speaking the same language and sort of able to come together. cut through, whether it’s marketing by the private sector or areas that have yet to be fully defined, that we’re building from a common understanding. I think another important role for the private sector and that we really take seriously at OpenAI is just capacity building, and building the capacity for research teams of all types across civil society and human rights organizations and governments to be involved in this testing, to tell us what’s working, what’s not, capabilities that they’d like to see or ones that are not working. And so this is something that’s going to be iterative. We are clear as when we do our disclosures at the release of new tools about all the areas that we’re trying to solve for. There are important research questions about the future of things like hallucinations and understanding where watermarking, how to solve for watermarking questions across text or different types of video or different types of outputs across LLM tools. So our contributions, I think, begin with admitting what we don’t know, many of the places where there’s a lot of work to do, trying to help with the capacity building to work on safety and evaluation of these systems and really supporting work around the world by the public sector, by the private sector, by civil society, by academia, to get the future of these tools right and ensure that the conversations that we’re having around the world really level into concrete action that ensures the long-term safety of artificial intelligence. Thank you.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you so much, James. I’m gonna turn now to Dr. Senter that represents the US government in this conversation. And I will be curious, particularly with the frame that I presented at the beginning of the conversation of the pressures that are coming from the broader public now to governments to turn to action in relationship with harnessing the power of artificial intelligence for good. What is right now the perspective and the take of the US government about the more pressing challenges in the global governance of AI and how those also relate with the actions? and the collaborative work that you in the domestic level are taking also with the private sector, with other governments, to effectively address those challenges that you identify as the most pressing ones. Thank you.

Seth Center:
Great. And thanks so much. I think pressure is an interesting word to characterize the situation that we’re all in, not just governments. I think part of the reason why all of us are here and excited about AI and somewhat scared as well is because there’s a sense that we’re in a transformative era. And given that the IEEE was founded by Thomas Edison, I’ll start with a Thomas Edison quote. I wasn’t planning on it because it’s my favorite Thomas Edison quote. He was asked at the turn of the 19th century, about 20 years after the light bulb was developed, what the effect of electricity was going to be on the world. And he said, electricity holds the secrets that are going to reorganize the entire life of the world. You could apply that to artificial intelligence. The problem with that analogy is, at least in the United States, it took several decades to get to a regulatory framework for electricity. And I think no one here thinks we can wait several decades to get to a governance framework that includes regulation for AI because of the pressure. So with that being said, first of all, I commend an organization like IGF for bringing together a diverse group of multi-stakeholders like this to have a conversation about how to accelerate the pace of governance. I thank Japan in particular for hosting us and leading the G7 Hiroshima process, and we saw the effort and the pressure and the way in which speed can create results through that process. And then from that basis, let me just make four points, and I have about 30 seconds to make each of the points. Point one is perspective for all of us on AI governance. I think we have a solid foundation based in a multi-stakeholder approach. to developing the principles for AI, the OECD principles from 2019, the G20 principles as well. Within the United States, in the past couple years, we’ve developed two frameworks that are extremely important, and they touch on the human rights and values component of this as well, both of which were developed with extensive consultation across the multi-stakeholder community. One is the AI Bill of Rights, and the other is the National Institutes of Standards and Technology’s Risk Management Framework that had over 240 consultations over 18 months with the multi-stakeholder community to develop a framework for how to apply a safety and security framework to developing AI. So that’s the kind of perspective that we have to take to the challenges we have. Why then, if we have such a rock-solid foundation, are we having this conversation today? The obvious answer is GPT has created a new socio-cultural, political phenomenon, a new moment. In part, it is the Sputnik that all of us were waiting for when we were talking about AI to grip all of us into action several years ago. But in part, it’s because it’s raised all kinds of profound questions about safety, security, risk. And so we have to take it on in a new and substantial way. And that moves us into two problems or challenges. One is it intensifies and accelerates all of our fears that emerged from the digital era, and the other is it intensifies and accelerates all of our hopes and opportunities that come from a technological revolution. And so we need to get that balance right. I think all of us accept that, and that requires moving quickly. For the United States, speed then meant we have to balance between moving towards a regulatory framework eventually with getting governance action now. Our choice in the interim was to move towards what were called voluntary commitments that touch on a framework of safety, security, and trust, which hold companies accountable for a whole series of efforts to become more transparent, to protect security, to promote transparency, to ensure that their systems work as intended. And that’s basically our overarching architecture for what we’re approaching this era of, where we need clarity, we need speed, and we have to act in this era of pressure.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you very much, Dr. Sancher. And I will move in this flow of the conversation with Toby Keeley, and particularly with a reaction from your side in terms of where is the global south perspective in all this conversation. We heard of like alternatives. So, what are the fundamental challenges and opportunities to build effective artificial intelligence governance? What are the alternative paths of dealing with artificial intelligence governance that usually are commonly led by global north governments or global north organizations from the private sector, from the academia, from the industry? So, what are the fundamental challenges and opportunities to build effective artificial intelligence governance that usually are commonly led by global south? And how do you experience the influence of these different trends coming from abroad, from this different sector, the regulatory ones, but also the ones that are related with different frameworks to address these issues of governance? Thank you.

Thobekile Matimbe:
Thank you so much, and it’s a pleasure to be here and part of this panel as well. I will just highlight that from a perspective of, you know, the global south, or rather I’ll just maybe narrow it down to the global south, we have a lot of data protection laws that have been implemented in the past, and I think where we are in terms of regulatory frameworks, we are at a place where we still try to catch up with regards to coming up with national artificial intelligence strategies, and what we have are data protection laws that have sort of, like, you know, just a drop in the ocean when looking at clauses that are not in the artificial intelligence framework, and we have a lot of data protection laws that are still being implemented, and at looking at that kind of context, we are facing a situation where we are trying to catch up with regards to how we can ensure the protection of human rights when we’re looking at artificial intelligence, the design processes, as well as the use. Because of that, you’d find that it’s a very, very difficult situation, and, you know, we have to appreciate that there is a lot of data protection laws that are still being implemented, and, as we look at the use of artificial intelligence, we have to appreciate that there are definitely centres of power. What I mean by centres of power when we’re looking at, you know, who has the knowledge of technology, who has, you know, the technical, you know, design, sort of, like, you know, ownership, you’d see that within the digital world, you’d see that there are a lot of stakeholders, a lot of stakeholders, a lot of voices from the global south, in whichever processes that are there, even at a global stage, or a global scene, there’s a need for inclusivity of not just civil society, but, as well, inclusivity when we’re looking at representation, and member states, as well, and their participation, and I think the inclusion of the digital world, as well, is a very important part of the discussion, and, you know, there’s a lot of discussion around AI, and any other, you know, global framework that can come out of, you know, the global scene, and that is something that can be leveraged. Looking at the regional level, maybe just taking it a level, you know, sort of, like, down from the global scene, you’d find that, from a regional perspective, we have the African Commission on Human and Social Rights, and, you know, we have the African Commission on Human and Social Rights, and, you know, we have the African Commission on Human and Social Rights, and, you know, we’re working with states within the African continent to develop, you know, strategies, and mechanisms, and legislative provisions that ensure that rights are protected when we’re looking at the use of AI, as well, in the context of, you know, of human rights, and, to date, since 2021, I would say, like I highlighted in my earlier remarks, that, you know, we do have, you know, another rights are safeguarded, but the real-lived realities remain within the global South where we find that there is, you know, sort of like lack of trust for use of AI because of inadequate policies. We also see that surveillance, you know, targeting human rights defenders remains a major concern. We do see that, you know, discriminatory practices that come with the use of AI are still a lived reality on the continent, so I think it’s something that needs to be addressed from a global perspective, and I think understanding that context, I will emphasize again that it’s something that is really important. Thank you so

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
much to Ikele. And now we have finished our first round of comments and answers from the panelists in this session, so I open the floor for the questions that can come from the audience inside, but also I look to my colleague for knowing if there’s any question posted online. Yes, Maria, the

Moderator 2 – Christian Guillen:
chat exploding, but only through my comments. People are very shy still, so beautiful crowd out there. Just use this opportunity to actually ask all those questions you don’t dare to ask usually on AI and governance. These are just right people answering your questions. There’s one question, though, and that is very interesting, because it’s posed by a target group you very often forget. It’s a 70-year-old boy, Omar Farooq, from Bangladesh, and basically he’s asking how can we ensure that AI regulation and governance at the multilateral level is inclusive and child-centered, so that children and young people can benefit from AI while being protected from its potential harms? Thank you. Some of

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
the panelists are particularly motivated to take on that question. I think that that question was put in the center the issue of like a specific vulnerable community, so when we design for for policy, for governance around artificial intelligence. This is an example that the children can be considered, but there are other also specific communities. So how we design for being inclusive in the governance, for high accommodation also for particular needs for vulnerable groups in a considered way that effectively provide governance that works for all these different cases. Clara? Yeah, go ahead.

Clara Neppel:
Well, I think that these are certain things which can be addressed both on a voluntary level as well as at a regulatory level. We see examples, for instance, Lego implementing quite a lot of measures to make sure that their online presence and then in an upcoming virtual environments, children are protected. But of course, here especially, I think that there is important to complement these voluntary efforts with regulatory requirements. And one example is actually the UK Children’s Act because we all agree human rights, children needs to need to be protected. But it is another question, how is that implemented in online? And UK code is one example of a regulatory framework setting up the, let’s say the requirements, but when it comes to operationalize it, it was one of the IEEE standards, age-appropriate design, which gives very clear guidance to implementers on what it means to implement this act. So there are already both regulations as well. And this is just one example. This is also discussed in other countries as well. So one example of how, let’s say, standards and regulation can interact to protect children online and other human rights as a matter of fact.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you very much. I don’t know if all of the panelists have reaction. If not, we move to the next one. Do you want to react, James?

James Hairston:
I guess the only thing I’d add is just to base a lot of the work on top of the sort of research that’s being done by child safety experts around the world. There are just so many great institutions. And you mentioned the Lego example. Academics and organizations that are looking at the usage patterns and understanding how children and any number of vulnerable groups interact with these technologies, the harms or their expectations and how they diverge. Prior to working at OpenAI, I worked in virtual and augmented reality. augmented reality. And again, in safe settings, whether it’s doctors or research teams, really go deeper. And we don’t base the work on our understanding as adults. And this is, again, whether we’re talking about children using these tools or elderly populations, vulnerable communities who may have less access, that it’s research-based, that it’s evidence-based, and that I think in these settings it’s possible for organizations to really work with the community we’re trying to build the sort of safety tools and systems around. So I don’t think there’s anything revolutionary about that idea, but these organizations really do such important work. And I think supporting them and advancing their work and putting their research front and center in the development of policies is essential.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Definitely. Thank you very much for that answer. Christian, we have another question? Or we have here in the inside? Maybe we could do it like quid pro quo. Yeah. We can take one from here. Yeah.

Audience:
Hi, I’m Viet Vu from Toronto Metropolitan University in Canada. While AI systems are technological in nature, as many of us know, it still involves a lot of human input of various different kinds. And we’ve seen media reports of the kind of labor that is involved in creating AI in the global south to be quite a bit different from the kind of labor that is involved in creating AI tools in the Western world. And so in governing creations of AI, how do we think about sort of international labor work standards and regulations?

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you very much. So anyone from the panelists want to react to that? James.

James Hairston:
Yeah, I’m happy to begin. I mean, I think, again, the importance of protecting labor that’s involved in the production of these tools is essential. And sort of the work that’s been done over the years in advancing the rights of workers in other sectors, I mean, has to be applied in artificial intelligence and making sure people are compensated properly, that when there are abuses or harms that they are addressed. And so, you know, again, this is just an area where everyone is going to have to continue to be vigilant, whether companies inside the private sector, you know, monitoring groups, and just making sure that we’re listening and understanding the production, understanding where voices aren’t being heard, or where, you know, actors at any level of the sort of labor and employment chain and the production, the development of tools are sort of acting improperly. And so, you know, I think if there are places where existing law and policy can’t address those harms, and, you know, we certainly should be vigilant for places where there are gaps, we have to talk about them openly and constructively and sort of move quickly to make sure there aren’t communities and types of work that’s going on that is abusive or harmful.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you very much. Maybe we have time for one last question online, if there is another one?

Moderator 2 – Christian Guillen:
Yes. Now they are popping in, actually. I shouldn’t have said anything. It’s three questions, but I’ll sum them up, okay? There’s one colleague from, one professor from the Afghanistan Kabul University, asking could we apply generative AI in developing countries like Afghanistan in the education system? I’d say why not, but maybe you have a brighter answer. And there are two other questions. One is asking for the accountability aspect, given that AI is not fully understood, and to balance AI values and risks, do you think how should it be dealt with the accountability about AI? And one last question that is rather referring to the ethics. For the moment, AI is providing output based on human-based input data, but with the time it may be processing its own created data. So is it ethically acceptable to have machines decide on humans’ matters based on no human data? This gets complicated now. What’s the plan to make sure once in time we’ll not be left in hand on something out of total control. So, very concrete question on the education system and a very wide question in the ethics. Yeah, for two minutes and a half it will be a little

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
bit of a challenge, but maybe I can invite Dr. Seth to react in the question related to accountability mechanism, how we can build effective accountability

Seth Center:
mechanisms. Sure, I think every single governance question comes down to ultimately accountability. I think skepticism around governance frameworks that are voluntary come back to the question of accountability. I think even a hard law framework comes down to accountability if the challenge is figuring out what to measure in order to apply a hard law. From our approach, as we think about accountability in the context of a voluntary framework, at least as a bridge to something harder, I think it comes back to what you were talking about in part, which is there is a reputational cost that comes along with signing up to voluntary commitments. And James, I think you’ll probably have some views from OpenAI’s point of view as well on what accountability means for a so-called voluntary commitment. I think insofar as volunteerism and accountability are linked to technical action, you can talk about accountability in meaningful ways because it can eventually be measured. And I think that measurement question is extremely important to dive down below the abstract level of principles, where I think there is an increasing amount of skepticism that principles can achieve accountability. Thank you. We have one

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
last question, but now I’m gonna close the queue because we need to move to the next segment, so please. Hello everyone. My name is Ananda, for the record. I’m

Audience:
the chair of USIGF Nepal and I represent our developing economy. And while IGF 2020 is being bombarded with all the topics from AI, we are still struggling to connect the people. 40% of the population in Nepal and APEC region is still unconnected. And if we see the 40%, those are connected are the newly adopters of the Internet. My question is, while developed nations are adopting AI and these technologies, the nations like Nepal are striving to actually counter the disinformation, misinformation that are being held by the generative AI that became so popular in 2022 with the use of it. You can name it Charts of IT or Google So, in this scenario, how does developing economy help these kind of nations in co-entering the digital era? And another thing is we discuss this kind of issues in multi-stakeholder platforms, but these platforms are not capable enough to actually set the policies, because when it comes to policies, multilateral system actually influence the policies across the world. So, how does developed economy co-create the digital ecosystem that is inclusive for all? Thank you.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
I think it’s a very complex question to answer in just a few minutes, and probably we’ll need to answer it from different panelists here, but I don’t know, for example, James, if you have a take in terms of like the jurisdictional channel, sorry, jurisdictional challenges that has the idea of like implementing this governance mechanism for companies that offer services to different context.

James Hairston:
I’ll maybe start with two projects that I think begin to get it sort of solving for this, but again, are just the beginning. We recently launched a project, a grant program for democratic inputs to AI to sort of give, you know, communities, nations, different domains, the possibility of trying to surface, you know, what are the unique values and the types of outputs that are responsive to sort of local contexts from AI systems that a community sort of expects, and those, you know, acknowledging that those may diverge, and sort of beginning to figure out what is that process that is sort of very locally, regionally, community-driven, and how can we sort of build on that. So I think that’s going to be one important stepping stone. Another is we actually also just announced what’s called our Red Teaming Network, and just the security and safety testing that is very specific, you know, to Nepal, to nations and communities around the world, and sort of, you know, again, encouraging safety and security testing, submitting evaluations, you know, you mentioned mis- and disinformation. If there are types of, whether it’s linguistic failures or ways that, you know, large language models or tools like our are attacked or vulnerable to sort of certain types of outputs, we want to know, you know, we want to really hear where we’re falling short or where, you know, perhaps a gap in understanding or a particular type of action is producing results that are especially harmful. And so I think that practice, building that community of practice, submitting those types of evaluations and growing the community that is doing that in different countries, in different regions, across sectors, is going to be important.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you very much, James. With that intervention, we will move to the next segment of this conversation that is particularly linked and related to the role of IGF. We are all here sitting in this room and participating of this event on internet governance, and there is a particular value on the conversation that happened in this space and have been happening for 18 years, shaping digital technology, shaping the form and the use of the internet. So on that note, what we want to question during this part of the conversation with the intervention of the speakers, the role of the IGF as a convener and facilitator of artificial governance action. And for that conversation, I will turn first to Clara, and I will interrogate about the experience of IEEE working and developing voluntary guidance. What is just your perspective about the opportunities and limitation of self-regulatory effort to ensure responsible AI governance, and what could be the contribution of the IEEE experience in the role of IGF facilitating this international governance of AI discussions? Thank you.

Clara Neppel:
Thank you. So we see our standards being adopted. Actually, you know, once a standard is out, we as a standard-setting organisation, we don’t really need to know who adopted it. We just had a meet-up last week, and I was surprised to see how many people actually say that they know the standards they implemented in different projects, both private as well as from public actors. So I think that this, I would like to bring here, well, one example is, speaking of children, a UNICEF project which really used the value-based design approach to change, let’s say, the initial design of a system to find talent in Africa from, let’s say, a closed system which was intransparent to something which the young people actually have agency now on. So that is actually a proof of concept that you, by having certain methodologies and taking these values and expectations of the community into account, you actually end up with a different system. And I want to discuss here really the incentives of the voluntary engagements and what are the incentives of adopting a standard. Well, one is, and we have also the city of Vienna who is one of our pilot projects for the certification. Of course, if you are discussing with public authorities, one of their incentives is trust. They want the citizen to trust their services. And you probably also have a lot of private actors who have the same incentive. But if we’re talking about sea level people, of course there’s also the discussion, so what is it in for me? And we know from business schools that one way of, well, making money, well, two ways. One is to minimize cost and the other is to differentiate or focus. And we saw actually in the meetup investors who were interested in this standard because one way of doing value-based design or one outcome is that you end up with better value proposition. And I think that this is an important way of moving away only from the risk-based approach to actually thinking what kind of measures of success do we want to have in the future. Do we want to still have performance, which is of course important for us for a technical community, or profit, which is of course important for the private sector. How do we incorporate these other two dimensions, the people and the planet dimension? And I think that this is something that we have to discuss collectively. And of course the other incentive is, of course, to satisfy regulatory requirements. We see that now with the AI Act a lot of people are interested in these standards because they anticipate that these will be required. But here is also something where I want to see say, to very much stress that there is a limit on voluntary measures. So we as a technical organization, I think also as a private actors, our business of private actors is not to maintain human rights and democracy and rule of law. Of course they should, we all should be part of it and we should comply with it, but I think that it is, there are certain red lines which have to be decided in a democratic process. And the only way to do, let’s say, a common approach to this is this kind of feedback mechanism. If we want to have something like a global governance, we need to establish these lines of communications, to have standardized way of reporting incidents, to have benchmarking, testing facilities, and have, being here in Kyoto, having something like the International Panel of Climate Change, which actually has an advisory role to governments, to say where is it where we actually need to do something and see if new regulation is needed or if regulation needs to be adapted. As a matter of fact, we are just doing this with the Council of Europe, with one of the applications of artificial intelligence, immersive realities. We are working with them to see what are the possible impacts of human rights of these new technologies.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you very much. I think that you bring a super relevant point about the role of incentive. I will be very happy to hear the take of the other speaker when they intervene about that, because I think it’s a challenge for everyone to identify and align with those incentives in order to bring the process to the right direction. But for now I will turn to Arisa and ask you and your experience as a social science researcher and your activities in that role include facilitating dialogue with various stakeholders. So I think it’s very important to understand what are some of the challenges in conducting that facilitation of the multi-stakeholder engagement with AI governance that you can share with us and how this can be effectively, for example, this learning integrated in the role that IGF needs to play as a facilitator of these discussions.

Arisa Ema:
Thank you very much. So I think the role of the IGF is really important. So I think the role of the IGF is really important. So I think the role of the IGF is really important. The previous session I organized the session and I invited my friends who are actually in a wheelchair however he or she can’t come. So I actually brought the robots, the avatar robots that they can operate from remotely from their home. So I think the role of the IGF is really important. So I think the role of the IGF is really important. So I think the role of the IGF is really important. And this kind of thing kind of connects to the first 17-year-old boy’s question. So it is really important to be connected to all those other stakeholders or the other people with some challenges. So I think it is very important too explanation what happened to the neighbors but to the people who are physically, you know, they can virtually come to these places and make the presentations, interact with others, but in the air the side, in our session, what we discussed is that although we have that kind of system, on the other side, there are many people who are not actually available, so I think it’s really important to, when we are discussing about AI governance, we need to put humans also into this kind of systems, and humans is kind of the most flexible, you know, or maybe resilient to be kind of adopted. So, what I wanted to say is that we need to be more adaptive to all of those kind of the crisis situation or maybe how to say, to be more creative and to be more active. So, what I wanted to expect, what I expect to this IGF forum is that we can talk about the AI governance, but we need to include human, and human-centered is the very key word. So, we need to be more adaptive to all of those kind of issues, but we need to be more creative and to be more active to all of those kind of issues, and I think it’s really important to repeatedly come out to all of this kind of discussion, and like the democracy, the rule of law, or the human rights, so with this kind of topic shared with people, and then it will be kind of connected or the discussion, and I think it’s really important, and I think it’s really important, and I think it’s really important. So, I think it’s not all the interesting and important things being discussed in this panel session, however, maybe the next-step action is discussed outside this room, so with this over the lunch, or maybe having in-person discussion, or maybe just having the tea, so that kind of forum is really important, and because IGF forum is open to everybody, we can talk with the person just by taking a moment, or offering a small room to have the person having a good time with the trovies. I would want to speak at, or like to the IGF to be inclusive and also this kind of in-person and informal communication is really important, and I really appreciate that many people came to Kyoto and also enjoyed the Kyoto.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
So, I would like to invite you to react to the IGF, and I would like to invite you to react to the IGF, because it has so many dimensions, it has the dimension of the different stakeholders, the dimension of the particular situation of vulnerable groups or groups in vulnerable conditions, which is more appropriate, but also has a geopolitical and geographic dimension, and on that, I will invite Tobi-Kiri to react in terms and founder of the IGF and how the IGF can contribute to, for example the interesting dimension of AI governance and how IGF can continue contributing for addressing these kinds of challenges at a big international scale, and that is what we were talking about because this technical

Thobekile Matimbe:
that challenge. Thank you so much. I think I’ll start from a premise of just highlighting that I know that a number of colleagues were not able to be here because of visa issues and I think when we’re talking about inclusion, I think it’s something that we need to proactively think about in terms of how we can make sure that we have inclusive processes but also accessible platforms for those from the Global South specifically. And just going beyond that, I’ll highlight that I think within, you know, the Internet Governance Forum there’s need for, you know, continued engagements and engagements with critical stakeholders and a victim-centered approach to the kind of conversations that happen here in the sense of having everybody, vulnerable groups, well represented in terms of the conversations that happen, especially when we’re looking at AI. I will also highlight that I think an understanding of the global asymmetries, I think it’s something that is important to continue to highlight because we do realize that when we’re looking at, you know, global north versus global south, the different contexts and I think it’s something that I highlighted earlier, the importance of context and I think my colleague here as well highlighted the aspect of understanding the different contexts that are represented within the Internet Governance Forum and I think it’s something that will continue to shape processes even better and also to be able to ensure that we come up with, you know, AI focused, you know, solutions or resolutions that ensure that, you know, no one is left behind when we’re looking at fundamental rights and freedoms particularly and I think just to emphasize that I think definitely this is, you know, a forum that we continue to leverage with regards to advancing So, I think, you know, we need to continue to engage in terms of what we are doing, you know, the promotion, protection, as well, of fundamental rights and freedoms, but also we need to continue to engage in terms of remediation for victims who are likely to suffer the adverse impacts, you know, of design, of technology, and that is something that cannot be overstated, and I will, I think, just, you know, round off by just highlighting that I think we need to continue to highlight that there’s a need to break down the walls. Earlier, I highlighted about the center of power, the centers of power, when we’re looking at AI, and I think the IEGF is that, you know, good opportunity to be able to break down the walls that stand in between the centers of power in a multi, a real multi-stakeholder engagement, where, you know, all voices are heard and no one is left behind.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you very much, and in this same line, Dr. Santer, I invite you to react to this very same issue of, like, how to deal with this diversity of realities and the diversity of processes that are ongoing for dealing with this diversity of realities at the national level, at the regional level, in some cases, as the European Union, that Clara had brought before, but also at the global governance system, some propositions coming from the UN, and creating new bodies for overseeing the governance of Artificial Intelligence, how that also can be approaches from the perspective of a government that is conducting its own efforts at the domestic level for, you know, for, you know, for, you know, for, you know, ways to protect privacy, protections, and democracy, So, you know, within this shared work, what are the efforts at the domestic level for finding the most appropriate way to address the governance of Artificial Intelligence and being inclusive in this, and how those efforts and this experience that is inquiring the government in the process of doing that can be used for the IGF for continue making this global Artificial Intelligence Governance discussions connected and interoperable. Thank you.

Seth Center:
Is the answer yes to that? But how? The tricky question is the how. Let me rewind just a minute to the question of accessible platforms and walk into how I think the IGF can play a role. I think if you get to the end of the governance story and you get it all right, you’re still left with the question of why we care about AI. And I think the answer that I think we believe in the United States, and I think most people in this audience believe, is that you should employ the most powerful technologies to address the most important issues. important problems in the world. And how do you get powerful AI developers, whether they’re companies or governments, although it’s usually companies, to devote time and attention to govern AI responsibly and then to direct it towards addressing society’s greatest challenges? And the answer is the multi-stakeholder community, directing them through conversation, delicate pressure, into thinking about those problems in meaningful ways. A few weeks ago at the UN General Assembly’s High-Level Week, there were a series of events that brought together different parts of the multi-stakeholder community and the multilateral community and countries to talk about these issues. The Secretary of State of the United States co-convened one with a whole series of diverse countries and companies, including OpenAI, and we just simply asked these companies what they were doing to address society’s greatest challenges, defined however they wanted to within the context of the SDGs. And if you open up those conversations and you have them at the UN, you have them in the General Assembly, and you have them at the IGF, if you ask questions about the impact on labor, if you ask questions about what we’re doing to protect children’s safety in the AI era, if we ask about inclusive access, it naturally changes the entire conversation. And so the young gentleman who asked a question about whether or not the multi-stakeholder community could make a policy or not, and I think there was a sense of skepticism, I actually am far more optimistic. Policy is made, at least in democracies, including ours in the United States, by listening to the inputs of everyone. Our entire architecture in the United States for our AI governance framework was built on listening to the multi-stakeholder community in a domestic context. context. The entire architecture for thinking about the voluntary commitments, our most recent one, included extensive multi-stakeholder conversations. And these are the way in which governments in democracies actually formulate policy. No government has the hubris to believe, at least the ones that I’ve talked to, that they understand foundation models and generative AI. They need the technical community, the standard-setting bodies to help them. They need companies and the experts in companies to help them. They need civil society, human rights organizations to help them. And out of that input comes an output, and that output is policy. And then you need governments to actually enforce the policies. And that, I think, is actually where we probably have a bigger challenge. But if you take the step back and you say to yourself, how do we ensure accessibility? How do we ensure collaboration? We should encourage the energy in all of the forums, whether it’s the UK Safety Summit, whether it’s the G7 Hiroshima process, whether it’s the UN’s H-Lab, because we are at the early stages of the next era of AI, and we need all of those conversations at this point in time.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you very much. And I turn kind of a similar question now to the private sector, represented here by James, in terms of, like, you don’t have jurisdictional borders in the offering of your services. I mean, you are binded by different regulatory frameworks in different jurisdictions, but you need to deal with this question about artificial intelligence governance in a way in which you can operate as a company and offer your products and services beyond the borders. So what are the challenges in that perspective, in terms of, like, how you are dealing with the discussions of artificial intelligence governance at this different local and domestic level, regional in some cases, global also, and how bringing some of those challenges to the discussions here in the IGF will be useful in terms of address them for the perspective of the industry?

James Hairston:
Yeah, I mean, you know, start with the first challenge that comes to mind, which is sort of size. You know, we are trying to make sure we are in as many of the conversations that, you know, as we can be in, and, you know, in all regions of the world in every country, you know, cities, states, geographies, they’re important discussions. It’s impossible to be in every room, but I think coming off sort of the recent listening tour that we did around the world, have a great respect for sort of the, just the variance in sort of the needs for these tools, the different restraints that are going to be placed on areas where, you know, hard and soft law will differ, and so just making sure that we are, you know, in the right places, that we’re listening fully, you know, that we’re providing the right sorts of research and technical assistance, I think that’s probably one of the sort of threshold challenges, you know, of just sort of making sure we’re participating in the right ways, hearing and learning in the right venues. Then from there, you know, I think, you know, I think sometimes there’s a discussion about the sort of spectrum of, all right, you know, you have these really important short, medium-term risks as well as sort of some of the longer-term, you know, ensuring safety for humanity, sort of on the road to artificial general intelligence, you know, which is sort of seen as a spectrum and sometimes talked about as if, you know, you have to make a binary choice of either sort of addressing short-to-medium-term harms versus, you know, looking sort of further out into the future and being focused on building the international and domestic systems to solve for those. And you know, we don’t think that’s a choice, like we have to work on both, right? And we as the private sector, as a, you know, as a research lab, have to be contributing to those discussions as countries formulate their laws, but also on the other side of the regulatory conversation as, you know, countries, societies decide how they want to use these tools for good. And so, you know, being in enough rooms, contributing the sort of core research and technical understanding, making sure that, you know, the transparency, the work that we’re doing around our tools is aiding those conversations in as many geographies and for as many communities as possible, it’s a challenge, but it’s a responsibility. And so, you know, again, we just welcome and, you know, sort of being in as many of those rooms and as many of those conversations as we can be.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you very much. And now I open the floor again for reactions and comments from the audience here inside, but also online. Do we have any online?

Moderator 2 – Christian Guillen:
Yeah, sure. Please go ahead. There’s a lot going on, Maria. Let me start with one question from Mokaberi from Iran. Could shaping the UN Convention on Artificial Intelligence help to manage its risks? Do geopolitical conflicts and strategic competition between AI powers allow this at all? And what is or could be the role of the IGF in this regard? And if I may, I would like to seize the opportunity to enlarge the question a little bit also to you, James, because I have the great opportunity sitting next to you. And you being a newbie here at the IGF, not just you as an individual, but representing open AI, what do you think could be the added value of the IGF when it comes to the discussions right now on regulations of AI and governance and do you have the impression open AI could kind of contribute in future times as well? So two questions in one.

James Hairston:
Yeah, no, I mean, absolutely. I think one of the comments earlier just on both benchmarking, like defining what does good look like, I think that’s going to be important just as much from a technical perspective as it is in sort of policy development around the world. And so I think there’s a really important role for IGF and international institutions to really harmonize those discussions and say, these are the benchmarks, these are how we’re going to be grading our progress. And that’s probably where I’d start. Similarly, to address sort of the first part of the question of sort of where we can build on existing work that’s gone. I mean, I think for a lot of these technologies and sort of where we’re heading next, it’s important to build on just the important conventions and treaties, areas of law that we already have in place. And that’s not to say that there won’t be new approaches, new gaps as we’ve been talking about today, but we also don’t necessarily need to reinvent the wheel everywhere. And so take the hard work that’s been done in areas like human rights and draw on that as we sort of figure out the places where we want to set new standards going forward.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you, James. I don’t know, there is any inside question? No, I don’t see anyone. Ah, there, sorry. I’m going to turn it over to Hossein Mirzapour, who is the co-chair of the IGF, and he’s going to talk a little bit about the IGF. Go ahead.

Audience:
Okay. Hello, everybody. This is Hossein Mirzapour from data for governance lab for the record. Thank you for bringing up this crucial issue of how IGF, whether or how IGF can help to deal with AI, specifically the governance and regulation of big data. I’m very proud to be part of the IGF, and you know better than me, we have discussed many times for more than one decade about the governance and regulation of big data, digital privacy, I don’t know, like data governance, and even finally, we didn’t, we were not able to reach a global consensus, a global framework to deal with big data, and we are not able to reach the same regulatory framework and laws, and you can compare now the DSA and DMA in Europe with the way U.S. is dealing with their companies, so my big question to a bit add a spice to your interesting topic is, as far as we have not been able to reach a global consensus and global framework to deal with big data, how can we be optimistic to reach a global consensus and global framework to deal with AI, and you know, well, AI is rooted in big data as well. And just last but not least, I have very quick yes-no question for James, Mr. James, who is representing the private sector today. Right now, is there any emergency shutdown procedure in your company, like, if you, by the case, you find that there is a, like, very emergency danger coming out from your company and corporation for the fines, for example, a pandemic, or, you know, financial crisis, is there any procedure in place right now for an emergency shutdown or not? Thank you.

James Hairston:
I can take that last one, and, you know, when there are we have harm reporting, and we take, you know, security report, and so, if there are admit this dates, with all the we can turn our tools off by geography in that way. I think there are probably many layers to that question beyond just on-off access, but happy to follow up and understand the types of shutoffs that you have in mind.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
You want to react to that?

Seth Center:
Maybe because I’ve never come to the IGF before, I’m not as down as you. I think there’s a tremendous amount of consensus on AI governance. I think obviously the challenge of enforcement and what the regimes look like may be a bridge too far at a global level, but I don’t think that’s an existential threat to the value of these conversations or pursuing an AI governance conversation. For instance, if we were to ask ourselves moving into a future in which foundation models and generative AI will likely subsume narrow AI, what are the kinds of safeguards you would want in place as a governance structure? I think everybody would basically agree. You want some kind of internal and external red teaming. I think you’d generally agree that you want information sharing among those who are developing these models. I think you’d generally agree that for finished models, which are potentially profoundly powerful, you would want some sort of cybersecurity to protect model weights. I think you’d generally agree that you can’t solely trust those developing them to be accountable, so you’d want third party discovery and auditability in some way, shape, or form. I think you’d basically want developers to agree on public reporting and capabilities. I think you’d basically agree that they should prioritize research and safety risk, including on issues like bias and discrimination. In my senses, if you get to the end of this, you’d also basically agree that they should employ these to address society’s greatest challenges. At that level, I’m fairly optimistic that we’re at least going in the right direction.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you. I see two more speakers lined up here. I don’t know if we have some online tool. Can you read the two and so we can have time for the other speakers?

Moderator 2 – Christian Guillen:
Okay, I have. And we post all of them to the panelists so you react. I’ll be very quick. Two questions actually. One from my side to Seth because it’s really pressing and I’m hacking the system right now. But Seth, you said before we have to get all stakeholders involved. I’d be interested in your opinion on the fact that was uttered somewhere here I think by the steering group UN on kind of the analogy of the we need something like the International Atomic Energy Agency for AI. This idea which sounds kind of rude. Do you think that is an adequate idea or not? And maybe I can pose the other online question already. Yeah. That is a colleague, actually a member of the parliament from South Africa who’s asking Willem Faber. Considering that AI technology was developed by humans, could we not explore the possibility of leveraging AI to establish government regulatory systems instead of relying solely on human efforts to find solutions? More of a technical thing.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
So AI regulating AI, basically that’s the proposition. So maybe we can turn for that one to James on what are the take and with Seth for the other one. Yeah.

James Hairston:
Well, one area of I think long-term research, this actually gets back to a question that was raised earlier. I think it’s important to have humans in the loop and the development of systems and then their testing. We’ve talked a lot about red team and audibility. And yet there are a lot of research possibilities around the use of say synthetic data in the future. We’ve been talking about bias and sort of what the future avenues for addressing them might be. And there’s one area of sort of work around the world that I think needs a lot more exploration in sort of how we might create high quality data sets that are derivative of research work by domains to sort of generate the ability to perform all sorts of new tasks. And in that way, you would have information not based on sort of a current corpus of the internet or people’s information that of course involves a lot of human training to get to, but that is derivative and is used to sort of build new capabilities. I think that’s going to show up in the some form, you know, in a lot of domains, and there are pieces of that that are going to require a lot of, you know, monitoring and evaluation, but there are other ways in which sort of synthetic data sets help solve some of the problems that we’ve been talking about. It’s not a panacea, of course, and that what you could use in sort of deconstructing and reconstructing information that tries to resolve gaps in, say, language of the available information we have today, or over- or under-representation of certain regions, or genders, or otherwise, that that synthetic data could then be used and applied to, you know, create personal tutors, or to improve genomics research, or advance our understanding of climate. So the synthetic, again, that’s one area of research, there’s a lot to do there, but I do think as we talk about sort of machine-created data, again, with a lot of humans and a lot of important standards bodies, and research institutions, and government security testers in the loop, there are actually some really, I think, interesting possibilities there, but that doesn’t mean we can just sort of step away and let that happen, so I’ll just leave them there.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Do you want to react to that, Clara, maybe?

Clara Neppel:
Yeah, well, actually we have a working group on defining the quality of synthetic data, because again, we are coming back to define what is good, what is then ethical synthetic data, and yes, I agree with you that actually it is one of the way of providing, let’s say, scientific data to be used for research, and so if you’re using it in that way, I think it’s okay. But coming back to why it is important to think about the global regulation, or global governance, sorry, of AI, coming back to the analogy of electricity, I think that now we have this moment where it is out in the open, and it’s being used in so different ways and different geographies, so we need, now we are coming to Japan, we use a different plug and socket, so we need to have at least a transparency, what is being used there, where is it where we need to adapt, we need to have a kind of, as I mentioned before, transparency in the sense of what… you know, basic information about how these AI models have been used and what is important for that context. And I think that it is laudable that, of course, we have these private efforts to make AI as trustworthy as possible, but it is still something which is closed. So, I mean, some of the things are made open, but it is, again, voluntary. So, we need to have, like, a certain common ground to understand, you know, what we are talking about, what are the incidents, what are the data sets, where is synthetic data being used, what kind of quality of synthetic data is being used. And I think that once it becomes so everywhere, I think that there is a pressure as well to kind of have this, you know, standardized way of understanding the impact of

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
AI. Thank you very much. So, I turn to Dr. Santer for the other question quickly. And after that, I will take one more question from the audience, and I will ask you, all the speakers, to do a round of final remarks so we can start to close. Thank you. Go ahead. So, I certainly think the

Seth Center:
IAEA is an imperfect analogy for the current technology and the situation we faced for multiple reasons. One being the predominance of private sector developers of AI versus state-based questions about nuclear control. The second being questions of the ease and facilitation of verification and what you’re trying to verify and track, I think, is quite different, at least in the era in which the IAEA was developed versus what we’re talking about in the AI era. I think there is one instructive lesson that comes out of the IAEA, however, and that is between 1945 and 1957, when the IAEA was established, was 12 years. And so, as we pound the table and demand action to institutionalize global governance around AI, we should be a little more patient with how this evolves. And I think I’ll leave it there. Actually, I won’t. I will say, look, we do need scientific networks that span countries that are convened to take on these problems, if for no other reason to build shared assessments of risk, to agree on shared standards for evaluation and capabilities, which I think we will need shared international approaches to. And so, I think we should continue to look for the right kinds of models for international cooperation, even if that’s not the right one.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you very much. Please, your question.

Audience:
Yeah. Thank you very much. I’m Christine Mujumba from Uganda, but I’ll be speaking as a mother in this regard, and really advocating for the seven-year-old boy – I think it was from Bangladesh – who asked a question on children. And there have been follow-up discussions on whether such forums have a place in influencing policy. And being from a technical background and many other backgrounds, sometimes I find that we get lost in the high-tech definitions and all that, and we lose the low-hanging fruit of common denominators, such as what we shall all agree, even in our diversity, that we have all been children before. And even in that session before, when we were talking about cybercrime, it came out clearly that we need to protect the future generations. So I think for me, my ask to experts and partners like you, as you have your elevation pitches wherever you are, is not to sort of have the low-hanging fruits come out. If you all agree that you have been children, and we can find a child in us, let’s at least get there in addressing the AI that you want, and maybe these other things we will learn from there to have the inclusive designs you are talking about, whether to buy us things or not. So for me, it was really that plea of let’s find spaces, even in harmonization, in addressing common denominators such as preserving future generations. Thank you.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you very much. I think that was a question, but a comment also. So I invite you to react in a final round. considering this last question, but your remarks in one and a half minute or less. I invite James to start and I will move this direction. Yeah.

James Hairston:
So, just final remarks here?

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
If you want to address some of the last question, and if not, your final remarks. Yes.

James Hairston:
Yeah, no, I mean, again, I think the sort of public and private collaboration on sort of the safety of these tools, ensuring that both on the design side, on sort of the reporting, and in sort of the research we do about how children, other communities are using these tools, how to protect them, how to make sure, you know, even where, you know, tools like ours are not for use for, you know, anyone under 13. You know, understanding how young people and communities that are vulnerable come to these tools, how they interact with them is just going to be an important part of the work ahead, and being responsive to the new research that comes out of sort of the academic community and civil society, and, you know, being able to action reports of crime or of misuse is going to be key. I think in terms of sort of closing remarks, I mean, I think we’re at this important moment, and it’s just going to be essential that we really build on the momentum that, you know, has been put together, whether the work on the voluntary commitments that we very much see as our responsibility to continue to act on and to contribute to the international regulatory conversation and the promotion of long-term safety, that we just, again, sort of continue to get more and more concrete about, you know, where we’re heading, about the sort of international tools that we want to apply to these new technologies, and that we build the capacity both for identifying harms, reporting those harms, understanding what new capabilities are sort of working or putting communities and people at risk, but also what the really, you know, the unique opportunities are here for these types of tools, and those will be different. They will be adopted at different rates. The analogies to, you know, electricity I think is instructive because, you know, there will be different decisions made in education sectors or health sectors and finance and other areas. But, you know, really getting concrete about how we can take some of these tools and apply them to problems for people while also, you know, trying to solve for the long-term harms and risks, I think is going to be important. So I’m really glad to be here and to participate in this discussion.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you very much. Happy to have you. Thank you. Clara.

Clara Neppel:
Thank you. Well, I think that especially when it comes now to generative AI, what will be important is to be as agile as possible, and this will be important to be from the organizational level to the national level to the global level. And I think that for all these levels, we need feedback mechanisms that work. at the organizational level, we have to make sure that these feedbacks are also taken into account for the further development of this foundational model. I agree with you that, of course, it has to take risk into account and it has to be differentiated, but I think that for certain high-risk applications, we have to have conformity assessments, and this has to be done through independent organizations, because there is, again, a different incentive to self-certification than being compliant. I think, as well, that maybe the International Atomic Agency is really difficult as an analogy because we have so many uses of artificial intelligence. I would like to bring back, again, the idea of more of an independent panel, independent multi-stakeholder panel, which, as a matter of fact, should be implemented also for this important technologies, which are acting, basically, as an infrastructure right now. So if it’s a public infrastructure, we also need to have a multi-stakeholder, let’s say, governance for that. Thank you.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you. Maybe more similar to CERN, that Atomic Agency, just another idea. So I will move to Wikileaks for your final remarks.

Thobekile Matimbe:
Thank you so much. I think what is clear from this conversation is that, as human beings, we cannot cede or forfeit our rights to technology, and we need to continue to, I think, emphasize the importance of us remaining with that agency over our fundamental rights and freedoms, and in that way, we will ensure that children’s rights are promoted in the use of AI, women’s rights are promoted in the use of AI. I think we could also center conversations around environmental rights, et cetera, and I think it’s a critical conversation that we need to continue to engage in, and looking at basic concepts such as participatory democracy, I think bringing it into the realm of Internet governance, I think it’s something that we need to also emphasize, that there’s need for participation of everyone, marginalized groups, vulnerable groups. but also ensuring that the processes that we have are actually very inclusive and we have a truthful and meaningful multi-stakeholder approach.

Arisa Ema:
So, thank you. So, I think that the AI governance discussion is really important and also very challenging because the AI itself actually kind of changes and evolves and also the situation changes, the environment changes, and in that sense, the people who we need to involve will kind of expand and never, you know, shrink. So, the more people should be involved in this kind of discussion. And in that sense, in my first remarks, I kind of mentioned that we need some kind of concrete cases and to discuss about what will be the risk, what do you mean by transparency, and what do you mean by how to take the accountability at all. However, as many people as we are going to include, we need some kind of philosophy or, you know, shared concept that we can be united and we can at least collaborate with the same context or the same kind of common understanding or the common concept that we share. So, in that sense, I think these couple of days’ discussion really have kind of come up with various important concepts and the principles, goals, and so I really kind of enjoyed this discussion. And so, the last thing I would like to mention is this is not the end, but this is just like a starting point. And this wouldn’t never end, but I think we can enjoy the process of this kind of exchanges and discussion and we need to be kind of aware of that to involve as many people as we can.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you. And the final words from the speaker?

Seth Center:
You did a great job moderating us and keeping us on time. Thank you. I will sum up my take and theme using a quote from a famous basketball coach about AI governance. Be quick. quick, but don’t hurry.

Moderator 1 – Maria Paz Canales Lobel:
Thank you very much for that. So we’re running out of time. I suppose to summarize a little bit of this rich discussion, but I only will provide the highlight of the takeaways rather than the full takeaway. I think that we have heard the main takeaway that we have heard here from different perspective of the value of this multistakeholder conversation and the value of like making, continuing making it as much inclusive as possible and enjoying of the participation of the people that is already in this room, but also looking for the people that are still outside of the room and thinking about this as a necessary step in what Dr. Shunter was inviting us to be quick, but not hurry. So take the time for listening, different perspective, and take the time to evaluate the different options to address the different challenges. So we talk purposely about artificial intelligence governance because we think there is a broader concept of just regulation or just voluntary guidance or just ethics. It’s a broader aspect, and this is the value of the Internet Governance Forum that we can reach different aspect of the discussion and bring different levels of expertise and also be mindful of all this level of inclusivity and diversity, the one that refer to vulnerable groups, the one that refer to different fields of expertise, and the one that also refer to different geopolitical realities. So as Arisa was mentioning, this is not the end, it’s the starting. Thank you very much for keeping connected with the process, and thank you all my speakers.

Raashi Saxena

After analysing the data, several key points emerge. Firstly, there are concerns surrounding misinformation in Gen-AI tools. Outdated or faulty information has the potential to harm reputations, and the emergence of doctored videos is a significant issue that can lead to gender-based violence harms. This highlights the need for careful consideration and regulation of Gen-AI tools to mitigate negative consequences.

The importance of addressing misinformation in dialogues is emphasised, as it is essential to navigate the threats and advances in AI technology. Including concerns about misinformation in dialogues fosters understanding and collaboration in finding solutions to tackle this issue.

The Indian government, in collaboration with Intel, has taken proactive steps to educate school students about AI through the initiative ‘AI for All’. This curriculum, implemented in central schools, aims to equip students with knowledge and understanding of AI concepts. Additionally, the government has partnered with startup incubators to promote conversations and podcasts about simpler AI concepts, broadening the accessibility of AI education.

Raashi Saxena, a notable figure in the field, is willing to share their AI curriculum and engage in offline discussions, demonstrating a commitment to collaborative exploration of AI.

Diverse participation in an Artificial Intelligence dialogue in India is celebrated, as it includes individuals from various age groups, including a Buddhist monk and housewives. The selection of participants from places with social turmoil and socio-political issues adds depth and perspective to the discussions, enriching the insights gained.

Information provision is highlighted as a fundamental aspect of empowerment. Concrete and accurate data enables people to make informed decisions. Facilitating access to reliable information fosters active participation and engagement.

AI discussions are seen as educational opportunities, expanding participants’ knowledge and understanding. The diverse contributors notably gain valuable insights.

The potential of AI in content moderation is acknowledged for its precision and ability to sift through large volumes of data. AI is considered a valuable tool in addressing harmful content, particularly following the increase in online presence due to the COVID pandemic and concerns about the treatment of human content moderators.

Developers, as key stakeholders in technology, should be actively included in conversations about its role in society. Their perspectives and expertise are crucial in finding solutions and addressing challenges.

Contextualising information according to local needs and languages fosters engagement and response. In India, in-person dialogues in small village settings, coupled with translation into local languages, facilitate more inclusive and fruitful dialogues.

The analysis also highlights that hate speech, misinformation, and propaganda are long-standing issues that technology has made more economical and efficient to spread. Ongoing efforts are needed to address these issues and regulate technology to mitigate their negative impact.

The inclusion of vulnerable groups, such as children and people with disabilities, is emphasised in discussions. It is important to adopt inclusive approaches that consider the needs and perspectives of all individuals, promoting a more equitable dialogue.

The significance of considering different languages in discussions is recognised, as it makes the dialogue more accessible to diverse communities and enables a broader range of voices to be heard.

Finally, the importance of adhering to dedicated time limits for discussions is emphasised to respect participants’ time and ensure efficient conversations.

In conclusion, the analysis of the data provides insights into AI, misinformation, education, and inclusivity. A balanced approach is needed to address challenges posed by technology, information provision and education are crucial, and inclusive dialogues should consider diverse perspectives. AI’s role in content moderation and the engagement of developers in conversations about technology’s impact are highlighted. Contextualisation of dialogue according to local needs and languages is essential, as are efforts to address long-standing issues. The inclusion of vulnerable groups and consideration of different languages promote a more inclusive dialogue. Adhering to time limits is also important.

Roberto Zambrana

In the analysis, it is highlighted that Roberto Zambrana has a neutral stance towards AI and expresses curiosity about what AI itself thinks. This suggests a willingness to engage in a dialogue with AI and consider its perspectives.

Furthermore, Zambrana advocates for a hybrid approach in reaching agreements on general terms and adapting certain topics, regardless of the country. This approach emphasises the importance of flexibility and adaptability in addressing various issues related to AI. This aligns with SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals, which promotes collaboration and cooperation among different stakeholders to achieve sustainable development.

Additionally, the analysis emphasises the significance of education in understanding the concerns and frontline problems associated with AI. Zambrana recognises that involving both citizens and developers in the process can lead to better outcomes. This highlights the need for awareness, knowledge, and dialogue to ensure the responsible and beneficial use of AI.

Moreover, the analysis highlights Zambrana’s support for global dialogues as a means of overcoming barriers and achieving a balanced understanding of AI and metaverses. Such dialogues can foster collaboration and support between countries, helping them overcome challenges and realise the potential benefits of AI and metaverses. This is in line with SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, which seeks to promote technological advancements, and SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals, which emphasizes cooperation and collaboration between different stakeholders.

Overall, Zambrana’s neutral stance towards AI, advocacy for a hybrid approach, emphasis on education, and involvement of the technical community, and support for global dialogues underscore his commitment to fostering responsible and inclusive AI development. These insights serve as a reminder of the importance of considering diverse perspectives and engaging in collaborative efforts to harness the potential of AI for sustainable development.

Audience

In the analysis of the statements made by various speakers, several key points emerge. The first point of concern is the inequalities in access to and understanding of AI and ICT, which should be addressed. Certain populations face issues of inaccessibility and lack of comprehension of AI and ICT, and this disparity needs to be rectified. It is argued that there should be an effort to close the gap and ensure that everyone can benefit from these technologies on an equal level.

On a positive note, it is acknowledged that AI can be used to bring everyone along in global advancement. The potential of AI to drive economic growth and innovation is recognized, and the speakers highlight the importance of using AI to include everyone in the world’s growth. They question what can be done using AI to ensure that the benefits of global advancement are accessible to all.

Additionally, there is a need to balance the advancement of AI and Metaverse design with the prevention of potential problems. It is emphasized that while progress in AI and Metaverse is important, it should not be done at the cost of overlooking potential issues and risks. The speakers argue for a balance between moving forward and preventing problems, highlighting that hesitation to progress can hinder overall development.

The development of metaverse with helpful AI for teaching social-emotional skill lessons to international students is considered important. The speakers underline the need to design and implement a curriculum that incorporates the latest technologies, such as metaverse and AI, to provide effective education to international students. The current teaching systems are often based on standard meeting systems, and the integration of metaverse and AI can greatly enhance the learning experience and improve outcomes.

Global dialogue on AI with different stakeholders is seen as crucial. The speakers mention the importance of sharing knowledge and experiences about the internet, digital technology, and AI from various perspectives. This global dialogue can foster collaboration, learning, and the development of best practices in the field.

The positive impact of digital technology is emphasized. It is highlighted that digital technology helps people in different ways and has the potential to drive industry, innovation, and infrastructure. The speakers acknowledge the role of digital technology in advancing various Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Inclusion of different experiences and perspectives in AI policy and best practices is advocated for. The speakers believe that incorporating various viewpoints and voices in the development of AI policies can lead to more inclusive and effective outcomes. It is argued that a diverse range of experiences contributes to the formulation of AI inclusion policies and the establishment of best practices.

The work of organizations like Mission Public, which engage with vulnerable sections of the population, is appreciated. The speakers commend their efforts to reach out to individuals who are not usually involved in processes such as the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). This outreach to unions and workers is seen as a positive step towards reducing inequalities and ensuring that all voices are heard.

A notable observation from the analysis is the importance of a qualitative approach to understanding the thinking behind deliberations. One speaker suggests that understanding the motivations and thoughts behind each deliberation can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand. It is argued that a more granular understanding of deliberations can be achieved by studying the thought process behind them, thereby fostering more effective decision-making.

Child protection and online safety emerge as critical topics in the context of AI. The speakers emphasize that AI can be leveraged to protect children and ensure online safety. However, they caution that AI can also cause harm, such as the creation of child sexual abuse material digitally. It is stressed that when discussing AI on a global and local level, child protection and online safety should be at the forefront of discussions.

A differentiated understanding of AI applications is deemed crucial. The speakers mention various applications of AI, including content moderation, combating fake news, and detecting copyright infringements. It is argued that having a nuanced understanding of these applications is essential for the effective and responsible use of AI.

The issue of AI bias potentially affecting the validity of information is raised. Concerns about bias in image recognition technologies are highlighted, illustrating how AI can perpetuate biases, particularly in gender representation. It is suggested that biases in AI models need to be acknowledged and addressed to ensure fairness and equality.

The need to strike a balance between regulation and the usage of technology is emphasized. One speaker calls for critical analysis and understanding of technology consumption, rather than relying solely on regulation or fear of using technology. The goal is to ensure responsible use of AI and technology while acknowledging the potential risks and benefits they bring.

Public participation in the implementation of artificial intelligence is seen as necessary. It is argued that involving the public and giving them a voice is crucial for the responsible development and deployment of AI technologies. A speaker highlights the importance of hearing from specialists and considers it a common responsibility to include experts from various fields in decision-making processes.

Proper governance of artificial intelligence is highlighted as essential. The speakers advocate for ensuring that AI is ethically and responsibly governed to prevent issues such as misinformation and fake news. It is emphasized that AI governance is crucial for maintaining peace, justice, and the functioning of strong institutions.

The importance of a uniformed approach in terms of digitalization and AI is highlighted. This includes the need for consistent standards and practices across different regions and countries. It is argued that a uniformed approach to digitalization and AI can help reduce inequalities and promote fair access to technology.

Overall, the speakers highlight the need to address inequalities, strike a balance between advancement and prevention, engage in global dialogue, ensure inclusivity, protect children, promote critical thinking, involve stakeholders, and govern AI and ICT properly. These points emphasize the importance of responsible and ethical development and use of AI technologies to achieve sustainable development goals and create a more equitable and inclusive society.

Antoine Vergne

The analysis explores various perspectives on artificial intelligence (AI) and its implications for society. One notable initiative is the AI for All programme, a collaboration between the Indian government and Intel, which aims to educate school students about AI. This programme is seen as a positive step towards ensuring that young people are equipped with the necessary knowledge to engage with AI technologies.

Opinions on the opportunities and threats posed by AI are divided. Around 50% of the groups believe that AI presents both opportunities and threats, while approximately 30% of the groups see it primarily as an opportunity. This reflects the complexity and multifaceted nature of AI and how it can impact different aspects of society.

There is a consensus, however, on the importance of aligning AI with human rights. Most groups agreed that prioritising human rights in the development and deployment of AI systems is essential. This reveals a shared understanding that while AI can bring immense benefits, it must be guided by ethical considerations and respect for fundamental human rights.

Another area where AI is seen as having significant potential is in research and development. The dialogues highlighted the belief that AI can generate numerous opportunities in this field. This aligns with the broader goal of SDG 9, which focuses on industry, innovation and infrastructure.

The notion of global governance of AI also emerges as a prominent theme. A significant number of participants expressed support for the idea that the governance of AI should occur at a global level. This recognition reflects the global impact of AI technologies and the need for coordinated efforts to address the challenges and benefits they bring.

Sharing experiences and knowledge about the internet, digital technology and AI from different stakeholders, countries and backgrounds is highlighted as being vital. This emphasizes the importance of diverse perspectives in shaping the development and utilisation of these technologies.

The European citizens’ panels, launched by the European Parliament, European Commission and the Council, were viewed as a crucial part of the Conference on the Future of Europe. These panels provided an opportunity for randomly selected citizens to discuss their views and wishes for the future of Europe. This inclusive approach highlights the value of citizen engagement and participation in shaping policy decisions.

Antoine Vergne stresses the need for ordinary citizens’ input in global discussions about internet governance. He highlights the importance of a more open and bottom-up approach to policymaking, allowing citizens to have an impact on policy decisions. This call for citizen involvement in governance reflects the desire for inclusivity and democratic decision-making processes.

The potential for future dialogues on AI and metaverses is also explored. The need to determine appropriate levels of governance and the importance of topic framing are discussed. Antoine Vergne supports the idea of both local and global topic framing for dialogues, recognising the value of context-specific discussions in addition to common global topics.

The analysis also highlights the significance of involving AI developers in global dialogues. By including developers in conversations about AI, not just in their professional capacity but also as citizens, a more comprehensive understanding can be achieved. This emphasizes the need to view developers and AI technology creators as both part of the solution and the challenge.

Global dialogues are seen as an opportunity to promote learning and mutual assistance among countries with different AI capacities. By sharing knowledge and experiences, countries can collectively address the challenges and maximise the benefits of AI technologies.

Inviting ambassadors from each participating country to engage in global-level reflections is considered an ideal approach. This facilitates the sharing of insights and lessons learned from national efforts and encourages international cooperation in addressing common AI-related issues.

Analysing qualitative data from citizen dialogues can present both challenges and benefits. While the process of aggregating and analysing the data may be complex, it offers valuable insights for policymakers and researchers. Artificial intelligence can play a role in making sense of the large amounts of data generated through citizen dialogues, enabling more informed decision-making.

Overall, the analysis reveals various perspectives on AI and its impact on society. It underscores the importance of education, alignment with human rights, ethical considerations, and global governance in harnessing the potential of AI. It also highlights the need for inclusivity, diverse perspectives and citizen engagement in shaping the future of AI technologies.

Antoine Vergne:
Okay. Thank you. So hello, everyone. My name is Antoine Verne. I am working at Mission Publique and we are working on citizen participation. It’s my pleasure today to be with Rashid and Roberto in that town hall to talk about citizens’ engagement and artificial intelligence and the future of it. So maybe Rashid, you want to say a word on yourself and Roberto too, and then we can give you some input and then we will have a discussion and then we can try to understand what could be the next step of such an initiative.

Raashi Saxena:
Thank you, Antoine. Hi, everyone. My name is Rashid Saxena. I’m from Bangalore, India. I was deeply involved in organizing the Global Dialogue back in 2020 on behalf of my country in India. I’m also a member of the scientific committee for the We the Internet project, which we will be discussing further. And I’m really happy to be here and I’m going to pass it on to my colleague, Roberto.

Roberto Zambrana:
Thank you very much, Rashid. I want to welcome as well to all the attendance to this session. It’s going to be very insightful. My name is Roberto Zambrana. I come from Bolivia. I was also involved in the dialogue in Bolivia a couple of years ago and happy also to be part of the scientific commission committee of We the Internet initiative. And well, with that, I think we can go.

Raashi Saxena:
Yes, moving on to you, Antoine.

Antoine Vergne:
Yes. So maybe, Roberto, you can share your screen and so we can have the kind of short presentation on looking back at what we’ve done together and then looking ahead at what we could do together. So it’s about the Global Dialogue on AI and Metaverses. Maybe you can put the next slide. So that was for the program today. And we can start with a short icebreaker. That’s always a nice way to get together. And maybe we can think about next question. That question is if you were able to ask an artificial general intelligence or something very, very advanced, one question, what would that question be? Maybe we can take 10, 15 seconds. And some of you in the room want to share with us or online what that question would be. So think about it. You are in front of a general artificial intelligence and you can ask one question, the kind of, for those who know, the Herschel’s Guide to the Galaxies, that question to the deep mind. You’re in front of deep mind and you can ask one question. What would that question be? Anyone would like to contribute with that? You want to? Sure, sure. We have one here in front.

Audience:
Okay, good morning, everybody. I’m Jane Mananiso, a member of parliament from South Africa. I’m part of the ICT group in parliament. And as well, I’m the WIP of Department of Higher Education and Training, Science, Innovation and Technology. One of my worries with regards to anything that has to do with ICT and AI, and AI, it’s the issue of a forever perpetual inequalities in terms of those who are at the peripherals and as well those who are illiterate. So I want to ask AI, what is it that we can do to make sure that we bring everybody along in terms of the advancement and transformation of a, for AI, be it AR, be it cyber security, cyber crime, and everything that has to do with human rights. What is it that we can do globally to ensure that we bring everybody along? And as we grow our countries and the world, we grow with everybody. Thank you.

Antoine Vergne:
Thank you very much. Thank you, Philippe. Very interesting question. Thanks a lot, yeah. Is there anyone else that would like to go? We have one question from Philippe, which is, can I trust you? So that would be the question that Philippe would ask, would be the trust question. Can I trust you? Other questions in the room? We have a mic there as well, if you want to go, or we can just pass the microphone. Ashley, what did you ask? Thank you.

Audience:
Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I’m Emi Tsudaka from Japan. I am working at a company called OSINT Tech. We use OSINT, we collect a lot of governmental press release in different languages into one language using AI. And we are trying to offer customers to more official and reliable information in English. Yes. And my question and my, what do you say, like question is that when you say design, let’s design the next global dialogue on AI and metaverses. And designing is very, very tricky if we try to avoid a lot of problems. But if we hesitate to move forward, we cannot move forward. So I would like to know the way you think about the balance of preventing problems, but going, move forward to have better world. So that’s my question, that’s. The balance between threats and how we need to advance. Exactly, yes. Thank you very much.

Raashi Saxena:
Thank you. That is a very valid question, given all of the Gen-AI tools that we have and the concerns around the misinformation aspects of it, whether it comes to information being outdated or having faulty information that could have reputational harms to gender-based violence harms with the advent of, I would say, revolutionizing and democratizing doctored videos. So yes, that’s a very relevant question to include in our dialogues.

Roberto Zambrana:
Yes. Any other question, maybe? Someone else, like, yes, please.

Audience:
Thank you. Hello, everybody. I am a high school teacher at a high school called Jiyugaoka Gakuen in Tokyo. And I’ve been trying to develop metaverse with helpful AI and want to teach international students take the social-emotional skill lesson. And we are now trying to develop such kind of a curriculum, but now I’m only using the standard meeting system. And I wonder how we can ask support for the AI developers or the metaverse researchers as a teacher, we need to use those latest technologies so that international students can collaborate together, but we don’t know how to ask for help to people in those research areas. So if you have a suggestion, I would like to collaborate with you. Thank you.

Antoine Vergne:
Thank you very much. I’m not sure if we have a solution, but we could ask the general AI to give us one. That would be one question to ask. Rashi, Roberto, what would you ask that?

Roberto Zambrana:
Well, I think I will ask the AI what the AI think of itself.

Antoine Vergne:
Yes, I think I would ask the same. I would ask the same.

Raashi Saxena:
From a curriculum perspective, the Indian government in their AI strategy has initiated something with, I believe, with Intel. It’s called the AI for All. So basically it’s building curriculum for school students in the central school board to give them education around that. And the Indian government also came in partnership with startup incubators to start podcasts and conversations around simpler concepts of AI. I’m happy to connect offline and maybe that’s of interest to you. But yes, there’s also, Antoine, we could also share the metaverse curriculum or rather the AI curriculum that we had with the dialogue. We’re happy to share that as well with you to keep the conversation going. Thank you very much.

Antoine Vergne:
Very good. So then maybe thanks, Rashi, for the transition. Maybe it’s time to look back at what we’ve done together in 2020. And maybe, Roberto, you can show us the next slide. Sure. So here, the idea what we would like to do is have a look back at a project we did together with many other partners. So on the left side, we have the strategic partners. On the right side, we have the strategic partners too, but in the countries. And on the left side, the strategic partners at a global level. And we formed a coalition and we did the design. So one of the questions was, how do you do the design? And we can talk about that later. We did the design and the implementation of what we called a Global Citizens Dialogue. So what it is, maybe, Roberto, the next slide. And the principle is pretty easy, is we take as many countries as possible over the world or all around the world and in each of those countries, we select a group of citizens, ordinary citizens, citizens that are non-engaged, non-expert, but are selected through random selection or through a system of snowballing to have a group which is representative of the diversity of its country. And so very important is non-expert, non-engaged. These are what we call day-to-day citizens, everyday citizens, ordinary citizens, lay citizens, whatever you want to call them. These are people that live in the country and have an experience of the internet or not, because in some of the countries, we, of course, also have people without internet connection, very important. And we gather them for one day of dialogue. And that day is normally one day all over the world. And they go through different topics. And for each of the topic, they get information. So we were talking about a curriculum. So it’s a very short curriculum in that case, but it’s about the main information on a topic, the main controversies on a topic. And then they discuss on that topic through one or two questions. And those questions guide the discussion. And then at the end, they give a collective answer to that question. So here you see the gender balance of our participants in 2020. So we had around almost 6,000 participants all over the world. And as you can see, we had a very good distribution of ages, good distribution of gender. And maybe on the next slide, you also see the distribution in terms of occupation, which more or less reflects the global population. So that was for us a check to see, okay, what we had in those rooms, in those almost 80 rooms, almost half of them virtual, because it was 2020. So it was in the height of the pandemic. But half of those dialogues were onsite in, yeah, how to say, in face-to-face meetings. So these are for the demographics. One of the session we had, one of the topic was governing artificial intelligence. And we asked the citizens to take a couple of positions and to discuss and collectively to give their opinion on the governance of artificial intelligence. One remark on that, it’s always what you will see after, it’s always what we call the collective judgment. It’s not only the individual opinion, but some of the resonance are also the resonance of the discussion of the groups. And that’s very important for us because we don’t want an opinion poll. We want to understand what people think, when they think. It’s a kind of advanced way of asking the people on complex topics. So, and one of the question we asked, and I’m sorry for the numbers below, because normally it should be 0, 10, 20, 30, but there was a glitch in the numbers. So it’s percentage. And one of the thing we asked the group was to reflect on if they thought that artificial intelligence was more a threat or an opportunity or equally. And as you say, at the end of the day, when they had discussed, the people said, okay, it’s equally an opportunity and a threat, almost half of the groups. And on top of that, around 30% of the groups also said that it was more an opportunity than a threat. So the first results we had was that generally people didn’t see AI as something very, very bad in itself. And it was rather a neutral or positive view on artificial intelligence. So next slide. Then we asked them, and that’s the big advantage of such dialogues is that you can have qualitative work. So we asked them to work on the priorities, which should be the priorities in developing AI systems and AI governance. And as you can see, it was the most, the highest one was it should be aligned with human rights. And then we asked them some questions which were closed questions. So that’s more individual questions in that sense. And here you can see also about the question of ethic and AI. And they had the feeling that, of course, there should be an ethicist involved in all that work in all of the different organizations. Maybe the next one. And that is hard to read, but just I wanted to give you the general impression of that. On that question, we asked the people to tell us, as a group, if there’s more an opportunity or threat in different fields of AI. The last one is where the people had the impression that it would bring the most opportunity and that research and development, science and research. They saw that it was one of the field where it would bring a lot of opportunities and not a lot of threat. Also to explain, all those sentences on the left that I’m sorry are not really readable, but I can give you, for example, the last one, where dilemma, and that’s why we work when we do, and because we are going to discuss about what could be a cycle, a new dialogue on that topic. It’s very important in those dialogues to phrase controversies or dilemmas, because we all know when it’s about to create public policy, to take decisions together, collective decisions, very often what we have is to solve trade-offs, to solve dilemmas, to solve trade-offs. And that’s when those deliberative processes, those citizens’ dialogues work very well. So if I take the last one, for example, or maybe, Roberto, you can start the one before. Can you, yeah, no, no, yes. So the last sentence, and AI brings advances in science and research that are not worth the huge investment needed. We should invest the money elsewhere. So that’s on the left. And on the right, AI brings a lot of breakthrough in science and research, which benefits humanity. So when you see on each of those lines, you had a controversy or a dilemma, and they had to choose. And for example, the first one, where the people thought the most harm would come, is data use is directed by those who want to get profit and exercise power, that is the left part, or data is used and organized for the common good and serves humanity. Here you see that the people all over the world had a more negative view on the use of data and how it would be done. So maybe next slide. And then we also asked, of course, the citizens to who should take decisions, governance, what should governance be done? And we are at the Internet Governance Forum. So it’s interesting to see that for AI, there was a very big part of the citizens that wanted to have a global level discussion and a global level governance for AI more than on other topic. And maybe you can show the next one. Okay, so maybe we can stop here. We can go one back. And maybe Rashi, Roberto, and I see that we also have Desiree online, want to add something on that experience in 2020.

Raashi Saxena:
Maybe we can give a chance to our colleagues online.

Roberto Zambrana:
Yes, we invite anyone online. We have Juliana, then I’m gonna answer. Yes, Juliana, yes. Okay.

Audience:
Hello, everybody. My name is Juliana from Indonesia. Happy to meet all the participants to interesting in AI and global dialogue organized by Mission Public. I think what Antoine presentation is quite clear about what the global dialogue on internet is happen. From my experience from 2020, it is a nice to hear sharing the knowledge, sharing the experience about what the internet, digital technology, and especially about AI in this conversation from different stakeholder, from different country and different background, because I know is that the detailed technology is help people in different ways. And everybody in different stakeholder, different country, different economic situation, it has different experience about the digital technology. And especially, I think what the different experience will bring to the inclusion policy and inclusion, what is it, the best practice for what we should do to have a better world. for the better application of AI in our life. I think it’s enough for me, Antoine.

Antoine Vergne:
Thanks, Juliana. So I’d say Roberto, Rashid, if you want to add something, but then after I can show a second example of a citizen’s dialogue on a related topic, and then we can open the discussion. I wanted to check if Noah is online. I’m not sure if Noah is online. Or anyone else that would like to share with us? Okay, so maybe, Roberto, you can share again the presentation. I can do the second part of the input. Sure. So in here, I will share another experience. This time, it was more done by Mission Publique and less by the coalition, but in a way, it’s a direct, it’s a child of the dialogue and of developments in Europe around citizen participation. And these were the European citizens’ panels. Maybe you can show the next slide. So the context in 21 and 22, we had in Europe a huge process, which was called the Conference on the Future of Europe. And this conference was launched by the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council. And it was about asking citizens of Europe about their views and wishes and recommendations for the future of Europe. And this process was both at national and European level. It was both online and on-site. And one of the key pieces of that process were so-called European citizens’ panels. And those panels worked on the same principle as the dialogue with the internet, meaning we had a group of randomly selected Europeans coming from all EU countries and representing the diversity of Europe, each talking their own language. But that process was different because it was not one day, it was three weekends. So a much deeper process of discussion, but with a smaller group of people because it was 200 in each citizens’ panels. And in 22, 23, we had a new cycle of those panels with three topics, which were policies being prepared by the European Commission. The first topic was food waste because the Commission was preparing a directive on food waste. The third topic was learning mobilities. So the fact that you go abroad to learn and go back to your country because the European Commission was preparing a text on it, a program. And the second, you see it, it was about virtual worlds because the Commission was preparing a non-legislative text, an initiative on virtual worlds. Maybe you can show the next slide. So the next, so yes, basic facts, we had 150 randomly selected citizens with stratification from all over the countries in Europe, three weekends. And we had those citizens discuss with another, so it’s the photo you see on the links. And on the left side, maybe you can show the next slide, and Roberto.

Raashi Saxena:
Actually, in between that, Antoine, Desiree wanted to make a few comments. Yes. If Desiree is still online.

Audience:
I’m here. Hi. Yes, this is Desiree Milosevic-Evans. I wanted to make a few comments earlier on on the findings that you have presented in 2022. I believe that it’s very important, first of all, the work that Mission Public is doing, and that’s why we like to get engaged, to get out to the people who are otherwise not really close to the process of either national IGF or the global IGF. And this is not one of their first priorities to think about. So, from the point of concept, I really always liked how Mission Public tries to reach out to vulnerability section of population, but also of unions, of workers that are going to be really somehow affected by all the policies that we are discussing here. When you pointed out that some of them wanted regulation on a global level versus like regional level, I think it would have been also good to tease out like the motif as to how, why these deliberations happen that way. And if you could possibly somehow also quantify, you know, to understand a little bit the thinking behind it, I would personally find that useful. Of course, moderators that do it at the time of speaking to the groups really know, but I wonder in future it’s how we could present it a little bit, you know, more grain. And that was my only comment with regards to the first set of slides, but let’s continue with this.

Roberto Zambrana:
Thank you.

Antoine Vergne:
Yes, thanks, Desiree, and thanks. I thought you were online because you are also online in the room, so that’s why I wanted to give you the floor online, but you have both. You manage Ubiquiti, so congratulations, Desiree, for that. No, yes, maybe let me finish that from, and then I’ll go back to the question you had, and I think it’s a very important one for the future because indeed there is a lot of feedback on that that we had. So on the European level, the question we had and the commission asked to the citizens what was, what visions, principles, and actions should guide the development of desirable and fair virtual works? And we had them work a couple of weekends and give some recommendation to the commission. And yes, and then at the end, the output of that process was a communication from the commission about what they called Web4. So Desiree, you wanted to talk about Web3. We are with the commission, we are already at Web4 about virtual works. And this is very long, so you don’t need to read it, but it’s part of the official communication of the communication. And what is interesting is that they specifically mentioned the citizens panel as being the inspiration for their legislation. So here in terms of impact of such a citizen dialogue and the continuation of it, we can see what it can become. If you look at the last paragraph, the European commission says the citizens panel specified a set of guiding principles for desirable virtual works. And then they just list the values that the citizens had developed during the citizens panel. What I want to say with that is in 2020, we had a more bottom-up open approach trying to have impact on policymaking. The example I just showed here in 2022, 2023 was more top-down approach from a policy making body asking citizens, ordinary citizens. So you have really to imagine that the people that came to Brussels to take part to that panel were not expert, not stakeholder of internet. They had no clue about what metaverse is. They didn’t know the world. They didn’t know about virtual worlds, but they took the time, they were guided and were able to give recommendations and give the guiding principles they saw as important for the development of such a work. And with that, I would like to close the presentation saying, okay, what now? Yes, maybe the next one. So now, when you have heard that, but we first can have a discussion or we can have an open discussion in the time we have, but our motivation also to have that internal meeting with all the partners is to imagine what could be the future of such a dialogue. What could be a new version of it? Because we are still convinced and I look at Rashid, Roberto and other partners, I think we are still convinced that we need that input from ordinary citizens for the global discussion on those topics. So what could be the topic? And here, I also would like to connect back to Desiree what you were commenting is because what you said, indeed, we asked in 2020, we asked them, what should be the level of governance? So that was a framing to understand if they saw more global governance or local governance. And now, if we want to be more granular, as you said, we also should be able to understand should the topic be the same at global level or adapted to the context? I think it’s exactly what you were starting to explore, Desiree, is if we were to talk about a global dialogue on AI and metaverses, how should the topic be done and should it be a common topic for everyone or more local topic? And that’s the discussion we wanted to have with you. But I give the floor to Roberto, to Rashid to first comment on the presentation and introduce the discussion.

Roberto Zambrana:
Excellent, Antoine. We will manage to receive participants’ participation now. If you agree, now we are asking you if you can have an answer for these questions about first the topic that you think will be relevant to discuss regarding AI, artificial intelligence, and then if it needs to have a context in the country that we develop the dialogue. So those are the two questions, please.

Raashi Saxena:
I can reflect on a bit on the dialogue that we had in India. We did have a very interesting discussion and although a lot of people were not particularly subject matter expertise, I liked how we were looking at a very diverse age group. So we had participation from a Buddhist monk to housewives among the 50s. We also picked up participants from places where there is a lot of turmoil and angst. And I mean, I also come from a country which historically has the largest number of internet shutdowns. So internet connectivity is sparse or there has been internet shutdown for political reasons or otherwise. So what came out from those conversations is that people do have a lot to say and if you provide them with information that is concrete, that has the right data, we need to give them agency to be able to make their own decisions. But in short, it was a very good educational exercise for people to understand and people are, no matter what age, people are always going to be keen to participate and say what they have to say. So from that point of view, I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion as it was more of a literacy exercise which is something we all need.

Roberto Zambrana:
Great, we do have some participation now from the audience, please.

Audience:
Thank you, good afternoon everyone. My name is Katarzyna Stetiva. I represent the Polish National Research Institute and in terms of global dialogue on AI and what should be the main topics, I would definitely recommend child protection, child online safety because it’s a global, it’s a global both phenomenon and problem that there are many harms to children caused in the online environment. And digital artifacts are also stored online of what has happened to children. So AI can serve both as a tool to help in terms of, for example, finding child abusive materials in the big tail of either photos or videos and it can do a lot of harm. If you imagine digitally created material such as child sexual abuse material including visual appearance of an existing child. So we have different sides of the problem but I believe that this is the topic that should be discussed both at the global and at the local level, thank you.

Roberto Zambrana:
Thank you very much.

Raashi Saxena:
That makes a lot of sense when it comes to talking about AI being used for, you said content related to harms because it’s easier given that content moderators and the way they’ve been treated when it comes to their living wages or when it comes to looking at heinous content. Kind of, I would say contracting that to AI that could be more precise could also help in sifting through large volumes of data given that so many people have come in online after COVID. So yes, definitely AI would be a good application until there, next question.

Audience:
Yes, please. Morten, UNU-IGAV. Just to follow on that note, I agree with that but it comes back to also some of the survey results earlier to classical theme. It depends on the type of AI we’re talking about. Is it AI like chatGBT that students are using or we’re using for research or is used by students to cheat the teacher and skip learning experiences? Is it fake imagery? Is it fake news? So it comes back to this classical skill of not just having access but also the critical skills and thinking about what you consume online particularly when we’re looking at deep fakes and the like. ChatGBT, there was an interesting study done I think it was Oxford or MIT on law students. And they actually found that poor performing law students, this is bachelor level law, using tools like chatGBT actually increased their performance. Whereas top performance students dropped in performance because they were leaving things too late. So they started not being as creatively thinking about things as before. And these are university graduates. So there are these differentiations I think we need to make. And it comes back to walking into AI but also the metaverse and virtual realities with open eyes and with critical minds because there are pros and cons to these technologies. ChatGBT scrapes the internet and makes a proposal based on what are the loudest voices there. And if those loud voices are fake news or false information, well, that’s the output. And if you don’t double check as a consumer of these things then we are in a dangerous situation. But again, on the backend used cases to identify fake news, racist and discriminatory use, et cetera, et cetera. Even copyright infringements, there’s a lot of abilities there but there’s still all the classical dialogues and who are in charge of the algorithms. We’ve seen there’s been a lot of bias in image recognition and so forth. So how is that gonna come into this debate? And again, I think that starting with an educated learning and ensuring that we all critically assess what we consume and check alternative sources is part of that solution, not just regulation or fear of using the technology.

Roberto Zambrana:
Correct, yes. Please, if anyone would like to share also in online participants, please, you can raise your hands so we can allow you the mic, please. We have several participants online so you’re invited to. But we have here another comment, please.

Audience:
Okay, thank you. I think what I need to say here is to appreciate the responses after the question that I’ve asked in terms of what is it that I would want AI to respond on. And it was dealt with in depth from the issue of demographics, from the issue of public participation because at times people, they don’t think when we speak AI, you need to bring everybody along. People would speak about specifics, specialists. And I’m happy that now it is clear that when you speak about anything that speaks about transformation, you need to have a public participation. But I’m happy as well that in some of our participant, it comes out loud to say there’s a need of a continuous civic education in terms of AI. And I think what we need to do is not to shy away from the fact that AI governance, it is important. So that you deal with the issue of command and control, that nobody can just spread anything that has to do with any news, so that you deal with misinformation and fake news. So it is important that AI is governed properly well. And as well, I think that the issue of uniformity, irrespective of where you are nationally, locally, it’s something else. But having a uniformed approach in terms of digitalization and AI, it is important, not forgetting the fact that we all have different languages, but the content must not change. Because one of the things that makes us not to be in par in terms of developmental issues or studies, it is on the basis that when you come from America and I come from South Africa, our standards are not the same. And the contents change based on the issue of the country. But if we can agree that when we speak on the issue of artificial intelligence, we must remain in terms of the same content, I think we’ll deal with many issues that might affect progress in terms of 4IR revolution. Thank you.

Raashi Saxena:
Thanks, I think Dusty also had a few comments.

Roberto Zambrana:
So that will be a hybrid approach, meaning that we need to agree on general terms, independently of the country, but to adapt somehow a particular topics inside. Okay, great. Anyone else in the room, please?

Raashi Saxena:
I think Dusty had a few comments.

Roberto Zambrana:
Or online?

Antoine Vergne:
I have no question, no feedback online. And so for the moment, no.

Roberto Zambrana:
Maybe we have another comment, please. Okay.

Audience:
So I wanted to follow up on what the previous participant commented on the number of solutions, perhaps it led to that as well. With one of the questions one should be asking is what kind of AI implementation? should it be? And as it’s been mentioned earlier on, at the moment there’s like a plethora of many models of AI being developed, not just the chatGBT, but also the training data sets are being developed. And there is, you know, different kind of open source AI models, as we have heard in the main session, the father of Internet, supporting the open source, open sourcing some of these models, AI models that are being developed. But in that light, I also wanted to say that it’s important when we present these choices to people who are not expert in the fields, to also always give them some kind of understanding in trade-offs. So for example, maybe one example would be, you know, there could be an offset if only too few companies end up being the owners of the best data sets and having the more powerful algorithms. And on the other hand, open source could make many more models, but it comes down to many other things, like the size of the data set, whether it’s biased, if you do a search for who are the CEOs of hospitals in the world, it’s always a man. Is it true? No, it’s the wrong data set. And it’s not easy to fix that code in a line to say there are CEOs of hospitals in the world that are not only men, just a plastic example. But with the thought of whether it should be proprietary or open source AI models or training data sets, which are now more and more available, I think it’s also important to think about the guardrails that are built into some of these big proprietary models. That means that should be not allowed hate speech or, you know, they have these kind of constraints that are built in that are good in this. So you can control, maybe easier, regulate fewer of these instances of AI, whether they check GPT or something else. And on the other hand, open source, we think we would not be bound to just use a couple of these models. So there are these certain trade offs that in open source, it’s not open source unless you can modify. So you can, for example, modify that you allow hate speech. And then we ask ourselves, is this really artificial intelligence that is simulating human intelligence? If it’s intelligent, it should not be really suggesting propagation of hate speech and so on. And then there is a set of copyright issues as well. So there are all these, you know, questions that we could work on, because there is a rapidly growing set of developers that are making sustainable AI models and different kind of GPTs.

Roberto Zambrana:
Thank you. Thank you very much. One last round, if anyone, please. Yes, there is one comment. Thank you for a very inspiring presentation and comments. I’m

Audience:
Emi from Japan. I’m working for a private company right now, but involving educational arena as well, to provide reliable information from global governments, various governments. I really understood the participatory process is crucial in this topic. And now I have one new question that the developers should be involved in such participatory process. In order to, I feel like educating citizens as well as educating developers, maybe educating, the wording is not really what I mean, but to understand the concerns and also to understand the frontline problem is beneficial for both of us. So I feel, you know, understanding and educating and learning from both of the field is very important. And if I, so far, I don’t know such cases. So, yeah, I have my desire to know more about that. Thank you very much.

Roberto Zambrana:
Thank you very much. And indeed, a very important part of the dialogues will include the, I mean, not only the developers, but all the technical community that will be related to AI. It’s very important that. So thank you for that comment as well. I also wanted to make, in terms of people talk about… Yes. Sure. It’s from, yeah, it’s from Philippa Smith, right? Yeah. I’m just wondering whether a worldwide question might tackle digital divides and how this might impact on the understanding and use of AI from a global perspective. How can a global dialogue assist countries to support each other to overcome barriers so that there might be a balance in understanding and use of AI and metaverses? That’s a question that Philippa asks. I mean, AI is a tool to help with the dialogue, which has low connectivity. Is that the question? How can this dialogue can support to overcome barriers so that there might be a balance in understanding and use of AI and metaverses? So how the dialogue contributes to this? Do you want to take that one, Antoine?

Antoine Vergne:
Yes, thanks. But before that, I wanted to make a comment on Amy’s question about developers. And I think it’s really, really important indeed. And that’s something we need to extend the scope of that kind of dialogue, because they are part of the solution and the challenge. And maybe one example of something we managed to do in 2015, we had such a dialogue at global level on the climate agreement in Paris. So the same principle all over the world, groups of citizens and the question about the Paris agreement, information materials on that and discussed and gave their opinion. And in parallel to that, we did one process with employees from Engie. And you may know Engie is one of the big, big energy company at global level. And we had a process for their employees. So we had thousands and thousands of employees from Engie taking part in the same exact same dialogue as the citizens. And so the interesting part was they were as citizens, but also employees and stakeholders of an energy company. So it was very interesting to see that they had that double hat. I work for an energy company, but I am a citizen. And it was a very interesting thing. So thank you for reminding that indeed, having developers, having people that do also the technology is very important to address them not only as in their job, but also as citizens in such a process. So I think it’s yeah, thank you for that comment. And then we have a clarification from Philippa, I see about the. OK, and I don’t know if you see it, Roberto, but she says how countries that are more capable can assist others that might have issues through a dialogue. And so how can the dialogue assist the learning and mutual learning of different countries with different capacity?

Raashi Saxena:
We did that in India. In some places, we did two dialogues in places that are more remote where I wouldn’t say that the Internet penetration is low, but generally talking about digital literacy or these or these topics are usually not approached. And we those were the dialogues happened during the peak pandemic period. So we did have two in-person dialogues in small village settings where we trained a lot of journalists to be able to lies with and get outputs. And we realized that the format that we had might not have been the best. We might need a better way of contextualizing that information. We did localize it in terms of translating it into the local languages. India has a lot of languages, but we feel like maybe a more storytelling format with a few UI and UX experts testing out different ways to be able to evoke responses because that’s not something that they’re used to. People are not used to talking that long and pondering about those topics. So maybe there needs more time. But yes, there was something that was tried. And I’m sure there are other examples across the world that would have also worked. But also coming back to the question of developers, yes, developers need to be actually central to conversations like this to have, I would say, a more conscious and moralistic bent to this. At the end of the day, they’re humans. And also to also for all of us to reflect and see that all of these issues that we talk about, hate speech or misinformation, they’re not new phenomena that have been there because of the advent of technology. They’ve always been there. They’ve always had different modes. Sometimes you’ve had more expensive infrastructure to be able to enable these phenomena. But now you use technology which has made it more economical and cheaper and easier to, you know, spread propaganda. But yes, developers should be at the center of the conversation. Thank you for

Roberto Zambrana:
highlighting that. Yes, maybe a follow-up about a question from Felipe after she clarified about this. Yeah, we agree. She wasn’t taken as a tool. And this, we need to remember that this process is initially or mainly locally. So it’s between the citizens of each of our countries. But I will say, I don’t know what you think, Antoine, but maybe after we, as part of the results of the dialogues, we gather all the results, all the conclusions in each of the dialogues, we can have a sort of a round between coordinators of each of the countries to comment and maybe to identify which are the common topics as priorities that could be presented in the different instances that we need to share the reports, something like that. In that way, I think we can accomplish what it was suggesting and to actually have as a return this support coming from the countries that have more experience maybe in particular topics, assisting some others that don’t. So maybe that could be a good idea. What do you think, Antoine?

Antoine Vergne:
Yeah, that would be fantastic. And if I dream a bit, the next, of course, next piece would be to invite ambassadors from each country, from the participating citizens together at a global level to also reflect on their own results. And I think that needs a stronger infrastructure for the dialogue, but I think that would be fantastic to have that step and to be able to aggregate at different levels those results, because I think that’s one of the key that it’s very qualitative data. So it has the advantage of being that you can search a lot into it and understand why people say what they say. But at the same time, it’s the challenge, because indeed you have to analyze it. And maybe it’s where artificial intelligence can help indeed make sense of the data the citizens produce through such a dialogue, because until now, the analysis was human-made. And so maybe there is a full circle here to have AI help us understand what people say about AI, and that would be a nice way to have a circle and a connection between AI and citizens’ dialogues. It’s too far to the hour, so I think we can conclude if I get it right.

Raashi Saxena:
We have one question from the audience here.

Antoine Vergne:
Yes, okay. But I don’t know the timing, so I let you in the room get the last round of questions.

Roberto Zambrana:
The good thing is that we have the lunch after this, so we can have a license to extend a little

Audience:
bit. Please, Mark. Thank you, Roberto. Thank you, Antoine. Mark Carvell, Internet Governance Consultant. I was previously with the UK government. It’s not a question, really, but it’s just a point of information. And it may have cropped up earlier, because I arrived late for this session from the main plenary session on the Global Digital Compact. But I know from my association with Project Liberty, McCourt Institute, that they are participating in a focus group on metaverses at the ITU, and there are a number of working groups at the ITU on metaverses. And I think that is potentially a channel for contributing to the citizens’ aspects of this evolution of the convergence of immersive technologies with Internet technologies that’s going to be so transformative into those discussions. I think from what I understand, that they are valuable, quite wide-ranging, and Project Liberty’s particular interest is on decentralizing these technology platforms, on ensuring that they are properly respectful of ethics and rights and so on. So, I offer that as a piece of information. Yes. Conclusion here. I hope that’s helpful. Thank you.

Roberto Zambrana:
It really helps. Actually, we were talking about AI during the whole session, but of course, it wasn’t just that, but also some other emerging technologies like the metaverse. So, thank you very much, Mark, for that. I think we’re getting to the final moment of the session. And if we don’t have any other comment, maybe we can wrap up.

Raashi Saxena:
Yes, we can. Thank you. But I do believe we have one person. Maybe I’ll just take a room around and see if there’s anyone who has any last comments. Anyone at all? Anyone else wants to go? Can you give her the mic, please? Thank you.

Audience:
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to provide you with a final comment. A lot has been said on inclusion of developers and society and so on, but I do believe that it’s a strongly interdisciplinary issue. So, there must be a place for every single specialist who has something to say. And by this, I’m relating to the metaverse and instances because I originate from child protection environment. So, we have to benefit from what we know from the past and the research, and we have to check what is going on now. So, we need to make a bridge between the past, the present, and we need to listen to experts and specialists, such as, again, developers, sexologists, practitioners, policy makers. So, it’s a common responsibility, I would say. And by not including an expert of a particular field, we may simply overlook an important contribution. So, there is really, I think this room is a good example that there are many people from different environments, different angles, and we learn from each other. And this is the

Roberto Zambrana:
only way to proceed. Thank you. Correct. Correct. Yes. And of course, the learners, the teachers, and also not necessarily experts in a field, but also users of the technology.

Raashi Saxena:
Okay. There was one last comment that I also wanted to mention that we talk about children. There are other vulnerable groups, like people with disabilities, who should also be taken into account. And also, of course, different languages. And then, yes, we can go on and on. We should come to a halt. We don’t want to take away anyone’s lunchtime, but thank you so much for joining us. And yes, Roberto and I are going to be around at the IGF. I’m happy to take more questions, happy to have more discussions. And yeah, with this, we come

Roberto Zambrana:
to a close. Thank you. Yes. If you want, I don’t know, maybe Antoine would like to say goodbye as

Antoine Vergne:
well. Maybe just one. So, really, thank you for being there. But one thing is our intention is to not stop involving citizens into those discussions. So, if you’re interested in joining us in that effort of thinking about it and making it happen, we are open. We would love to discuss with you on how to do that together. I think. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli

The analysis provides insights into various aspects of cybersecurity and cybercrime, including the relationship between global initiatives and national regulations and activities. It examines the need to enhance the link between global and national policies in this area. The analysis also highlights the role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in facilitating multi-stakeholder discussions on cybersecurity initiatives. It emphasizes the importance of IGF in providing a platform for ministers, industry experts, and civil society representatives to engage in discussions and exchange ideas on cybersecurity.

Another proposed solution discussed in the analysis is the creation of a database of cybersecurity experts for knowledge sharing. Efforts have been made to develop such databases within the Organization of American States and through the United Nations’ open-ended working group on cybersecurity. The aim is to facilitate information exchange and collaboration among different countries and regions.

The analysis also mentions the agreement on the need for a pool of knowledge to aid in dealing with cybercrime. Olga Cavalli, a contributor in the analysis, supports the idea of having a knowledge pool to enhance capabilities in tackling cybercrime.

Furthermore, the importance of dialogue and cooperation in leveraging technology is emphasized. Active participation, interaction, learning, and sharing information are highlighted as key elements in harnessing the potential of technology. The analysis advocates for trusting in human skills and potential in the context of technology.

Overall, the analysis reveals the interconnectedness of global initiatives, national regulations, and activities in the field of cybersecurity and cybercrime. It underscores the significance of multistakeholder dialogues, knowledge sharing, and cooperation in addressing these issues effectively. The positive sentiment expressed throughout the analysis signifies a collective belief in the potential of these approaches in building more secure and resilient digital environments.

Katitza Rodriguez

The discussions on cybercrime and cybersecurity highlight the importance of finding a balance between security and the protection of privacy and human rights. However, the current UN Cybercrime Treaty is viewed as counterproductive and potentially undermines privacy rights. It focuses primarily on enhancing law enforcement powers, with minimal attention given to strengthening systems and networks at a technical level. Additionally, certain provisions within the treaty could criminalise the work of independent security researchers and allow governments to force engineers to compromise security measures, potentially violating privacy.

To address the challenges of cybersecurity, it is suggested that systems and networks need to be strengthened at the technical level. This would require better incentives to encourage the development of more secure software, devices, and networks. Legal protections for security researchers are also necessary to ensure their work in identifying vulnerabilities and improving security is not hindered. Furthermore, there is a need for enhanced education and information sharing about threats, vulnerabilities, and solutions among users and developers.

One of the major concerns with the current UN Cybercrime Treaty is the lack of adequate safeguards and disparities in privacy protections across different countries. The treaty places mandatory powers for criminal investigations, while the safeguards remain optional. This opens the door for potential abuses and compromises privacy rights. The variation in privacy protection across countries also raises concerns about meeting international human rights standards, as international cooperation in dealing with cybercrime may depend on the privacy protection provided by the assisting country’s national law.

Another argument presented is that there should be a minimum baseline for privacy protections in the UN Cybercrime Treaty. It is suggested that treaty-specific safeguards should be put in place to protect and establish a baseline for international cooperation. Currently, there is a significant disparity in the level of privacy protections and human rights from one country to another.

Companies also play a crucial role in upholding human rights. It is argued that companies should have grounds to refuse cooperation if a request is disproportional or violates human rights law. The broad scope of the treaty may lead to potential abuses, and companies need the ability to deny cooperation on grounds of human rights violations.

Overall, the discussions on cybercrime and cybersecurity underscore the need to ensure that human rights and privacy are not compromised in the pursuit of security. The current UN Cybercrime Treaty lacks adequate safeguards and may potentially violate privacy rights. Strengthening systems and networks at a technical level, providing legal protections for security researchers, and enhancing education and information sharing are seen as positive steps. A minimum baseline for privacy protections is necessary, and companies should have the ability to refuse cooperation if it violates human rights. Upholding human rights and promoting international cooperation are essential in effectively addressing cybercrime.

Ernesto Rodriguez Hernandez

There is increasing concern regarding the development of cyber offensive capabilities and the legitimacy of using force in response to cyber attacks, particularly for certain states. These states have included offensive cyber weapons as part of their national security strategies and doctrines, considering the use of force as a legitimate response to cyber attacks. This trend raises questions about the potential implications and consequences of such actions in international relations and security (keyword: cyber offensive capabilities, legitimacy of using force, national security strategies, international relations and security).

The misuse of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and media platforms has emerged as a significant threat to nations. Individuals, organizations, and states are covertly and unlawfully exploiting computer systems to carry out attacks. These activities can potentially trigger international conflicts. Moreover, social networks and electronic broadcasts are being used as tools for interventionism, promoting hate speech, incitement to violence, destabilization, and the dissemination of false information and fake news. This misuse of ICTs and media platforms not only endangers peaceful relations but also undermines principles of justice and strong institutions (keywords: misuse of ICTs, media platforms, international conflicts, hate speech, incitement to violence, destabilization, false information, fake news).

To address these challenges, it is suggested that countries commit to using ICTs for peaceful purposes, fostering cooperation and development. A global commitment should be established, encouraging nations to utilize information and communication technologies for the betterment of society. Additionally, implementing technical assistance mechanisms to exchange good practices can enhance international cooperation in this domain (keywords: peaceful use of ICTs, cooperation, development, technical assistance mechanisms, international cooperation).

In addition to commitments and cooperation, the development of a legally binding international instrument is necessary to bridge the gaps in cybersecurity. This instrument should complement existing international law and effectively address the growing challenges and threats in cyberspace. International cooperation is crucial in tackling these issues and ensuring stability and security in the digital realm (keywords: legally binding international instrument, cybersecurity, international law, international cooperation, stability, security).

It is also acknowledged that existing international laws need adjustments to encompass cyberspace adequately. Given the highly dynamic nature of cyberspace, traditional laws may not cover emerging issues. Thus, a binding regulatory framework is needed to establish clear standards and criteria for cyber activities. Additionally, violations of treaties and conventions should be effectively addressed to maintain the integrity and security of the digital world (keywords: existing international laws, dynamic nature of cyberspace, binding regulatory framework, standards, criteria, violations of treaties and conventions).

The complexities involved in maintaining good cyber practices and the violations of treaties and conventions highlight the need for comprehensive solutions. It is important to address the challenges faced by both developing and developed countries in the digital arena. Developing countries, in particular, face difficulties due to the digital divide, leading to disparities in accessing information and financing for development. Bridging this divide and promoting equal opportunities for all nations is crucial for achieving sustainable development and reducing inequalities (keywords: good cyber practices, violations of treaties and conventions, digital divide, equal opportunities, sustainable development, reducing inequalities).

The importance of discussions and consensus-building regarding cyberspace-related topics is crucial. Continued dialogue among nations and stakeholders is necessary to navigate the complex landscape of cyberspace and develop shared norms and principles. Such discussions can help establish conventions that promote the development of all peoples and safeguard global interests (keywords: discussions, consensus-building, cyberspace-related topics, shared norms and principles, conventions, development of all peoples, global interests).

Lastly, it is important to recognize the time constraints involved in addressing all the issues in the world of cyberspace. The rapidly evolving nature of technology and the increasing threats in cyberspace pose significant challenges. While it is essential to strive for comprehensive solutions, it is also prudent to acknowledge the limitations and prioritize actions that can have the greatest impact in mitigating risks and promoting a secure and peaceful cyberspace (keywords: time constraints, rapidly evolving nature of technology, comprehensive solutions, mitigating risks, secure and peaceful cyberspace).

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the pressing need for regulations and international cooperation to address the growing challenges in cyberspace. This includes concerns about the development of cyber offensive capabilities, the misuse of ICTs and media platforms, and the gaps in current cybersecurity measures. Adopting a binding regulatory framework, adjusting existing international laws, bridging the digital divide, and fostering dialogue and consensus-building are vital steps towards creating a safer and more inclusive digital environment. (keyword: regulations, international cooperation, cyber offensive capabilities, misuse of ICTs, media platforms, cybersecurity measures, digital divide, safer and more inclusive digital environment).

Elizaveta Belyakova

The protection of children from cyber security threats and cyber crime is highlighted as a crucial matter in the collection of statements. The creation of the Russian Alliance for the Protection of Children in the Digital Environment demonstrates the commitment to address this issue. Furthermore, the issue gained recognition at the 2023 BRICS Summit, where participating countries pledged to take action to secure a safe digital environment for children. Major IT companies are urged to commit to initiatives aimed at mobilizing the public to protect children on the Internet. The Russian IT society has already taken voluntary steps in this direction. Additionally, the Digital Ethics of Childhood Charter was established to establish ethical principles regarding children’s online safety. A major concern expressed in the statements is the threat of sexual exploitation and abuse of children on the Internet. Disturbingly, a UN statistic reveals that 80% of children in 25 countries reportedly feel at risk of sexual abuse or exploitation online. The We Protect Global Alliance goes as far as to describe the easy access to child sexual abuse material online as a “tsunami.” The need for data exchange pertaining to the localization of harmful and dangerous material, as well as information on new criminal methods and attacker details, is stressed. In 2022, the removal of 1,126 units of content relied on a hash database with the involvement of major players in the UK IT market. Furthermore, joint efforts and open discussions are considered essential in protecting children from cyber threats. Elisaveta, a prominent figure, emphasizes the significance of collective actions in safeguarding children against such threats. In conclusion, the protection of children from cyber security threats and cyber crime is a pressing issue. The establishment of organizations such as the Russian Alliance for the Protection of Children in the Digital Environment and voluntary commitments by major IT companies demonstrate progress towards securing a safe digital environment for children. However, the prevalence of sexual exploitation and abuse online remains a distressing concern, necessitating further action and cooperation.

Folake Olagunju

The analysis conducted on cybersecurity in the West African region reveals several key findings. One major issue is the lack of national and regional coordination to effectively combat cyber threats. This coordination is crucial for developing and implementing comprehensive strategies that address the complex challenges posed by cybercrime. Due to resource limitations on technical, financial, and human fronts, the West African region is ill-equipped to tackle cybersecurity effectively.

Another important aspect highlighted in the analysis is the insufficient allocation of resources to the cybersecurity sector. Many member states do not have dedicated budget line items for cybersecurity, which hampers their ability to invest in the necessary tools and technologies needed to protect against cyber threats. Additionally, there is a shortage of qualified personnel in the region, further exacerbating the problem. Furthermore, the weak critical infrastructure in West Africa makes it particularly susceptible to cyber attacks, with frequent power outages and telecommunication disruptions already being commonplace.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought necessary attention to the importance of cybersecurity and digitalization. As member states were forced to adopt digital solutions to meet the daily needs of their citizens, the conversation around digitalization security increased. This shift has highlighted the need for robust cybersecurity measures to safeguard critical systems and protect personal data.

The analysis also emphasizes the need for increased cooperation, information sharing, and involvement of the private sector in cybersecurity efforts. Peer-to-peer cooperation between member states is crucial for effectively combating cyber threats. Elisabetta, a prominent figure, stressed the importance of data exchange for child protection and overall cybersecurity. Furthermore, the analysis suggests that incentives for workers and partnerships with the private sector can significantly improve the cybersecurity landscape in the region.

The approach taken by the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFC) in collaborating with regional economic communities, such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), is commendable. The GFC aims to enhance capacity building in the region through such partnerships, which aligns with the goals and needs of the West African countries.

While global best practices in cybersecurity are valuable, the analysis highlights the need for local adaptations. Cybersecurity practices from other regions, such as the US, may not be directly applicable in West Africa without considering the local context and challenges. Therefore, promoting a practical approach to cybersecurity and encouraging local adaptation of global strategies are essential.

To address the issues surrounding cybersecurity in the region, a joint platform for advancing cybersecurity in West Africa was launched under the G7 German presidency. This program aims to establish an Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC). The establishment of such a center is considered an excellent approach to enhancing information sharing and cooperation among stakeholders.

In conclusion, the comprehensive analysis of cybersecurity in West Africa underscores the urgent need for action. Promoting a cybersecurity culture, improving communication, coordination, and cooperation at both national and regional levels, and prioritizing resource allocation are vital steps to effectively combat cyber threats in the region. Additionally, the analysis highlights the significance of local adaptations, capacity building, and the involvement of the private sector in addressing cybersecurity challenges and protecting critical infrastructure.

Christopher Painter

The analysis explores various arguments surrounding cybercrime negotiations, stakeholder involvement, capacity building, cybersecurity, emerging technologies, and the digital economy.

One of the key points highlighted is the need for expertise in cybercrime negotiations. The analysis suggests that negotiations often lack input from experts who understand the real challenges on the ground. It further notes that the current model of negotiations, which is primarily built for countries, tends to involve a lot of geopolitical issues. This argument highlights the importance of including expert knowledge to develop effective policies to combat cybercrime.

Another argument put forth is the crucial involvement of stakeholders outside of government in cybercrime discussions. The analysis emphasizes that there is a wealth of outside expertise and insights available, and bringing in this expertise is essential for creating effective policies. This argument recognizes the need to involve various stakeholders such as industry experts, civil society organizations, and academia to ensure a more comprehensive approach to tackling cybercrime.

The analysis also addresses the growing international issue of cybercrime. It notes that cybercrime, particularly ransomware attacks, has significantly affected people’s daily lives, making it a pocketbook and backyard issue for many individuals. Additionally, cybercrime has become a political priority for countries around the world. These observations underscore the urgency of addressing cybercrime as a pressing global challenge.

In terms of cybersecurity, the analysis highlights the need for sustained attention to this issue. It acknowledges that cybersecurity has matured as a policy concern but identifies the challenge of bridging the gap between the political level and the practitioner level. The analysis suggests that ransomware attacks have helped raise the profile of cybersecurity and the importance of protecting against new and existing threats.

Furthermore, the analysis touches on the issue of policymakers feeling intimidated by technical issues. It points out that policymakers often struggle to understand complex technical concepts, which can hinder effective policymaking. However, the analysis argues that technical concepts can be understood by non-technicians if they are adequately explained. This highlights the importance of effective communication and education to bridge the gap between technical experts and policymakers.

Capacity building is also identified as a key aspect in the analysis. It highlights that countries, especially developing ones, require assistance in dealing with cybersecurity threats, building national strategies, establishing emergency response teams, and applying international norms and laws. The analysis praises the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise for coordinating capacity-building efforts worldwide.

Notably, the analysis observes the importance of not losing sight of the larger cybersecurity issue amidst the focus on emerging technologies. While emerging technologies are part of the problem, it is crucial to maintain a holistic approach to cybersecurity.

In conclusion, the analysis provides insights into various aspects of cybercrime, cybersecurity, stakeholder involvement, and capacity building. It underscores the need for expertise in cybercrime negotiations and involving stakeholders outside of government. The analysis highlights the urgency of addressing cybercrime as a global issue and the necessity of sustained attention to cybersecurity. It also emphasizes the importance of adequately explaining technical concepts, capacity building efforts, and maintaining a balance between addressing emerging technologies and the larger cybersecurity challenges.

Audience

The analysis encompasses a range of important discussions relating to cybersecurity, digitalisation, international law, knowledge-sharing, and solar technology. One notable point emphasised is the need to effectively utilise emerging technologies to enhance cybersecurity measures. This argument underscores the importance of staying ahead of cyber threats by employing advanced technologies. Policymakers are urged to prioritise cybersecurity and treat it seriously.

The significance of cybersecurity is further underscored by research findings which indicate a potential increase in a country’s GDP per capita with the maturity and implementation of robust cybersecurity measures. This evidence demonstrates the economic benefits that can be gained through investing in cybersecurity.

The debate surrounding the need for a legally binding instrument to govern responsible state behaviour in cyberspace is another key aspect addressed. While international law is already deemed applicable in cyberspace, there is a call for a specific instrument to address the complexities and unique challenges of cybersecurity. The involvement of stakeholders such as the technical community, civil society, and international law firms is viewed as crucial in shaping this instrument.

The analysis also highlights the importance of knowledge-sharing in the context of cybersecurity. It suggests the creation of a worldwide knowledge pool accessible to individuals across different regions, including Africa and South West Africa. The inclusion of non-technical aspects, such as social, psychological, and gender considerations, is emphasised as essential in developing comprehensive cybersecurity strategies.

In terms of infrastructure development, the potential of using solar technology to address the electricity gap in West Africa’s telecommunications sector is explored. This could potentially provide a sustainable solution to power critical telecommunications infrastructure.

Another important topic in the analysis is the need for specific measures to ensure the safety and security of children online. It is argued that a holistic approach to cybersecurity may not effectively protect children, and a more targeted and comprehensive approach is required. This includes the building of children’s capacity through internet governance and digital literacy initiatives.

The importance of cross-border collaboration in addressing cybersecurity challenges is also highlighted. Given the transnational nature of cyber threats, regional and international cooperation is deemed crucial to effectively counter cybercrime. The analysis suggests the involvement of organisations like Interpol for effective collaboration.

Lastly, the analysis suggests that instead of establishing a new convention or treaty on cybercrime, it may be more practical and efficient to focus on improving or expanding the role of existing organisations such as Interpol. This approach could lead to more effective outcomes in combating cybercrime.

In conclusion, the analysis provides a comprehensive overview of various topics related to cybersecurity and related fields. It emphasises the need for the effective use of emerging technologies, the importance of policymakers’ attention to cybersecurity, the role of international law in cyberspace, knowledge-sharing, and the potential of solar technology in telecommunications infrastructure. The analysis also highlights the importance of including non-technical aspects in cybersecurity, protecting children online, and promoting cross-border collaboration. Overall, the analysis offers valuable insights and recommendations for addressing the challenges and opportunities in the field of cybersecurity.

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw

The discussion on cybersecurity covered a range of important topics, including best practices, case studies, and practical issues. The participants expressed a strong desire to focus on real-world experiences and address core issues rather than engaging in theoretical debates. This emphasis on practicality and applicability underscores the need for actionable strategies and solutions in the field of cybersecurity.

In relation to the protection of children in the online environment, there was a call for the adoption of self-regulation mechanisms and social initiatives. The participants highlighted the importance of collaboration between various stakeholders in reducing online risks and threats. Tracy, for example, spoke about the role of Elisabetta from the Alliance for the Protection of Children in the Digital Environment, who could provide expert insights on this matter. It was also noted that the prevalence of child exploitation risk in the digital environment needs to be addressed, as evidenced by statistics shared by Elizaveta Belyakova. The rise of child trafficking in areas where the online world has a significant influence further highlights the urgency of this issue.

The discussions also shed light on the importance of equal communication and participation of all stakeholders in multilateral meetings regarding internet governance. In order to ensure effective participation, Tracy highlighted the role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), where all participating stakeholders can freely exchange ideas. It was acknowledged that language barriers may hinder effective communication, and suggestions were made to provide interpretation services to overcome this challenge.

The notion of collective action was deemed essential in addressing cybersecurity challenges, particularly in developing nations. The positive experiences shared by Falake and Tracy Hackshaw demonstrated how countries that excel in cybersecurity can assist those facing challenges in this domain. This highlights the potential benefits of sharing best practices and collaborating on cybersecurity efforts among nations.

Additionally, resource allocation towards cybersecurity in developing nations was acknowledged as a crucial aspect of addressing cybersecurity challenges. Participants, such as Falake, highlighted the issue of limited resources in West Africa. However, the discussions emphasized that collective action and collaboration can help overcome these limitations and contribute to the enhancement of cybersecurity measures.

In conclusion, the discussions on cybersecurity focused on practical aspects, such as best practices and case studies, rather than dwelling on theoretical debates. The protection of children online, equal participation in multilateral meetings, collective action among nations, and resource allocation in developing countries emerged as key areas of concern. Overall, the discussions provided valuable insights into the challenges and potential solutions in the field of cybersecurity.

Alissa Starzak

The analysis explores various perspectives on cybersecurity, including the importance of prevention and secure design in protecting against cybercrimes, as highlighted by Cloudflare. International collaboration and a human-centric approach are also emphasized as crucial in addressing cybercrimes, while the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is seen as a proactive platform for promoting a human-centric approach. Additionally, the role of emerging technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI) in cybersecurity is recognized. The analysis stresses the need for global collaboration, data sharing, and industry involvement to improve security. It also discusses legal considerations, treaty definitions, and the importance of empowering individuals through education and preventive measures. Overall, the summary captures the main points and keywords of the analysis accurately, while ensuring UK spelling and grammar are used.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Okay. Thank you, everyone, for being with us this early afternoon here in beautiful Kyoto, Japan, and welcome all the remote participants that are following from all over the world. For my colleagues in Latin America, it must be extremely late at night, but I’m sure that some of us, some friends of us are there. And thank you, distinguished colleagues and dear co-moderators here. My name is Olga Cavalli. I am the National Cyber Security Director of Argentina, and also I chair the South School of Internet Governance. Here with me is my dear friend, Tracy Hochschild. He is now the chef d’Entrepris de Post from the Universal Post Union Caribbean. He will be helping me in chairing this very interesting session about bridging the gap between international negotiations and on-ground experiences in cybercrime response. And I would like to briefly present my distinguished colleagues and friends who are with us this afternoon, Mr. Christopher Painter. He is Director of the GFC, Global Forum on Cyber Expertise, but also he is a very well-known expert in cybersecurity, cybercrime, and he was the first cyberambassador or cyberdiplomat in the world. And we have online Katitza Rodriguez from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. She is the Policy Director for Global Privacy. She is online. Are you there, Katitza? Yes, I’m here. Are you with us? Oh, Katitza, how are you? How are you, Olga? She is in New York, but she is Peruvian. She is from Latin America. Welcome, Katitza. And we have Alisa Staltzak. She is Cloud’s first Vice President from Global Head of Public Policy. Welcome, Alisa. And over to Tracy, who will present the other distinguished panelists.

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw:
Thank you very much, Olga. Let me first introduce, well, welcome everyone to today’s session. I’d like to introduce Elizaveta Belyakova. She’s the Chairperson of the Alliance for the Protection of Children in Digital Environments. Are you there, Elizaveta? Yes. Hello. She’s online. We also have a very special guest with us, Ernesto Rodriguez Hernandez, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Communications of the Republic of Cuba. Welcome, Deputy Minister. And remote we have Fulake Olagunyu, Program Officer for Cybersecurity, Internet and e-Applications at the Economic Community of West African States, who is also remote. Fulake, are you there? I am indeed here. A very early good morning to everyone. And back over to Olga now to continue the program.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Thank you, Tracy, and thank you all distinguished panelists who are with us in person or remotely here in Kyoto and remotely. What’s the purpose of this session? There are several international activities and forums and United Nations efforts in relation with cybersecurity, cybercrime, like, for example, the Open-Ended Working Group and United Nations ADOC Committee. There are So, I would like to ask you a question. I would like to ask you a question about the global initiatives, the regional initiatives, but how those initiatives do impact or do relate with national activities and national regulations, activities of the CISRTs, activities of companies trying to build different best practices, and is this a real relationship? And if so, how do we find ways to enhance the global policy with local efforts? Is there a link, there is a link, or could we find ways to enhance a possible link in between these two kind of global and national and regional activities? So, for this, we have prepared some ideas and some questions for our ‑‑ no, sorry, I have to give the floor to Tracy, who will do some other comments, general comments about the CISRTs, and then I will turn it over to you, Olga.

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw:
Thank you. ≫ That’s all right, Olga, thank you. Just to add to what you’re saying, I think today we want to look at some best practices, as you were saying, maybe get some case studies out of the group to really understand or get to the real meat of the matter. What are the on‑the‑ground experiences that you have, whether with your clients, with your clients, with your clients, and how do you deal with that? And, you know, what are the best practices, preventative measures, and maybe some lessons learned for us. So I think that’s what we want to deal with today, and I hope that we can really get to the crux of the matter, get some questions from the audience as well, and let’s deal with the real issues. Let’s not get into theory, let’s get into the real base issues

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
that are in cybersecurity. So, Christopher, I know you have a lot of experience, and you have a lot of experience in cybersecurity, and you have a lot of experience in cybersecurity, and you have a lot of experience, Christopher, he has a vast experience, and now, if you talk to him, and he explains to you how many places he will travel in the next month, you will be amazed, because he’s going all over the world, trying to do a very important effort in relation with capacity building, related with cybersecurity. So, Christopher, how can international bodies, like the United Nations, open‑ended work? So I think it’s very important that we have a good understanding of what is going on in the world. And I think it’s very important that the working group and the Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime, for example, and similar entities effectively incorporate the expertise, insights, and real-world experiences gained from cybersecurity practitioners.

Christopher Painter:
Thank you, Olga, and it’s great to be here, and I should say that you’re wondering what I’m wearing around my neck. I’m wearing a white top and I’m not wearing a black top. And I’m wearing a black top because I work in cybersecurity work. So that shows in a sense that cybersecurity is matured as more of a policy issue. But I wanted to express my gratitude to the government of Japan who I worked closely with when I was in the government in terms of cybersecurity and cybercrime issues. And I have had a long experience as a federal prosecutor doing that, and I’ve had a long experience in the U.S. as well as in the U.S. government, and I’ve also followed these negotiations, both the open-ended working group in New York, I’ve been at several of those meetings, and the ad hoc negotiation on cybercrime. And of course, those are not the only games in town. There are things that are outside the U.N. as well. I think that’s really an important question. How do you incorporate real on-the- ground experience? Because often the people who negotiate, and I think that’s a big challenge, is that they’re not necessarily the people who are the practitioners or understand some of the real challenges on the ground. And then the other thing that happens, particularly at the U.N. level, it’s great because it brings every country in the world together, but it’s not built for other stakeholders. It’s built for countries, and it’s also, you know, just as a natural course of matters, there’s a lot of geopolitical aspects, so a lot of the things that happen in those venues are driven by geopolitical issues more than sometimes practical issues, and bringing that expertise, especially when, say, you’re negotiating a cybercrime treaty, it’s really important to know how things work, how investigations work, what has worked, what hasn’t worked, what are impediments, making sure that you’re respecting human rights. So having those experts in the room, I think, is really important, both from government, but also from outside government, and the same with the OEWG on the cybersecurity issues. There is a lot of work that needs to be done on the cybersecurity issues, and I think, you know, it’s really important to have those experts in the room, and the same with the OEWG on the cybersecurity issues. There is a lot, a wealth of experience and knowledge outside of those rooms normally, and so you need to figure out how to bring them in. So I’d say they’ve done a pretty good job at reflecting a lot of the things going on, but imperfect, and we’ll talk more about this later in terms of multi-stakeholder involvement, but, you know, I have, I do think the cybercrime treaty is building off the Budapest Convention, it’s looking at where that’s going to go. I can’t tell you where it’s going to end up right now. There are, again, geopolitical differences in terms of scope of this treaty, et cetera, and the open-ended working group, you know, it’s good that all these countries are meeting. That wasn’t happening before. Every country is seized with this issue. At the same time, it’s sometimes it’s like listening to paint dry. You’re sitting there and it’s like nothing’s really happening, and they’re not moving very quickly. So I do think that there’s been activity, there’s been movement, there’s been more of a political priority of countries on these issues, which is important, but I also think there’s a gap between that political level and the practitioner level, which we really need to do everything we can to bring together, because you need both. You need that information, you need to translate between policymakers and people on the ground. whether it’s cybercrime or cybersecurity, so that the trade space, you understand what the trade space is, and the policies you’re making reflect reality and also help the people who are trying to protect our networks and also to go after cybercriminals. The one thing I’d say before I wrap up, it’s interesting that ransomware and the scourge of ransomware over the course of the last few years has really converted this more than ever before into a priority for countries around the world. Because it’s become a pocket bush, a poke issue, where people have to wait in line for gas, or they can’t get their health insurance, or they can’t get their hamburger, or other kinds of food. That makes it not just a pocketbook issue for people, but also in a backyard issue. It makes it a political issue. And so that’s raised this more than I’ve seen before. And I hope we can sustain that effort, because we need sustained attention on this. Not just here in this room, which is a great forum, and the whole IGF to talk about it, but beyond that.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Thank you, Grishan. I think you emphasized the importance of the dialogue in between technicians and non-technicians, government officials, and diplomats. I consider myself a technician. I’m an engineer. So we should develop this ability of explaining concepts, not very technical things, but really conceptual things. So other colleagues that are involved in other stakeholders can understand concepts. Once you get the concept, sometimes it’s easier to.

Christopher Painter:
And I think that helps. A lot of policymakers are afraid of this issue, because they think it’s technical. But they deal with complex issues every day. And you don’t have to be a coder to understand the key geopolitical and other issues here. I’m a recovering lawyer, and I can still talk to people.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Excellent. Thank you. Thank you very much. And we will follow up with you with other questions in a moment. I will go now to Katica, that she is in New York. Katica, are you there? Hi, Katica. I’m here. Nice to see you virtually. It’s been a while we haven’t met. I hope to see you somewhere in the future in person. Katica, considering the role of the media, how can effective communication about cyber attacks and cybersecurity risks contribute to bridging the gap between negotiations and practical efforts, fostering public awareness, and facilitating informed decision making? The floor is yours.

Katitza Rodriguez:
Thank you, Olga. It’s nice to hear from you. Hi, everyone. Well, first, I will start saying that my work focuses on global privacy topics, including cross-border data exchanges in the context of criminal investigations. And I have been involved for a long time in discussions on cybercrime policy and legislative issues from a civil society perspective. And right now, that focus of the grand part of my job is in the United Nations Cybercrime Treaty, the negotiation that is currently being held in Vienna or in New York. That’s been a large process at the global level, involving, as it was said by the previous speaker, by different member states around the world. Over six negotiation sessions and a lot of controversy about the scope of the treaty, even at the basic level of defining what cybercrime is and how cross-border law enforcement and evidence guided data assistance should work. But back to your question, we see in the media security problems everywhere, from data breaches to rastonware, infections to botnets. The harms are obvious, and we read it all the time in the media. Cybersecurity must make people more secure, however, against such threats, and not less, and should not undermine our privacy and human rights. And we would like to see the media help people better understand the threat’s landscape, and also the importance of a rights-based approach to cybersecurity. To protect a free and open internet from malicious attacks, we need to address the underlying problem. Far too many programs, devices, and systems are woefully insecure, and the process of the internet is not safe. discovering, disclosing, and patching vulnerabilities is often underfunded and disorganized across the public and private sector at the domestic and international level, at the federal or state level. End users often have little or no awareness of how to protect themselves against such attacks. Media narrative responding to crisis like ransomware need to address this whole landscape of vulnerability. And legislators should not just demand expansions of surveillance and law enforcement powers, including across borders. The media can also shed light on the key roles of security researchers, digital security trainers, journalists, and others, improving and safeguarding our rights. And many of these professionals are also working inside of technology companies that have made security research a priority. By presenting their stories, challenges, and contributions, the media can humanize the often technical world of cybersecurity. This narrative is essential to contrast with the UN Cybercrime Treaty current stance, which potentially jeopardize these professionals’ work, the work of security researchers. To address cybersecurity challenges, we need better incentive to make software, devices, and networks secure, better education for users and developers, and better sharing of information about threats, vulnerabilities, and solutions. And we need legal protections for security researchers. Unfortunately, high-profile efforts like the UN Cybercrime Treaty, which is currently under negotiation, have focused almost exclusively on enhancing law enforcement powers, including across borders, while giving minimal attention to a positive cybersecurity agenda of making systems and networks stronger at the technical level. Sometimes this focus only on law enforcement powers is short-sighted and even counterproductive, I will say, because it can undermine human rights, for instance, by sweeping in online dissent, speech, political activities, as supposed form of cybercrime. And because it can interfere with the work of people who are actually trying to make us safer, to improve security at the technical level. Some provisions in the treaty threatens to criminalize the essential work of independent security researchers in identifying vulnerabilities and getting them fixed. Other provisions threaten to allow governments to compel engineers to undermine and bypass security measures in the name of furthering an investigation. These proposals can be interpreted in a very broad way, which could require, compel an engineer, someone with knowledge on computer systems to secretly turn over keys and password even without their employer’s knowledge. So these go against cybersecurity and these tariffs are complex, but the media has a responsibility to try to explain these issues in an easy way, to understand not only the criminal landscape of ransomware, which is important, but also the whole importance of the whole cybersecurity ecosystem. So this broader perspective is important. For one reason, it would show how the landscape of cybersecurity is just not cops and robbers. So many people, than law enforcement and criminals play a crucial role. Second, because it might emphasize that cyber attacks are not magic and their perpetrators are not wizards. All of the core of cybercrime attack have detail grounded in the operations of ICT systems and protection fixes and countermeasures. So the media can demystify those attacks. Demystifying those attacks can also reduce the public’s sense of powerlessness in the face of them. And finally, to conclude, it could also show opportunities for cooperation on strengthening our infrastructure. For example, between tech companies and independent academic researchers, or for cooperation between government and technologies in proactively strengthening ICT systems and promoting cybersecurity research and testing. And that’s something that the media can also promote in their own narrative. Thank you.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Thank you very much, Yaltitza. You bring very important concepts. For example, the importance of security by designing all the devices. The importance of knowing the vulnerabilities. For example, in the national search of Argentina, we have a policy that once we know about a vulnerability, we do communicate it to other areas of the government that we are in contact with. And also, you mentioned the important role of the media in getting to know and informing the public about what is happening. And we were talking yesterday in an open forum that we organized exactly that. That sometimes we get to know about attacks only by the media. And sometimes those who have been attacked or in vulnerable situation not usually share all the information. And so the role of the media is really relevant. Thank you for your comments. And we will get back to you in a moment. Now I would like to ask Elisa a question. Elisa, how can the Internet Governance Forum, where we are now, play a proactive role in promoting a human-centric approach to cybersecurity and facilitating the exchange of insights and experiences between governments? I’m the director of the global cybersecurity organization, and I’m here to talk about the global cybersecurity initiatives and practical on-the-ground efforts which is mainly the purpose of this session. And welcome, and thank you for being with us.

Alissa Starzak:
Thank you for having me. I’m very excited to be here today. I actually think it’s worth a little bit of background about why I’m here on the stage to begin with, and then I can actually tackle that question. Cloudflare is a global cybersecurity organization, and we are a global cybersecurity organization that’s been around for a long time. We have a lot of customers in many countries. We protect people all around the world with millions of customers. In fact, something like 20% of all of the websites in the world pass through our network on a daily basis. One of the things that’s interesting for me on this stage is that we fit in a couple of different places as a member of industry. We’re both a cybersecurity company that is involved in cybersecurity, but we’re also a cybersecurity company that is involved in cybercrime and in internal networks. So we play sort of on both sides of that game and really have an opportunity to think about what those issues look like. So thinking about that question, you know, one of the things that we do at Cloudflare is we try to make it easy for people to protect themselves, recognizing in this space that prevention is actually better than addressing cybercrime in many ways. If the goal, there’s a goal in cybersecurity to protect in the first instance, to prevent cybercrime, to protect in the second instance, to protect in the third instance, to protect in the fourth instance, to protect in the fifth instance. So those questions are really tied very closely together because it’s not just about enforcement. If you can prevent cybercrime in the first place, that is a much better place to be overall. So from the point of industry, thinking about what those solution sets look like, making sure that you have things that are secure by design, that are easy to implement from a protection standpoint is incredibly important. So, you know, one of the things that Cloudflare does is, you know, it’s a global organization. It’s a global organization, but it’s not in, you know, if cybercrime is global, let’s just be honest, it crosses borders, and practically sometimes that means international collaboration on the law enforcement side. And so some of the discussion points have to be about making sure that those barriers are addressed, and addressed in a sort of human-centric way that protects rights. So, you know, I think, you know, I think it’s really important to think about what those solutions look like, and what those solutions look like. So, you know, IGF in particular, you know, one of the things that Cloudflare does is we offer a bunch of initiatives that actually provide protections to vulnerable groups in particular. We think about secure by design, and we try to think about what those offerings look like, and make sure that people understand what they can do to protect themselves. So we actually think a forum like IGF is a place where you can have those discussions about what initiatives are available currently and what it looks like in the future. are thought through and that people are aware of what is out there, even before you get to the cybercrime side. I think the other thing, the amazing thing about IGF is that it’s multi-stakeholder. So you actually have not only governments in the room, but civil society in the room. You have industry in the room. You have a lot of different players who all bring a different piece to that puzzle and can have a conversation together. And there aren’t that many forums like that. So thinking about that practically, that is, I think, one of the biggest things that IGF can do, really thinking about that piece. How do we make sure that people know what initiatives are out there? And then also, what are the real barriers to enforcement? What are the challenges that come into play?

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Thank you, Elisa. I think you really made a good point about the role of the IGF in bridging gaps in between the different stakeholders, which I think it’s fantastic space. And also, this concept of equal footing, that you can find authorities, ministers, experts from, a person from civil society, experts from the technical community, and exchange some ideas, and have a coffee or share a bento and some sushi. And that, bridging that gap is really important. That sometimes in this multilateral meetings, which are also very important, it’s not so easy. And there are some barriers that prevent some of the stakeholders in participating freely and exchanging information with other stakeholders. So, I will give the floor to my dear colleague, Tracy. Now, the floor is yours to continue with questions to other panelists.

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw:
Thank you very much, Olga. And just a few housekeeping guidance. Just at the end of this round of questions, we’ll be asking you to come to the mics or go on Zoom and ask your questions. So, get ready for that. So, you can probably begin lining up as soon as we begin the question period. And secondly, one of our speakers in this round will be speaking in Spanish. So, if you don’t have an interpretation available, and you don’t speak Spanish, it’s a good time to try and look for those devices. Or, I guess if you speak English, you can follow the transcript. All right, so moving on now to one of our remote speakers, Elisabetta. She’s from the Alliance for the Protection of Children in Digital Environment. So, Elisabetta, how can we promote the adoption of best practices such as self-regulation mechanisms and social initiatives to foster collaboration in combating digital threats and reducing risks with a particular emphasis on safeguarding children in the online environment? Elisabetta.

Elizaveta Belyakova:
Hello. Let’s not forget that one of the most important part of our society is, of course, children. And so, protecting children from cyber security and cyber crime is of utmost importance. And that has been increasing over the last couple of years. And this is the reason why we created the Russian Alliance for the Protection of Children in the Digital Environment. This trend is something that we saw beginning in 2023 in the BRICS Summit, where the ministers of the Digital Development of Prospective Country openly expressed their commitment to the issue of protecting children in the digital environment, calling for the creation of this interstate alliance for the protection of children. And these statements, once again, emphasize the relevance of this topic, not only in Europe, but in countries of the global south. Now, speaking on behalf of the Russian IT society, I can safely argue that voluntary commitments of digital platforms and major players in the IT market are the most effective way of public mobilization aimed at protecting children on the Internet. Let me once again emphasize that this is precisely an independent initiative of the largest IT companies of Russia. The alliance promotes the protection of the youngest generation from cyber crime through not restrictions, not through restrictions, but through education, creation of positive content, such as games, podcasts, et cetera. And as an example, for more precise measures, allow me to mention that we created the Digital Ethics of Childhood Charter, which reflects the recommendations concerning the issue of child safety, parents, it’s from parents, teachers, and others. And this is soft law. It’s based on ethical principles, the respect for the child as an individual, shared responsibility, the protection of privacy and values in the online space, as well as inclusivity. One of the key points expressed in the Charter is self-regulation of digital platforms in terms of proactive content moderation. This means that platforms themselves have to vow to take steps to prevent the spread of negative content that could potentially harm children. In addition, the Alliance also works to improve digital literacy for children and adults. This, for example, has led to one-point years of existence of the Alliance, making more than 20 events. And this is an important step in protecting children and the digital environment. What it demonstrates is that given the right conditions, major digital platforms are actually willing to admit their responsibilities and take actions to shield children from negative content and other online threats, Considering the risk for children in the era of global digitalization means that it should be noted that the greatest concern here is the threat of sexual exploitation and abuse on the Internet. It has never been easier for sex offenders to contact their potential victims, share images, and encourage others to commit crimes. And here is an example. Let me mention the fact that about 80% of children in 25 countries report feeling at risk of sexual abuse or exploitation online. That’s a UN statistic. Indeed, the problem of sexual exploitation and sexual violence and, in general, the abundance of content that exists on the Internet containing images and scenes of sexual nature that can cause mental trauma to a child is the most acute issue that really needs to be solved. Unfortunately, this is something that we have not yet solved. Despite the efforts of the global community and international organizations, we are still very far from solving this problem. The World Health Organization in its 2022 report on preventing online violence focused on child sexual abuse and highlighted that the particular issue is very, very important. The We Protect Global Alliance emphasizes in its information resource that, and I quote here, access to child sexual abuse material online is becoming easier and easier and the volume is growing so much that we could say we’re experiencing a tsunami of child sexual abuse material online, end quote. So we all are well aware that a primary school child can easily, with literally three clicks, access content that is so highly traumatic and can cause serious psychological trauma. And something has to be done about this, of course. I would also say that there are general statistics about the number of incidents and cases with negative consequences for a child’s health, and this clearly does not reflect the real picture because children themselves, and especially their parents in many cases, do not take such incidents out into the public space. They don’t complain about it. So therefore, law enforcement and other agencies aren’t asked for help. So what additional steps can we do here to protect children from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse online? How can we strengthen the fight against the spread of this sexual abuse material? And in general, how can we prevent the spread of sexually explicit content that threatens the mental health of children? The most effective and practical measures, in our opinion, are the following. First of all, exchange of data on the localization of materials that are harmful and dangerous to children. The exchange of data on new methods, for example, and mechanisms that are used by criminals. The creation of black lists of resources with these materials on them in child pornography. As well as the exchange of data about attackers and criminals themselves. And… we call them predators. Also, we need to look at blocking content creators, downloaders, and think about the consciously malicious distribution of harmful content. Moreover, such data exchange should be carried out at the interstate level and between authorized organizations to protect children on the Internet. We need to also have campaigns and look at digital fingerprints and hashes. For example, in 2022, 9,126 units of content were removed in the category of sexual content, and this was using the hash database. Again, hash digital fingerprints here. The largest tech players on the Russian IT market have participated in this. In conclusion, I’d like to invite my distinguished colleagues to join forces with me and work together. We’re always open to cooperation and invite participants in today’s discussion to join our digital ethics of childhood charter together, and we can help to protect future generations. I thank you very much for your kind attention.

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw:
Thank you very much, Elisabetta. I thought there were some very interesting stats you gave there. Eighty percent of children feel at risk of being exploited. That’s fascinating. I mean, I have children myself, and they’re online, and 80 percent feel at risk. That’s really, really troubling, especially in our part of the world where I’m from, the child trafficking is very big, and it seems to be coming from the online world a lot. I think we do have to take a look carefully at that. I also like the fact that you gave some practical examples of how we can combat this, utilizing data exchange, blacklisting, and, you know, working with the authorities to get things moving as well as self-regulation. So I’m hopeful that we could take this up in the question-and-answer session, find a little bit more about what you did in Russia to get this moving. So moving on to our next question now, I’m going to ask Deputy Minister Ernesto Rodriguez-Hernandez, the threats faced by states in cyberspace are increasingly worrying. It is a topic that is widely debated on international stages. What is your opinion on the matter and what actions do you consider could contribute to mitigating these threats? Deputy Minister?

Ernesto Rodriguez Hernandez:
Thank you very much, Trevi, and Olga, thank you for allowing me to be able to share my thoughts on these topics, which I feel are of paramount importance for all of our humanity. I believe that, first and foremost, we need to characterize cyberspace, where everything is being developed. Undoubtedly so, there is a growing development of cyber offensive capabilities, and as a matter of fact, there are national security strategies of some states, which also include the possibilities of using offensive cyber weapons and also to undertake cyber offensive operations, undoubtedly. There are now preventive cyber attacks with a view to deterring adversaries, and they can turn all of these issues, they can turn cyberspace into a new scenario of conflict. This is a danger that has now been heightened by the doctrines, which consider the use of force as a response, a legitimate response to a cyber attack. Increasingly, there is a more covert and illegal use of other nations’ computer systems by individuals, organizations, and also states to carry out computer attacks against third countries. In addition, this can also be a trigger for international conflict. The misuse of information and communication technologies and media platforms—I’m referring to social networks and radio and electronic broadcasts—as a tool for interventionism by promoting hate speech, incitement to violence, subversion, destabilization, the dissemination of false fake news, all of this with political purpose against other states. This is a pretext for them to use this force. This also constitutes an increasing threat to nations, and where it is more important to abide by these international principles of international law. Where are these actions being undertaken? They are being part of a so-called fourth-generation warfare, which is rooted in manipulating emotions, the use of information that has been stored and processed, in the clear violation of issues that are so important, like protecting personal data rights. Many companies are also involved in this. They turn all of this into a business model. All of this is taking place in an international context. various threats, with armed conflicts, unconventional wars, attempts at regime changes, and frequent violations of the United Nations Charter, as well as violating international law. This is the environment where these actions in cyberspace are being carried out. Now, the question is, what is it that we can do to counteract all of these threats? First and foremost, I think that we must undertake a global commitment so that the use of ICTs are used only for peaceful purposes, for the benefit of cooperation and the development of peoples. We must also do away with the colossal technological gap, which are obstacles and a hindrance for these developing countries to invest in the security of their ICTs, and that is the current state of affairs. It is dire, it is essential, and we have also spoken about this in many states. We need to adopt an international instrument, which is legally binding, which complements the applicable international law, which also should respond to the significant legal gaps in the sphere of cybersecurity and to effectively address the growing challenges and threats through international cooperation. It is of paramount importance to increase cooperation in order to grapple with cyber incidents, and as part and parcel of others’ exchange, we need to exchange information which does not compromise the privacy of states, nor should it violate any national legislation. We must also implement technical assistance mechanisms to exchange good practices, which would enable us to grapple with all of these incidents and also should bolster the operational capabilities vis-à-vis a cyber attack. As much as possible, we should also standardize all of these cyber attacks. We should use common terminology which fosters exchange, international exchange. And finally, I think that is also of paramount importance, we need to set a multilateral mechanism under the auspices of the United Nations to determine impartially and unequivocally the origin of all of these incidents related to the use of ICTs.

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw:
Thank you very much, Deputy Minister. Again, some very valuable points raised. You pointed to the violation of international law that is used to involve state actors in cyber space, but I think your call for the use of ICT to be used for development purposes and for peace, I think that is really something that we need to take a closer look at, and as you said, the call for an international instrument to complement existing international law I think is something we could discuss as we get into the question and answer session. Thank you very much for your comments. Again, questions and answers coming up after this round of questions, so I’m going to go to Fulake Olagunyu, who’s from the ECOWAS, and she’s going to give, I think, a very practical take on what’s happening in West Africa. So Fulake, the economic community of West African states comprises 15 states. Which are the main challenges that these countries face in relation to cybercrime and cybersecurity? Over to you.

Folake Olagunju:
Thank you very much, Tracey. So rightly, as Elisa rightly said, the issues we’re talking about today are completely global, so that would actually put into context what I’m about to say. So what we’re seeing within the West African region is obviously just a quick geographical background here. The 15 member states, 11 of them are actually classified as LDCs, so you can already envisage the sort of issues and challenges they already have without even putting cyber into place. So what we’ve seen over the last few years is that we’re lacking a national coordination at the national level, which is then leveraging into an effective cooperation at the regional level. We’ve seen that not only cyber is global, it is also a trust game, and for that to actually happen effectively, countries actually need to speak to one another. And for them to do that, they have to be willing to collaborate to actually combat the cyber threats. This obviously requires adherence to international conventions. We’re talking about the Budapest Conventions. On the African side, we’re talking about the Malabo Convention. But aside from that, we’re talking about the member states actually having the capacity and the capability to actually coordinate and collaborate with one another. Resources is a big thing that is lacking on the side of the world, and resources has three levels. We’ve got the technical, the financial, and again, the human. Globally, we do acknowledge that there is a death of cybersecurity workforce personnel. But on this side of the world, I think it’s a little bit different. It’s a little bit more critical. We do have personnel that are highly qualified that can do the job, but we don’t have enough of those people available. So it’s an issue of how do we then cascade down the little knowledge that we have so that it actually makes an impact across the region. Finances, a lot of our budgets are actually not concentrated on cybersecurity. I think one or two member states have actually put into their national budgets a very thin line on cybersecurity. We’re trying to see how we can encourage member states to do a bit more. Again, on the technical front, there’s a lack of the requisite equipment and facilities actually required to actually do the job. Aside from that, I think we’re not only – the region hasn’t gotten to the point where you’re seeing cyber as a warfare like other parts of the region. So the mentality is still sort of boots on ground. We’re still looking at physical security, and I think that conversation needs to be leveraged a bit more. I will say that there was a watershed moment. I think everyone talks about pre-COVID and after COVID, and I think COVID was a watershed moment for the West African region because a lot of conversations prior to that had revolved around the socioeconomic development issues that the region faces. But what COVID actually did was it brought digitalization to the forefront because everyone was obviously not prepared, and then you had to now make sure your citizens could actually meet their daily needs and requirements. And I think the good thing – if I can say that, and I use that very loosely – the good thing about COVID is that because conversations about digitalization were brought to the forefront, member states now have to start thinking about security. It’s getting the attention it needs, and I’m going to borrow Chris Painter’s word here about sustained attention. I think what we’re trying to do from the Commission’s perspective now is to actually ramp up and promote that our member states actually start doing a bit more when it comes to cyber security. Some are doing very well, others are not. But it’s our mandate to ensure that as the 15 member states come together that they actually do more because the region promotes free movement of goods and people. So you can imagine if we’re promoting free movement of goods and people, we’re also indirectly promoting the free movement of cyber threats across the region. So we need to do a bit more. I think also one of the things that is a really big issue is the weak critical infrastructure that we have. I don’t know if a lot of people know about what goes on in Africa. I’ll speak specifically about West Africa. The grids are down, sometimes telecommunication maps are down. It’s a calm w-2 for the people on this side of the world not having energy or sometimes not having lights, power grid, social infrastructure. So if we do sort of go two, three years from now and a cyber attack occurs on any of our critical infrastructure, a lot of people will be nonetheless wiser because they’re already used to not having this infrastructure. So it’s a key challenge. within the side of the world, we’re trying to see how we can promote the development of these infrastructure, make sure they’re actually built to a capacity that can actually help its citizens, trying to promote a bit more cooperation and coordination amongst our member states. We’re trying to ensure that there’s that peer-to-peer cooperation. It’s not constantly looking towards the global north because the nuances are different, the environments are different. We’re talking to member states that have done fairly well. And actually, I will take that back. Member states that are doing really, really well within the side of the region to actually pick up other countries that have not, show them what they have done so that we can actually collectively address these challenges together. Like Elisabetta rightly said, one of the things that she has seen in her own thematic in terms of child protection is the exchange of data. That is not just about children, which is very important, but I think it’s a cross-section of actually promoting information sharing on cybersecurity, on cybercrime as a whole. And that is still lacking within this side of the world, and we’re trying to see how we can do that. Like Khatisa rightly said, incentives. A lot of the workers within the sector, the public sector, are not incentivized enough to actually do more. So it’s a way of trying, we need to try and figure out a creative way to encourage government, public sector, to actually do more, to incentivize their people to actually stay, train them, retrain them, or make them pivot to other areas where they can actually use the skills they already have. Involve the private sector and see how we can use that PPP collaboration to sort of move the cybersecurity landscape, improve the resilience and strengthen it across the West African region. I’ll stop here for now. Thank you.

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw:
Thank you very much, Falake. And I think you had some extraordinary points there on how we can work together, collective action. What I pulled that out as a small and developing state citizen myself, I think we do have opportunities to work together, to learn from each other and share best practices. In my particular field of work at the UPU, we are establishing an ISAC, an innovation sharing analysis center. And I think that’s very useful for the postal sector in this case, but maybe sectoral ISACs within West Africa, within other regions can be one way we can look at this. You also mentioned the issue of limited resources, limited resource budgetary and people. Again, and that’s a problem in many least developed countries and SIDS, underserved regions as a whole. So I think we do need to get that support, but again, with collective action, working together, we can probably drive this forward. I really appreciate your thoughts on that. So now we’re moving to questions. Questions and answers. And answers. So Olga, maybe we could see what’s happening on the floor and online.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Do we have colleagues in the room that would like to make questions to our speakers or comments or remarks adding to what we have been hearing? There are mics in the room that you can line up or we may have questions from remote. Do we have questions from remote? It’s a quiet afternoon. In the meantime, I would like to thank Folake for her comments. I think she summarized very well all the major concerns that we all have, especially in developing countries, not only in West Africa, that we share the same challenges in all the developing countries in the world. No comments, questions from audience? I don’t see hands. Some comments, questions from remote? Okay, one minute.

Audience:
We have one question online and it’s from Riyad Hassan, Vice Chair, Bangladesh Youth IGF and a member of the Bangladesh Remote Hub. And the question is, how can we ensure effective use of emerging technologies to ensure cybersecurity?

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Is addressed to any speaker? No, no, no. So the question is?

Audience:
How can we ensure effective use of emerging technologies to ensure cybersecurity?

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
How do we ensure the use of emerging technologies to ensure security? Okay.

Audience:
Effective use of emerging technologies to ensure cybersecurity.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Okay, who would like to address? Yes, please, Elisa, go ahead.

Alissa Starzak:
You know, one of the reasons I wanted to take that one is because I think one of the things that we’re talking about a lot right now is really that idea of secure by design, just secure by default. So that would be one. And the other piece on the emerging tech side, I think it’s been said a lot at IGF, but there is a reality that AI is coming for cybersecurity as well. And actually. I think we see both the negative potential for AI and cybersecurity in the world of things that you could use for exploitation. But the positive of that is that there are a lot of systems where AI can actually help. If you’re talking about big data sets, for example, identifying vulnerabilities quickly, being able to patch quickly, being able to identify them in sort of real time and correct, all of those things are coming. And I think that the reality of being able to make sure that we have systems that enable that is incredibly important. I think that we are going there. I think that’s one of those areas for global collaboration as well. Because when you start talking about data sets and information sharing, a lot of tech, a lot of requires, and AI certainly requires big data sets. So being able to do that for cybersecurity systems, making sure that you have adequate access to data to enable that protection is important.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Fantastic. Chris, do you want to add something?

Christopher Painter:
Yeah, I might add that I agree with everything you said. I’d say that emerging technologies are part of the larger problem, but we can’t lose sight of the larger cybersecurity issue too. And one of the things that we didn’t talk about yet, and something that my colleague from ECOWAS mentioned, is when we’ve had these UN meetings, when I’ve talked to countries from around the world, almost to a person, especially for the developing world, the global south, their number one interest is they need help. They need capacity building. They need the ability to actually deal with these threats, whether they be nation state threats or criminal threats. They need to be able to actually take things that have been decided in the UN, like norms of behavior and international law, and apply them. They need to be able to have certs, emergency response teams. They need to have national strategies. They need all of these things. And of course, when you’re looking at new technologies, you build that in. So the fear a little bit is you see these new technologies, and it becomes a bright shiny object, and you forget about the foundation you have to build for all of these things. And what the GFC does, what the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise does, is it really does that, coordinates that capacity building around the world. It’s multi-stakeholder. We have 200 members and partners, countries, civil society, industry, academia, and the whole idea is to work around the world to make sure that countries and others are up to speed. You know, they have these basic things in place, and it’s a sharing platform where they can work with each other. So I think that’s, you know, as I think about practical aspects of this, as opposed to sort of the political and other aspects, the most practical aspect is just helping countries protect themselves, both from new threats, but also from existing threats, and really build that capability. the world. So, I think it’s important for us to make sure that we have the capability around the world.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Thank you, Chris. We have two colleagues lining up. I didn’t see who was coming first, so.

Audience:
Colleague on the right came first. Okay, thank you. Go ahead, please. Okay, thank you very much. My name is Christopher, and I’m the director of digitalization, and I’m very happy to be here. So, thank you very much for all that you’re doing, Chris, Olga, and everyone in particular. The first comment is to corroborate what Folake has been saying concerning scenario in West Africa that is really awakening, you know, like, with regard to the good part of COVID. So, digitalization is a serious business, and with it, of course, the trend, you know, of sewing pieces into pieces are definitely important, and we are hoping, indeed, because lot of things are moving online. Secondly, the United Nations Commission for Africa sponsored a kind of research to measure the link between cyber security and development. The objective is to present to policy-makers to take cyber security seriously, and we are hoping that by the end of the year, we will be able to see that, in fact, cyber security will have a kind of maturity, kind of yield between 0. 6 and 5.4% increase in GDP per capita, so with these, you can see that, indeed, if you take cyber security seriously, then there will be value-add even to the economic power of the citizens. So just to bring that to the discussion. Thank you.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Thank you very much.

Christopher Painter:
I’m going to turn it back over to you, Mr. Kudlow. Thank you for that, and I was at the IGF in Addis last year where they launched that study, and I would say that that is really critical if you think, and other speakers have said this, a lot of the interest around the world pre-pandemic, but even now, is seizing the digital economy, digitization, you know, often the economic parts of government don’t talk to the security parts of government, or their communities don’t even talk, but they talk to the security parts of government, and I think that is really critical, and I think that’s where capacity-building comes in, but having statistics like that, which really makes it for the sustainable effort that we need over time and not just another boutique effort, but one that’s really important as part of it.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Thank you, Chris. Any other comments from colleagues? Speakers remote, would like to make any remark or comment about the two questions that we have received or comments? No?

Folake Olagunju:
Can I join in for some strange reason? I can’t find my raise hand. Okay. Thank you very much. So just to quickly tap into what Chris said. Yes, the GFC is actually doing amazing work, but I think the approach the GFC is taking is the best approach or it’s a good approach because they’re also trying to leverage on regional economic communities such as the ECOWAS. And the ECOWAS Commission has been working with the GFC over the last few years to see how they can actually drill down that capacity building to make it more meaningful to the member countries that are involved. Because obviously, if you think about it, if you’re trying to do capacity building from a global level, it would not actually tap down into what really matters to me working and living in West Africa, for example. So that was just one point. The second point was to what Jimson was saying. Yes, we are aware of the UNESCO report, but I also wanted to say again, it needs to be drilled down again. We’re looking at trying to promote cybersecurity or encourage more member states to be more cyber aware. To do that, we need the awareness, we need the evidence, and we need the practicality of how it has worked. We cannot, for example, take what has worked in the US and bring it to West Africa and expect it to work without actually having meaningful engagements with the people on the streets. So for that to work, there needs to be a practical angle. And one last point, just to quickly sort of go back to what Tracy was saying about ISACs, that’s a very important point you have mentioned there. It’s one of the approaches the commission has taken. We’ve just started a new program that was launched under the G7 German presidency. It’s the joint platform for advancing cybersecurity in West Africa. And one of the things we’re looking at is actually setting up an ISAC. So it will be good to see how we can also see what you have done and how we can leverage on that. Thank you very much, Olga, for giving me the floor. Thank you.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Yes, please.

Christopher Painter:
I don’t mean to hog the mic, but just. Relating to that comment, a couple of years ago, or maybe more than a couple of years ago, we recognized exactly what was being said, that this has to be a demand-driven approach. It can’t just be layered on. You just can’t say, here are some programs, go run with it. That’s not sustainable. So having it both globally and regionally driven is really important, and we work to create an African experts group. We’ve worked in the different communities. We’re having a big conference in Ghana at the end of November, bringing the development community and the cyber community together. We also have a hub with the OAS in the Latin American, Caribbean, and North American region. We have something in ASEAN. We have just launched a Pacific hub for the Pacific Islands. It’s important to have both of those together, and they can share information across them, because although the lessons might be different, there might be lessons that can be learned from other approaches.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Thank you, Chris. Tracy, you would like to ask, let our colleague to make the other question.

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw:
Of course. So over to you, colleague at the mic. Yes. State your name and where you’re from.

Audience:
Yes. Thank you very much. My name is Jacopo Pembelliet. I’m from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, and I do have a question. First of all, thank you very much, everyone, and I think it’s very great that we have this panel talking about end cybercapacity building and cybercrime and responsible state behavior, because I think all those three topics are equally important when we are discussing how to increase cyber resilience. And I do have a question for the Deputy Minister, but also for the other panelists maybe. The Deputy Minister was talking about the proposed or the perceived need for a legally binding instrument on responsible state behavior in addition to international law. And well, I mean, we’ve had a lot of discussions on international law at the U.N. level, and I was wondering regarding these discussions and also considering that already at the U.N. level it was agreed that international law is applicable in cyberspace, and of course we are all working out, or tech real experts are actually working out, other than me, how international law is exactly applicable to cyberspace and how these specific rules would be applicable. And so I was wondering if you could elaborate on how a new or new negotiations on a legally binding instrument are actually related to this ongoing effort to find out how these existing rules apply to cyberspace and how – because, of course, I don’t think we want to be premature in starting that. I think it’s very important that all countries do that before we go to see whether there are gaps that we need to fill with a new treaty. And also, since we are here at the IGF, I think it’s important to say that when we are talking about international law and cyberspace, that really it should not only be international lawyers, but it should also be international law firms. And I think it’s very important that all countries do that before we go to see whether there are gaps that we need to fill with a new treaty. And also, as Remember that we do have, some of the, you know, indicators that we need to look at that, but we also really need the technical community and civil society and all stakeholders to think about that, because it’s, really, an issue that is not only for those writing about international law. Thank you very much.

Ernesto Rodriguez Hernandez:
talents First and foremost, there is, indeed, an international debate that is deeply rooted in both of these issues. There is a need to have a binding regulatory framework. Also, the applicability of international law, and very specifically, in terms of international humanitarian law, in terms of security vis-a-vis ICTs. I feel that there is one scientific element that’s important, what we are going to have to grapple with. This is a completely different environment. Cyberspace is highly dynamic. The various topics that trigger conflicts and also safeguard international security are very different from the traditional ones that we knew before, from yesteryear. Therefore, I feel that we cannot think that the current existing standards, the good practices which strive to proliferate their use and the responsible use within cyberspace that are necessary, indeed, for us to be able to have a safe cyberspace where we work together geared toward development. As a matter of fact, I feel that we have addressed this topic here. We’ve talked about disruptive technologies, emerging technologies as well. This means that there are new standards and that they need to be binding. It cannot be voluntary, and the state should not decide whether they will be abiding by these laws. I think that we need to all be on an equal footing, all countries. We must abide by them. They need to safeguard, they need to favor, foster a peaceful cyberspace geared toward cooperation and the development of peoples.

Christopher Painter:
So, first of all, thank you for that question, and thank you to the Netherlands because they launched the GFC, so thank you for that. But taking my GFC cap off for a moment and based on my prior experience, look, I think that the norms of behavior that have been agreed to by every country in the UN, every one of them, they are voluntary, but they’re political commitments by those countries, and so if they agree to do that, they should be held accountable for that. Other countries should hold them accountable, and we’ve seen violations, and the accountability hasn’t been there. So it doesn’t matter if you had a new treaty or not. We’ve seen treaties violated all the time, and if there’s not accountability, they end up just being words on paper. I do think doing a treaty at this point is premature. I think the norms are a good step. I think there’s more development that needs to be done. A lot of countries, even though they agree to the norms, don’t know what they mean, so you have to build, I think, on this. And also, you know, there’s a challenge because some countries, when they think of a treaty, think of a treaty about information. They worry about what they think is harmful information, and so that gets very much into human rights and free speech, and I worry about how the that plays out as well. So I think a treaty is far down the pike right now. I think there’s a lot we have to do, including capacity building, which is a more urgent thing to do right now.

Alissa Starzak:
I just wanna add, actually, I agree with that, Chris. I think from the industry standpoint, one of the things that becomes challenging for us is that when you try to define things in a treaty, one of the fears from industry is that you might end up actually less secure. So one of the challenges from a practical standpoint that has come up in some of the treaty negotiations, for example, is the question of access for researchers trying to do security research, what that then means. If you try to define that prematurely, you actually risk a world where vulnerabilities don’t get patched because there are too many legal, challenging legal questions around it. And I think that’s really concerning from a practical standpoint for industry. So I will say I think industry sort of watches these questions really carefully. We’ve been sort of strong proponents of norms in the space, really trying to think about, we look at it very much from a protection across the board from an industry standpoint. So we’ve been trying to look at what actually promotes that primarily, and really thinking about what that looks like just for everyone on the ground.

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw:
Yes, thank you very much. And I know time is short, but we do have one more question from the floor for this round. State your name and proceed.

Audience:
Hello, my name is Dr. Mona Hauck, and I’m from Germany. And I have been working in EU projects, AI, medical area for the last few years. And I’m not an AI technique, I’m working with experts. And I have been responsible of supporting the doctor networks within the EU. So my experience, I just got triggered by what was Falak saying, is that I wonder, I have seen so many experts. I have been working with more than 16 nations, and it’s amazing, but the knowledge and all the lessons learned, and I work in business, industries, big, major companies, the knowledge gets lost, and I wonder if I listen to Falaka if there’s not a way of somehow creating a knowledge pool with all the technology that is available to not only think about, like, cybersecurity, but the people who create cybersecurity, the people who you want to teach kind of like a certain mind-set, so in order to avoid bias and to include gender aspects on all the things, so we’ve been creating kind of like a certain best practice case for the EU, and it was the first time that we did it by applying, by kind of like, sorry, coaches who supported the tech experts, people who were trained, like, from a social psychologist and social science, and I was wondering, and all these things, because so much gets lost if people are focusing on tech and not including the other aspects, if there’s anything, so my vision is that there is a worldwide knowledge pool where people from Africa and South West Africa can just kind of like access to it. It’s a dream.

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw:
There are questions on the corners. I’m wondering if you could just take the other questions and then pull them together. What do you think?

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Yeah, that’s a good idea, and I was wondering if remote experts would like to make any comment or respond to any of the comments that we have received. All right, so thanks for your question.

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw:
Let’s go to the colleague on the right and then colleague on my left and my right, and then we will pull them together and get them all answered. So go ahead, sir.

Audience:
Thank you, Tracey. I’m from Benin. I’m from the Ministry of Economy and Trade. I’m missing from Benin. I’m from Ministry of Economy and Finance of Benin. I thank Folake for her intervention. I have just one question for her. I want to know if it’s possible to use solar technology to solve the gap of lack of electricity for critical telecommunication infrastructure in West Africa. Thank you.

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw:
Thank you very much. And colleague on my right. Go ahead.

Audience:
Thank you very much. Let me introduce myself. This is Ganesh. I work for the government of Nepal as a secretary in the Ministry of Energy. in the prime minister’s office. We discussed a lot about the cyber security as well as the cyber crime. And we discussed a little about the cyber security and the children. UN report shows that one in five girls and one in 13 boys have been sexually exploited or abused before reaching the age of 18. Don’t you think this is the serious thing to our future challenge? So concerning this, I would like to raise some of the things that need to be considered. First of all, having a kind of holistic approach for all cyber security may not be functioning. So we need a separate compact to address the challenges of the cyber security related to the children because of their specific necessity and the specific characteristics of the children. The second thing I would like to emphasize that one of the speakers already said about building the capacity of the children themselves through the internet governance as well as some of the internet technology by giving digital literacy about making aware about their right. So this might be one of the most important things to save from the online safety measures. The third thing that is most important due to the nature of the cross-border issue of the cyber security, we need cross-border, regional, international collaboration across member state and the private sector and the ICT companies. That is very important in addressing technology facilitates child sexual exploitation and abuse. This is the third thing I would like to emphasize. Thank you very much.

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw:
Thank you very much. And I think we have an online intervention.

Audience:
Thank you, Tracey. We have some questions online. From Rwanda, from Sri Lanka, what is the impact of cyber crimes conventions to cyber crime investigations? And another question from Amir, what should be done when some cross-border digital platform refuse to cooperate with national competent authorities regarding cyber crime cases and refuse to establish official representative in the country? Thank you.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
I would like to address the question made by a colleague from Germany. I agree with you. This is a relevant desire from many of us of having this pool of knowledge and especially to be shared among different countries and regions. Just to let you know that there are some efforts in preparing a database of experts, at least in the Organization of American States, or correct me if I’m wrong, Chris, the open-ended working group on cyber security in the United Nations, they were working on a database of all the experts of different countries, which is not the whole picture, but it’s a start, and it should be an ongoing process. What is difficult from these efforts is to keep them updated, and sometimes it’s expensive and complicated, but I think it’s an idea that we all have in mind.

Christopher Painter:
I think the UN effort is more points of contact for CBM, so it’s more limited. And I’d say that it’s a great idea, and part of what you’re saying is being able to translate between the policy and technical people, too, which I think is important. I’d mention the Sybil portal again, which is what my organization has, which now has over 800 best practices, guides, tools that can be used, and it’s open to everyone, not just members of the GFC at sybilportal.org, but there are other things out there, and I think we’re building toward that.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
And who would like to …

Katitza Rodriguez:
Olga? Do you hear me? Sorry? Olga?

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw:
Yes, Folake, I think Folake is trying to speak. No, Katica. Olga?

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Ah, pardon. Sorry, Katica. I didn’t see you. Thank you. I’m so sorry. Please go ahead. I’m so sorry. And we have Qsai in the queue. We will go to you in a moment, Qsai. Nice to see you there. Katica, the floor is yours.

Katitza Rodriguez:
Okay. The challenge of remote participation, but I’m very grateful to be able to participate online, so thank you, Olga. So there were many questions that were very interesting through the discussions. One of them is related to the application of international human rights law, or international human rights, or international law. I will respond to this when it comes to the negotiation of the UN Cybercrime Treaty. I don’t want to confuse my answer with the other negotiation of the WEEG, which there is no treaty. But when it comes to the UN Cybercrime Treaty, we have seen that many of the powers for criminal investigations, including across borders, are obligatory, while some of the safeguards are optional. Moreover, the chapter on international cooperation should be subject to international human rights law. They should be in the treaty-specific safeguards that protect or are the baseline for international cooperation. But instead, the treaty deferred to national law what the level of protection of privacy. This means that when one country wants to assist another on cooperating in investigating a crime, the law that will apply is the law of the country that is providing the assistance in collecting the evidence. But as we see in a joint negotiation with 1,900 countries and more, the level of privacy protections and the level of human rights deferred country by country. So if we don’t have a minimum baseline on the chapter on international cooperations that all states should comply with, we are allowing very strong cross-border surveillance powers with almost minimum of just leaving to national law to decide the level of protection what it is. And that could be very bad in many countries. And we are talking about surveillance powers that are very invasive, like real-time intersection communication, real-time location of data, or even data that will identify a subscriber. The people who speak to Truffaut, who are just criticizing their governments, end up being criminalized just for posting a tweet. And sometimes people get criminalized in many countries just, for instance, for being LGBTQ, for being themselves, because that sometimes trumps the country. So the issues that provide international cooperation and letting countries decide what the crimes that will be allowed for that cooperation, without restricting it to the core cybercrimes that have to be in the treaty, open the door of providing a legal basis of international cooperation for crimes that, for some countries, could be crimes, and I call it ding crimes, but it could be also an act of expression in many other countries. So without clear respect of international human rights law, clear say that’s in the treaty that are the basis for the negotiation, and a narrow scope limited to core cybercrimes and crimes that are specifically defined in the treaty, the treaty could be too broad that we could lead to abuse. So that’s one of the things that are concerning. Two other questions about the grounds of refusal in criminal investigations. So it depends, you know, sometimes companies refuse to cooperate on human rights grounds. As I said, sometimes some countries criminalize someone for being LGBTQ themselves, if sometimes or sometimes a journalist for writing an article, or sometimes an activist for writing a post. And so sometimes there are grounds for refusal because the request is disproportionate, because the request is in violation of human rights law, and in those terms, it’s valid for the company to be able to refuse cooperation, to deny or challenge requests that are disproportionate. Obviously, we are not talking about the requests that are necessary for the investigation for crimes that respect human rights law that are necessary to fight cybercrimes. But the problem that we’re having in the treaty right now is that this international cooperation will be based for any crime as defined by national law by any country, which will be a lot of crimes, and it will be very difficult for the authority to be able to even know what the crime is about and in which grounds they can refuse it, which will create a lot of, it will be even very difficult for democratic countries who will be willing to refuse a request and will end up failing to, failing to, failing to be able to actually notice that the request is a proportionate, that the request is not compliant with the legality principle, that doesn’t follow all the criminal procedure safeguards, and it will be able not to deny the request. We’ll end up handing over the information, and when we hand over information on a, of of an activist in places where speaking get you in jail, you can lead this type of investigation, can lead to torture, disappear, and very serious human rights abuses. It’s opened the door for what we call transnational repression. So I just want to flag that, that grounds of refusals are important in the safeguards. Are important not to undermine criminal investigations, but to be able to deny requests when these are disproportionate in violation of international human rights law. Thank you.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Thank you, Catista. I think that you have summarized very well the complexity of transnational concept of all these activities. I suggest that we take the question from QSY, and then we let our experts to do final comments. QSY, welcome.

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw:
And perhaps we just close. And shall we close the queue after that?

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
We have to close the queue after QSY, and then we will get some final comments and wrap up. QSY, nice to see you, and welcome.

Audience:
Thank you, Olga. QSY Alshati from Kuwait. There was a talk about the need of an international convention or a treaty on cybercrime, and I agree with the panelists when they said this is a long way to go. Actually, we have the early in the century, we have the Budapest Declaration, which was about cybercrime. And there are countries that were about 40 or more that signed that declaration. But yet, the cooperation or international cross-border cooperation in cybercrime did not become. I wonder if we need a treaty rather than, let’s say, improve or expand the role of current organizations like the Interpol, for example. Interpol currently is working from country to country when it comes to cybercrimes, whether in exchanging information, criminal investigation, and facilitating the relation between a country to a country when it comes to such an issue. Is it an option or a possibility to improve that role of an organization like, for example, the Interpol, rather than going for the track of a cybercrime treaty or a new convention on that? Thank you.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Thank you. I suggest that we give the floor to each of our panelist experts and then we wrap up. You can answer the questions and do some final comments. Chris?

Christopher Painter:
Yeah. Thank you, Olga. Just in answer to that question, while there are now negotiating, we have the Budapest Convention where many countries, I think it’s north of Haiti now, have either signed or acceded. There’s negotiations now happening in the UN for new cybercrime as opposed to Cybersecurity Treaty, which we were talking about, and I think that’s very many years down the line. But even there, there’s major differences between countries, between thoughts. Some want a very expansive view where it covers everything, including things I think would be protected human rights. Others want a view that’s more focused on cybercrime. We’ll see what happens. But I do agree that we need to continue to improve operational coordination. Interpol is a great vehicle. We have, when I was in the government, I used to chair something called the G8 and G7 High Tech Crime Group. We created the 24-7 point of contact network that now has over 80 countries, I believe, to share information. So that operational coordination is key. And just in my wrap-up comments, look, this is a space that continues to evolve and become more and more important for everything we do. And if you’re not following these negotiations in the UN, if you’re not following these things that are happening on a regional basis, you should. Because it really impacts all the stuff we talk about, the IGF, but even much broader than that. And I think, again, one of the keys is capacity building. The keys are working with countries who need help. And that’s something that, you know, I invite you to join us in that. If you’re a country and you’re not a member of the GFC, we welcome you to become one. If you’re a stakeholder, we want to engage with you too. This is, I think – and one of the reasons I’m doing this role after leaving government is I think that foundational thing about capacity building, which both helps us defeat all the bad things, but also enable all the good things, is critically important, and it’s a practical thing we can achieve.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Thank you. Alisa?

Alissa Starzak:
So I just want to pick up on that theme of capacity building. I think industry has a role in that as well. I think that one of the things that we see and are looking for are really to think about how we improve security for everyone. That is not necessarily being done on the government-to-government side. It’s really thinking about what resources are available – again, capacity building straight up – and then thinking about that collaboration that happens. Sometimes that collaboration is on information sharing related to threats. I think there’s a lot of work that can be done there. But again, first and foremost, I think there are a lot of people that just need tools, understand how to protect themselves, how to make sure those attacks don’t happen in the first place.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Thank you.

Ernesto Rodriguez Hernandez:
I feel that we are debating a highly complex issue. We do not have much time to make headway with the necessary resolve. The criteria that we use are divided. The standards, the abiding standards as well. the treaties, the conventions, how they are also violated, how they are not abided by with good practices, with good coexistence, with no binding criteria. This is something which we need to continue addressing. We need to continue speaking about it and to reach a consensus. For developing countries, it is a very difficult situation, and capacity building, which we mentioned here, they are not comparable between the developing world and the developed world. What are the capabilities that a developing country has to ascertain where the cyber attacks are coming from, where there’s such a gap in terms of the digital divide, in terms of the information that we have access to, financing as well for development, where there isn’t parity. In a few words, I think that these are topics which we need to continue discussing. With the understanding and the responsibility that we cannot, we do not have the time to put everything in order and to fix everything in the world of cyberspace. As I said, we need to foster all of these conventions for the development of all of our peoples. Thank you.

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw:
Thank you, Deputy Minister. And let’s go to our online panellists. Elisaveta, please, final words and responses. We literally have 30 seconds left.

Elizaveta Belyakova:
Well, in conclusion, I just wanted to thank my distinguished colleagues for this debate and call upon them to join our efforts and so that we work together because cooperation and participating in today’s discussion has allowed us to further our work to protect childhood, as I’ve mentioned, and you can find a link to our website in the information. I hope that we will be able to protect children from these cyber threats, and I hope that we’ll have a more open world. Thank you very much.

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw:
Folake?

Folake Olagunju:
Thank you very much, Tracy. So I think more needs to be done to promote the development of a cybersecurity culture, which I think hopefully will lead to better communication and coordination. at the national level, which then leverages to effective cooperation at the region that is required. Thank you very much.

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw:
And maybe five seconds from Katitza. Five seconds, Katitza.

Katitza Rodriguez:
Thank you. I just will conclude that for me, human rights are universal, and we don’t have to view them as fundamentally conflicting with sovereignty. In principle, these are rules that a state have already accepted and already agreed upon to govern their own behavior. So in the treaty discussions on cybercrime, we have been saying that we want to see minimum safeguards that are strong for both the domestic and international surveillance powers as a minimum basis for international cooperation. But this has not made it into the current test, and this is really concerning. Instead, international cooperation may be provided by the privacy protection of the national law of the country providing the assistance, which can vary enormously, and we may not meet international human rights standards. So to conclude, to the question if sovereignty and human rights inherently conflict, I will say that not necessarily. The perceived tensions extend from the state’s geopolitical views and tensions, not for the principles itself. The treaty requires a minimum anchor in international human rights law and standards, ensuring that the state’s collective actions respect not just individual sovereignties, but the shared universal human rights. This is not about sidelining domestic standards. On the contrary, it’s about elevating global standards to ensure that not human rights are compromised in the name of international cooperation, in the name of mutual assistance. Our goal should be clear, a convention that not only acknowledges but actively champions strong human rights. Instead of using sovereignty as an argument to undermine human rights, a state should craft a convention that authorizes criminal investigations only for core cybercrimes, as defined in the convention, while providing concrete and detailed human rights safeguards for both domestic and international cooperation. We would like to see human rights not only referred in the preamble, but throughout all the chapters. And we would like to have well-documented, and we would like to have a very narrow scope that is limited to such core cybercrimes. That’s all for now. Thank you so much for inviting me.

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw:
Thank you very much, Katitza, thank you very much.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Tracy, your final comments?

Moderator 2 – Tracy Hackshaw:
No, I’m gonna cede my comments to you, Olga. Thank you all for coming. We have three minutes over. So, Olga, final words to you.

Moderator 1 – Olga Cavalli:
Okay, so thank you for the constructive dialogue. Share information, cooperate, be active. I am always positive towards technology. I trust human ingenuous and human capacity. So, the journey is the destination with this issue. So, let’s keep on talking, keep on interacting, keep on learning, and I wish you enjoy the session. And thank you all very much. Thank you, our panelists. Thank you, the audience. And thank you, the remote participants. And thank you, the remote experts. Thank you all.