Keynotes

Summary

This discussion took place at EuroDIG 2025 in Strasbourg, focusing on the theme of safeguarding human rights while balancing regulation and innovation in the digital age, particularly regarding artificial intelligence and internet governance. Ukrainian Deputy Minister Oleksandr Bornyakov opened by highlighting how technology serves as Ukraine’s most powerful weapon in defending fundamental rights during Russia’s ongoing invasion, which has killed over 12,000 civilians according to UN reports. He outlined Ukraine’s ambitious goal to become one of the top three countries in AI development integration by 2030, emphasizing their adoption of European AI standards while maintaining a “soft approach” to regulation that avoids stifling innovation during wartime.

Norwegian State Secretary Marianne Wilhelmsen, speaking virtually, expressed concerns about the increasing fragmentation of the open internet and growing digital divides, while announcing Norway’s candidacy to host the Internet Governance Forum. She emphasized that innovation cannot come at the cost of fundamental rights and stressed the importance of the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance. Human Rights Commissioner Michael O’Flaherty strongly refuted claims that regulation hinders innovation, arguing instead that states have a duty to keep citizens safe and that safer technology ultimately proves more trustworthy and commercially successful.

O’Flaherty identified the real barriers to European innovation as lack of a digital single market, underdeveloped capital markets, punitive bankruptcy laws, cultural risk aversion, and immigration limitations rather than regulation itself. He called for swift ratification of the Framework Convention on AI, full enforcement of EU digital legislation, and development of smart human rights assessment tools. The discussion concluded with recognition that current regulatory models may need evolution to address future artificial general intelligence and super-intelligence challenges.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Ukraine’s AI Strategy and Digital Transformation During Wartime**: Deputy Minister Bornyakov outlined Ukraine’s ambitious goal to become one of the top three countries in AI development integration by 2030, highlighting how technology serves as a crucial defense tool during Russia’s invasion while implementing AI in public services like the Diya app used by 22 million Ukrainians.

– **Balancing AI Regulation with Innovation**: A central theme addressing whether strict regulation stifles technological advancement, with speakers advocating for “soft regulation” approaches that protect human rights while fostering innovation, particularly Ukraine’s bottom-up regulatory approach and voluntary industry codes of conduct.

– **European AI Governance Framework**: Discussion of key regulatory instruments including the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, the EU’s AI Act, and Digital Services Act, with emphasis on their implementation and the need for ratification to ensure effective human rights protection.

– **Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance Model**: Norway’s State Secretary emphasized the importance of inclusive, democratic approaches to internet governance, highlighting the upcoming IGF 2025 and the need for global collaboration across governments, private sector, civil society, and academia.

– **Debunking the Regulation vs. Innovation Myth**: Commissioner O’Flaherty systematically refuted claims that European regulation hampers innovation, citing academic research showing that Europe’s innovation lag stems from factors like underdeveloped capital markets, risk-averse culture, and immigration limitations rather than regulatory frameworks.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion served as the opening session of EuroDIG 2025, aimed at setting the framework for conversations about “Safeguarding Human Rights by Balancing Regulation and Innovation” in the context of AI and internet governance, while establishing the importance of human-centric approaches to technology development.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently serious and diplomatic tone throughout, with speakers demonstrating urgency about protecting human rights in the digital age while remaining optimistic about collaborative solutions. The tone was particularly sobering when addressing Ukraine’s wartime context, but remained constructive and forward-looking when discussing regulatory frameworks and international cooperation. There was a notable shift to more assertive language when Commissioner O’Flaherty directly challenged misconceptions about regulation hindering innovation.

Speakers

– **Moderator**: Role/Title: Not specified, Area of expertise: Event moderation and coordination

– **Oleksandr Bornyakov**: Role/Title: Deputy Minister of Digital Transformation of Ukraine, Area of expertise: Digital transformation, artificial intelligence policy, public administration digitalization, European integration

– **Marianne Wilhelmsen**: Role/Title: State Secretary at the Ministry of Digitalization and Public Governance of Norway, Area of expertise: Internet governance, digitalization strategy, multi-stakeholder model, digital rights and policy

– **Michael O’Flaherty**: Role/Title: Commissioner for Human Rights (Council of Europe), Area of expertise: Human rights law, digital rights, AI regulation, privacy law, business and human rights

Additional speakers:

No additional speakers were identified beyond those listed in the speakers names list.

# EuroDIG 2025 Opening Session: Safeguarding Human Rights by Balancing Regulation and Innovation

## Executive Summary

The opening session of EuroDIG 2025 in Strasbourg featured three distinguished speakers addressing how to safeguard human rights while balancing regulation and innovation in the digital age. The discussion included Ukrainian Deputy Minister of Digital Transformation Oleksandr Bornyakov, Norwegian State Secretary Marianne Wilhelmsen (participating virtually), and Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Michael O’Flaherty.

The conversation was shaped by Ukraine’s ongoing defense against Russia’s invasion, which has claimed over 12,000 civilian lives according to UN reports. This context grounded the discussion in concrete realities of how technology serves both as a survival tool and a means of protecting fundamental human rights under extreme circumstances.

## Ukraine’s Digital Transformation and Wartime Innovation

Deputy Minister Bornyakov opened by declaring that “Ukraine has become an outpost for the whole Europe, and in this battle for survival our most powerful weapon is innovation.” He emphasized that Ukraine is celebrating its 13th anniversary as a Council of Europe member in October, noting that for 11 of those years, Ukraine has paid a high price for choosing Europe.

Ukraine aims to become one of the top three countries globally in AI development integration into the public sector by 2030. This goal is being pursued through initiatives including the Diya application, which has been used by more than 22 million Ukrainians for accessing public services. The moderator specifically praised the DIA tool and its use in damage registration.

Bornyakov outlined Ukraine’s “soft regulation” approach to AI, designed to avoid stifling innovation during wartime when technology serves as the backbone of both economy and national defense. This strategy provides companies time to prepare for new legal standards while offering guidance during self-regulation periods, including voluntary codes of conduct and the development of a Win-Win AI Centre of Excellence.

Despite wartime pressures, Ukraine has committed to signing the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy, and Rule of Law. Bornyakov emphasized this reflects Ukraine’s determination to maintain its European integration trajectory. He also mentioned developing translation tools for European legislation to accelerate integration and piloting the Hedera methodology for AI impact assessment.

## Norway’s Democratic Internet Governance Vision

State Secretary Wilhelmsen presented Norway’s candidacy to host the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2025 in June, noting the IGF’s 20th anniversary and the WSIS Plus 20 review. She highlighted several challenges facing the global internet, including increasing fragmentation, widening digital divides, and efforts to control and restrict access, warning that “the open, global, interoperable internet that has empowered billions is under pressure.”

Central to Norway’s approach is the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance, which Wilhelmsen described as reflecting “democratic values of participation, transparency, accountability and respect for human rights.” She characterized this as “grassroots democracy in action.”

Norway launched its first national digitalization strategy last year, aiming to make the country the world’s most digitalized nation by 2030. Wilhelmsen emphasized that “technology must serve humanity with a human-centric approach, not the other way around” and stressed that innovation cannot come at the cost of fundamental rights.

## Challenging Regulation-Innovation Assumptions

Commissioner O’Flaherty began with a reference to Pope Leo explaining his choice of name Leo and the fourth industrial revolution, then systematically challenged the premise that regulation stifles innovation, calling it part of “the bundle of myths” about regulatory burden hampering technological advancement.

O’Flaherty cited Professor Anu Bradford’s research identifying real barriers to European innovation: lack of a genuine digital single market, underdeveloped capital markets, punitive bankruptcy laws, cultural risk aversion, and immigration limitations. He argued these structural issues, not regulatory frameworks, are the actual impediments.

The Commissioner highlighted existing European regulatory instruments, including the EU AI Act’s approach and noting that “most AI will not fall under strict external oversight. Rather, its safety will be determined by self-regulation.” He also referenced existing frameworks like GDPR and UN guiding principles on business and human rights.

O’Flaherty’s central argument was that “safe technology is more trustworthy technology, and more trustworthy technology ultimately will win out, including commercially.” He maintained that states have fundamental duties to protect citizens from risks, including in digital contexts.

Looking forward, O’Flaherty acknowledged that “we now have to confront artificial general intelligence and artificial super-intelligence, and I suspect that our current regulatory models will not be up to the task.”

## Key Areas of Agreement

The speakers demonstrated consensus on several fundamental principles: human rights must be protected in digital contexts with the same vigor as offline, technology must serve humanity through human-centric approaches, and international cooperation is essential for effective digital governance.

All three speakers supported the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, though from different perspectives. There was also agreement on the value of sophisticated assessment tools, with both Bornyakov and O’Flaherty endorsing the Hedera methodology for human rights impact assessment.

## Implementation Challenges

The discussion identified several critical challenges requiring ongoing attention. The Framework Convention needs sufficient ratifications to come into force. O’Flaherty warned against losing political will for full implementation of existing regulations like the EU Digital Services Act.

The speakers acknowledged that current regulatory models may prove inadequate for future AI developments, suggesting the need for adaptive governance frameworks. Supporting effective private sector self-regulation through codes of practice was identified as requiring further development.

## Conclusion

The session established that safeguarding human rights while balancing regulation and innovation requires sophisticated approaches that can accommodate different national contexts while maintaining shared commitments to human rights and democratic values. The Ukrainian experience demonstrated that digital governance frameworks must function under extreme circumstances while preserving democratic principles.

The discussion moved beyond simple either-or formulations between regulation and innovation, with O’Flaherty’s systematic challenge to regulation-innovation tensions providing foundations for more nuanced policy approaches. The consensus achieved across different institutional perspectives suggests strong foundations for continued international cooperation in digital governance, balancing shared principles with contextual adaptation to local circumstances and challenges.

Moderator: our Human Rights Commissioner, it’s very happy to see you here, so without further ado allow me to give the floor to the Deputy Minister of Digital Transformation of Ukraine for his keynote address. Deputy Minister, you have the floor.

Oleksandr Bornyakov: Dear ladies and gentlemen, I’m honored to represent Ukraine today here in Strasbourg in the heart of democracy, if I may. So the year 2025 marks a milestone in Ukrainian-European relationships. In October we’re going to celebrate the 13th anniversary as a member of the Council of Europe. Throughout these years we have worked together to protect human rights, and for 11 of those years Ukraine has paid a high price for choosing to be together with Europe at the cost of our people’s lives. In 2022 Russia started a full-scale invasion in Ukraine and been committing genocide in, actually in Europe. According to the UN, more than 12,000 people, civilian people have been killed, and I think that the real number is much, much bigger. And saying this, Ukraine has become an outpost for the whole Europe, and in this battle for survival our most powerful weapon is innovation. Today technology helps Ukraine to defend our fundamental rights, the right to live, our freedom, and self-determination. However, the world is evolving, and over the past two years we have witnessed a boom, a huge boom in AI innovation. Artificial intelligence offers tremendous power and new opportunities to strengthen national defense capabilities, grow the economy, and maintain global technological leadership. At the same time, we cannot ignore the growing threats to the rights of the citizen posed by AI, and I totally agree with Michael O’Flaherty, and discrimination, data privacy violations, and disinformation. All these challenges are particularly relevant for Ukrainians in the context of Russia’s informational war. Nevertheless, artificial intelligence will soon become part of Ukrainian public services. AI assistance will be introduced in the state app Diya, and the educational app Maria, which are used by millions of Ukrainians, particularly there’s been more than 22 million of Ukrainians been using this app for now. And our ministry has already begun using AI tool to draft and analyze regulations. What once took weeks, now can take around 72 hours. We’re also developing a tool for translating and analyzing European legislation to accelerate European integration process. That’s a huge amount of documents that AI can help us to translate and to adopt Ukrainian law so we can speed up the integration. And it’s just the beginning. We have an ambitious goal and mission is to make Ukraine one of the top three countries in AI development integration into public sector by 2030. And we’re currently working on national strategy for development of artificial intelligence in Ukraine, and it will serve as a primary document for the strategic AI development in our country. We have also launched Win-Win AI Center of Excellence as a key driver of AI integration in Ukraine and its mission to enhance the practical application of artificial intelligence in all key areas, public administration, defense, science, education, and business. And one of the center goals of this year is to launch a national large language model, sovereign model. This will boost the emergence of AI solution in Ukraine. So crucially, all these technologies must be safe for our citizens, and that’s why we adopt European standards for AI products. But strict regulation can stifle innovation. We cannot allow this to happen in times of war when technology is the backbone of Ukrainian economy and defense, and that’s why we have chosen a soft approach to regulation. One year ago, Ukraine published a white paper on AI regulation based on bottom-up approach. This approach gives companies time to prepare to the new legal standards for AI. During the self-regulation period, the state provides companies with the soft law tools necessary to improve their ethics. For instance, Ukrainian companies are joining the AI self-regulation process. Fifteen market leaders have already signed voluntary code of conduct establishing internal rules for the ethics use of AI products used by millions of people, not only Ukrainian, but globally. Because in Ukraine, we have a bunch of globally high companies, it appears so. In preparing Ukrainian businesses, we focus on European initiatives. One of the key frameworks for our developers is the Hedera methodology, which has been mentioned by the Secretary General. And we are already piloting it in Ukraine and looking forward for the formalization of the Hedera model by the Committee of AI to provide our stakeholders with a comprehensive impact assessment tool. We are pleased to announce that Ukraine will soon sign the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy, and Rule of Law. This will demonstrate that even amid a full-scale invasion, we stand with the democratic world, particularly in the field of innovation. There is modicum, and we are committing to strengthening our cooperation with Europe in digital technology. So, innovation must become a key tool for protecting our citizens from threats worldwide. So, together, Ukraine and Europe can build an innovative AI continent that’s safe for our citizens. So, that would be all from my side. I would like to thank Luxembourg for chairing this, and all the members, and inviting us here. It’s really an honor. Thank you, and glory to Ukraine.

Moderator: Minister, thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation, and also for showing that in spite of all the challenges that you are facing in your country, a lot is going on. A lot is going on. I am allowed to make some publicity. I will a little bit say how actually very impressive is your tool called DIA, which allows really direct access to a large part of the Ukrainian population for a number of public services that I’ve seen in action, and that we are also using now in the context of our register of damage. So, thank you very much for being here today. Now, we are joined online by our State Secretary at the Ministry of Digitalization and Public Governance, or Norway, Marianne Wilhelmsen. State Secretary, I see you already on the screen. You have the floor. Thank you. Esteemed colleagues, distinguished delegates, ladies, and gentlemen, it’s a pleasure to be here with you today. I wish I could be there in person,

Marianne Wilhelmsen: but as Norway prepares for the upcoming IGF 2025, I look forward to welcoming many of you in June as we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the IGF and seek to contribute to the WSIS Plus 20 review. Let me begin with expressing my gratitude to the Council of Europe in cooperation with the Luxembourg Presidency of the Committees of Ministers for hosting this year’s EuroDIG. It’s fitting that we return to Strasbourg, the birthplace of EuroDIG in 2008. 17 years ago, this forum was founded on a simple yet powerful idea that the internet, as a global commons, must be shaped not by few, but by all. Since then, the internet has transformed our world, from the early days of the Web 2.0 to the rise of blockchain, artificial intelligence, and immersive technologies. We have seen innovation reshape how we live, work, and connect. The internet was a lifeline during the pandemic, an essential infrastructure that kept our societies functioning, our children learning, and our communities connected. Through it all, EuroDIG has remained a vital platform for all, not just to talk, but to listen, to learn, and to act. But we see a turning point now. The open, global, interoperable internet that has empowered billions is under pressure. We are witnessing increasing Transparency, Infragmentation and a surge, widening digital divides and a surge in efforts to control and restrict access. Concerns over online harms affecting children, youths and vulnerable groups are growing. Disinformation campaigns are eroding trust. Internet shutdowns are being used as a tool of repression and AI systems are being developed, deployed without transparency. And when it comes to AI, we are even only at the beginning of this technology’s development. We must not take the Internet for granted. The Internet has become the infrastructure of our democracies, the engine of our economies and a central part of our daily lives. And like any infrastructure, it must be maintained, protected and governed with care. For this year’s EuroDIG, we gather under the theme Safeguarding Human Rights by Balancing Regulation and Innovation. This indeed captures the essence of this challenge. Innovation cannot come at the cost of fundamental rights. Our approach must be clearly human centric. Technology must serve humanity, not the other way around. At the same time, we must avoid regulation that stifles creativity, entrepreneurship and access. This balance is delicate but essential. For this reason, Norway announced our candidacy to host the Internet Governance Forum back in 2023. We want to share our insights with the global community, foster dialogues and engagements to collaboratively find solutions. For those new to the field of Internet governance like myself, it can seem a little bit complex, a web of actors, acronyms and meetings. But when we step back, what we see is grassroots democracy in action. We see a model that begins with local dialogue, builds through regional collaboration and culminates in global consensus. The multi-stakeholder model is a principle. It reflects the democratic values we hold dear. Participation, transparency, accountability and respect for human rights. Norway sees this model as the cornerstone of Internet governance and we believe it’s more important than ever to support and strengthen it. Because technology development is not without risk, the current debates around AI, the normalization of Internet shutdowns, the spread of disinformation are not abstract concerns. They are real threats to our democratic institutions and the rights of individuals. We must establish frameworks that ensure responsible technological innovation and development, that uphold privacy, protect human rights and promote trust. Human rights must be protected online just as they are offline. This is why Internet governance matters more than ever. In the digital age, democracy must extend to the code we write, the platforms we build and the policies we enact. And that means defending and strengthening the governance structures that allow diverse voices to be heard, especially those of marginalized communities and the next generations of digital citizens. Norway wishes to contribute to further develop the support and support the IGF as a vital and inclusive arena of all stakeholders. After all, the Internet should be a place where all individuals can exercise their civil, political, economical, social and cultural rights. Norway remains dedicated to preserving and promoting these rights in the digital realm. EuroDIG, as a European regional IGF, plays a crucial role in this effort. It brings local and national perspectives to the global stage. It facilitates dialogues on how digital technologies can help us address our most pressing challenges, from freedom of expression and child protection to sustainability and inclusion, which are some of the themes on the program. We should develop policies and practices that ensure that the Internet remains a force for positive change, innovation, global connectivity and just progress. The impact of the Internet has never been more significant. It stands at the heart of our digital future. Hence, we need to work together to develop and deliver a trustworthy and safe Internet for mankind. Let us build a digital future that’s inclusive, human-centric and resilient. As we look ahead, it’s crucial to recognize that the Internet’s role in our lives will only continue to grow. With the advent of new technologies, such as quantum computing and the expansion of the Internet of Things, the digital landscape will become even more complex and interconnected. This evolution presents both opportunities and challenges. Let’s be proactive in addressing these challenges to ensure that the Internet remains a space where innovation thrives while human rights are upheld. One of the key areas in Norway we’re focusing on is on digitalization. Last year, we announced or launched our first national digitalization strategy. This strategy lays the foundation for a simpler and safer everyday life for people, for a more competitive business sector and a more modern and efficient public sector. The goal is clear and bold. By 2030, Norway aims to be the world’s most digitalized country. But we are not pursuing technology for its own sake, but rather using it as a powerful tool to unlock new opportunities and solve significant societal challenges. We will leverage digitalization to build a more inclusive society with less polarization, great opportunities and high trust. Norway’s strategy emphasizes the importance of digital competence for all citizens, ensuring that everyone can benefit from the technological advancements. It focuses on strengthening governance and coordination in the public sector and securing a future-oriented digital infrastructure and promoting data-driven innovation. By fostering an inclusive digital environment, Norway aims to create a safer, fairer society where technology serves the people and enhances their quality of life. To ensure the technological advancements benefit society as a whole and do not increase existing inequalities, we need the Internet and regional and international collaboration. No single country or organization can tackle these issues alone. We must work together across borders and sectors to develop comprehensive solutions that address the global nature of the Internet. This includes fostering partnerships between governments, the private sector, civil society and academia. By leveraging the expertise and resources of diverse stakeholders, we can create a more inclusive and effective approach to Internet governance. As we gather here at EuroDIG 2025, the city where it all started, let us reaffirm our commitment to these principles. Let us work together to build a digital future that’s inclusive, equitable and sustainable. I look forward to hearing the outcomes of our discussions over the next few days and to continuing this important conversation in Norway in June at the IGF 2025. Thank you for your attention, and I wish you an insightful and enriching conversation. Thank you very much, State Secretary, and thank you in particular for having made the virtual connection between EuroDIG here in Strasbourg

Moderator: and the upcoming IGF in Norway. Thanks for that. Without further ado, allow me to welcome and give the floor to our Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O’Flaherty O’Flaherty. Michael O’Flaherty, the floor is yours. Just a quick word to say that we are very grateful to you for the support that you have shown to the work that we are doing on digital technologies generally, not just here in the Internet governance sector, but also on AI, cybercrime and many other areas. Thank you for being with us. The floor is yours. Thank you very much, Gianluca, Ministers, Secretary General of

Michael O’Flaherty: EuroDIG, dear friends. Last Saturday, we watched as the newly elected Pope explained why he had chosen his name of Leo. He made reference to a predecessor of his, Leo XIII, and explained that that Pope had carried out his tasks in the context of the second great industrial revolution, and now Leo XIV must engage the fourth great industrial revolution, the revolution of AI. And in other words, he must engage the challenges of, and I quote, human dignity, justice and labour. Now, Pope Leo has his faith-based tools to engage these great issues of society, but so do we have ours. And above all, we have the toolbox of human rights, the toolbox of the great laws and institutions which we have so carefully crafted since the Second World War. Now, a starting assumption when I make that statement is that we already have a lot of guidance in terms of the operation of the Internet. and Michael O’Flaherty O’Flaherty. We have a number of treaties, which are binding on states. We have at the national level many instruments and bodies already in place to provide guidance in these contexts. We have privacy laws, we have the operation of privacy oversight bodies in the EU, there is the GDPR. And even in the private sector, we have considerable existing human rights guidance, which is a fundamental part of human rights guidance for how business should do its work in every sector, I think above all else, of the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights. So we are not operating in some kind of a terra nullius. But of course, we have long recognized that we do need dedicated instruments to engage with, to regulate the specific context of the Internet and artificial intelligence, and that is the frame in which we have engaged with the EU on three very important initiatives, at least impacting from most of our states in recent years. The first is the negotiation in this house of the Framework Convention, and then in the EU setting, there is the AI Act and the Digital Services Act. But before I go any longer in praising such instruments, I have to engage the challenge behind the title for our conference, and previous speakers have done this as well. The second is the increasingly loud rhetoric out there in society, that somehow regulation gets in the way of innovation, and the time has come to talk less about regulation and more about innovation, and there is a context for all of this that somehow Europe lags behind the rest of the world, and if it wasn’t so besotted with regulation, it would be so much more successful. But I take the opportunity this afternoon to absolutely, fundamentally, and without hesitation, refute that assertion. The bundle of myths that put together lead to those assumptions. Let me give you four reasons. The first is that our states have a duty to keep us safe. It’s as simple as that. Wherever there is risk, our states have an obligation, be it under international human rights law or be it under any other body of law, to protect us, and they must protect us in the context of the areas we’re discussing today, as with any other. It’s also about my conviction that safe technology is more trustworthy technology, and more trustworthy technology ultimately will win out, including commercially. I am confident of this. Perhaps not immediately, perhaps not even in the medium term, but in the longer term, the safer the technology, the more of the pickup and the application and the use across the world. And third, the assumption that somehow we lag behind in Europe because of regulation is most proudly proclaimed by those who clearly pay no attention to the content of the regulation. Because the principal European instruments, and I’ve named them, are subtle, nimble, and well-attuned and full of the nuance necessary to avoid the risk of stifling innovation. Take the Framework Convention. The Framework Convention contains very powerful, important, essential principles, but then leaves a wide margin to states in how to actually deliver them, how to implement them, how to convert them into national regulation. That is not a stifling of innovation, that’s a promoting of innovation. Look also at the AI Act of the European Union, with its so-called risk pyramid. The risk pyramid is a very deliberately, carefully, and smartly designed method whereby most AI will not fall under a strict external oversight. Rather, its safety will be determined by self-regulation. One of my reasons to absolutely refute these false claims is because I simply don’t buy into the zero-sum game. The idea that more regulation in Europe stifles European innovation, and so forth. And I’m very glad that recent academic research supports my own gut instinct in this regard. And I’m particularly impressed by an important article published by Professor Anu Bradford of Columbia University just a few months ago. And she gave, and don’t worry, I’ll just name them, I won’t go into detail, she gave five reasons of why Europe lags behind in innovation. That’s not at issue. But what are the real reasons? And why is it not actually about regulation? Well, first, she mentioned the absence in Europe, and she’s referring to the EU, of course, of a digital single market. Second, she points to the European reality that we have underdeveloped capital markets. You can’t invest in them. Third, she mentioned how in Europe we in many countries have punitive bankruptcy laws, which make you reluctant to engage on risk. Fourth, she spoke to a more general cultural risk aversion on this continent, quite at odds with the culture of, let us say, the United States. And fifth, she referred to the manner by which we limit immigration into our countries, and how that impedes access to the global talent market. And again, her assertion is that these five reasons are the base for Europe lagging behind, not regulation. And so, my friends, as I wrap up this afternoon, what I would call on us to do is not waste time on a regulation versus innovation reflection. Get rid of the zero-sum game approach, and let’s focus instead on getting the best possible regulation. And forgive me, I like lists, and I will name just briefly six things we can do now. One is get the Framework Convention ratified. Get the sufficient number of ratifications in place so that it can come into force. Secondly, let’s make sure that the EU does not lose its nerve. Let’s make sure that it insists on full enforcement of the Digital Services Act. Third, as we move along the pathway to the coming into force in the EU of the AI Act, let’s make sure that it is set up, both at the EU level and at the member state of the EU level, in such a way that the EU will genuinely protect all of our human rights. And fourth of my five, we need to support the private sector to do its own self-regulation in the regulatory context. And here, one obvious need is to fill the space with codes. It helps the private sector develop the codes of practice to do the necessary self-regulation. It’s already happening, but more is needed. And fifth and finally, let’s make sure that the private sector does its own self-regulation in the regulatory context. And finally, we need smart, clever human rights assessment tools to be used both for regulation, external and self-regulation. And here I’d like to join with the Secretary General and other speakers in a shout-out for the Huderia tool, which I believe is groundbreaking and will be of great importance. And the sixth and final of my observations about regulation is that it’s not finished. We now have to confront artificial general intelligence and artificial super-intelligence, and I suspect that our current regulatory models will not be up to the task. And so the examination of where we need to go next is no less an important one as how we deliver what we have now. And so as we engage these issues, let us again, if I may paraphrase Professor Bradford, let’s recalibrate the debate. Let’s avoid false clashes between tech regulation and tech innovation. Let us show how we both can and must have both.

Moderator: Thank you very much. Thank you, Michael O’Flaherty. Thank you very much, Human Rights Commissioner, for your words, for your encouragement, your very powerful message on the areas that we should all focus on as we move forward. This is a perfect end of the series of interventions which allow the participants really to enter into the various roundtable sessions. So allow me just to thank very warmly all our speakers, ministers for remaining here throughout these introductory speeches for your interventions, and all of you for having listened, of course, Secretary General for coming, and our EURIDIC partners for joining us here in these common efforts in the area of the governance of the Internet. I stop here, and we will start now with the plenary session which is dedicated to our parliamentary dimension. I’m very happy to see all our parliamentarians here already on the first row ready to kick off the next session. Thank you very much, and I wish everybody a successful event. Thanks.

Agreement points

Human rights must be protected in digital contexts

Speakers

– Oleksandr Bornyakov
– Marianne Wilhelmsen
– Michael O’Flaherty

Arguments

Ukraine will sign the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights to demonstrate commitment to democratic values despite invasion

Human rights must be protected online just as they are offline

States have a fundamental duty to protect citizens from risks, including in digital contexts

Summary

All speakers agree that human rights protection must extend to digital environments and that this is a fundamental responsibility of states and international frameworks

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Technology must serve humanity with human-centric approach

Speakers

– Oleksandr Bornyakov
– Marianne Wilhelmsen
– Michael O’Flaherty

Arguments

Ukraine uses technology as a weapon for survival and defense of fundamental rights during Russia’s invasion

Technology must serve humanity with a human-centric approach, not the other way around

The current AI revolution parallels historical industrial revolutions and requires addressing fundamental issues of human dignity, justice, and labor

Summary

All speakers emphasize that technology development and deployment must prioritize human needs, dignity, and rights rather than technology for its own sake

Topics

Human rights | Development

International cooperation and frameworks are essential for digital governance

Speakers

– Oleksandr Bornyakov
– Marianne Wilhelmsen
– Michael O’Flaherty

Arguments

Ukraine will sign the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights to demonstrate commitment to democratic values despite invasion

No single country can tackle internet governance issues alone – international collaboration across sectors is essential

The Framework Convention needs sufficient ratifications to come into force

Summary

All speakers recognize that digital governance challenges require international cooperation and binding frameworks like the Framework Convention

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

The Huderia methodology is valuable for human rights assessment

Speakers

– Oleksandr Bornyakov
– Michael O’Flaherty

Arguments

Ukraine adopts a soft regulation approach to AI to avoid stifling innovation during wartime when technology is backbone of economy and defense

Smart human rights assessment tools like Huderia are essential for both regulatory oversight and corporate self-regulation

Summary

Both speakers specifically endorse the Huderia methodology as an important tool for assessing human rights impacts in AI and technology development

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that democratic principles must be embedded in digital governance structures and technology development processes

Speakers

– Marianne Wilhelmsen
– Michael O’Flaherty

Arguments

The multi-stakeholder model reflects democratic values of participation, transparency, accountability and respect for human rights

In the digital age, democracy must extend to the code we write, the platforms we build and the policies we enact

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognize that the internet faces significant threats and requires proactive protection to maintain its openness while safeguarding rights

Speakers

– Marianne Wilhelmsen
– Michael O’Flaherty

Arguments

The open, global, interoperable internet is under pressure from fragmentation, digital divides, and control efforts

We need to be proactive in addressing challenges to ensure the Internet remains a space where innovation thrives while human rights are upheld

Topics

Human rights | Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers advocate for flexible, nuanced regulatory approaches that avoid stifling innovation while maintaining necessary oversight

Speakers

– Oleksandr Bornyakov
– Michael O’Flaherty

Arguments

Ukraine adopts a soft regulation approach to AI to avoid stifling innovation during wartime when technology is backbone of economy and defense

European regulatory instruments like the Framework Convention and AI Act are subtle, nimble and designed to promote rather than stifle innovation

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Regulation and innovation compatibility during crisis

Speakers

– Oleksandr Bornyakov
– Michael O’Flaherty

Arguments

Ukraine adopts a soft regulation approach to AI to avoid stifling innovation during wartime when technology is backbone of economy and defense

Regulation versus innovation is a false dichotomy – both are necessary and compatible

Explanation

Despite Ukraine being in an active war situation where one might expect regulatory concerns to be deprioritized, both the Ukrainian official and the Human Rights Commissioner agree that smart regulation can coexist with innovation even under extreme circumstances

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Private sector self-regulation within regulatory frameworks

Speakers

– Oleksandr Bornyakov
– Michael O’Flaherty

Arguments

Ukraine adopts a soft regulation approach to AI to avoid stifling innovation during wartime when technology is backbone of economy and defense

Private sector needs support in developing codes of practice for effective self-regulation within regulatory frameworks

Explanation

Both speakers, despite representing different institutional perspectives (government vs. human rights oversight), agree on the value of supporting private sector self-regulation as part of broader regulatory frameworks

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate remarkable consensus on fundamental principles: human rights must be protected in digital contexts, technology must serve humanity, international cooperation is essential, and regulation can coexist with innovation. They agree on the importance of the Framework Convention, multi-stakeholder governance, and tools like Huderia for human rights assessment.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for digital governance. The agreement spans different institutional perspectives (government, international organization, human rights body) and includes both crisis and non-crisis contexts. This suggests strong foundational agreement on core principles that could facilitate effective international cooperation and policy development in digital governance and AI regulation.

Different viewpoints

Approach to AI regulation – soft vs. comprehensive regulation

Speakers

– Oleksandr Bornyakov
– Michael O’Flaherty

Arguments

Ukraine adopts a soft regulation approach to AI to avoid stifling innovation during wartime when technology is backbone of economy and defense

Regulation versus innovation is a false dichotomy – both are necessary and compatible

Summary

Bornyakov advocates for a soft regulatory approach with self-regulation and voluntary codes of conduct to avoid stifling innovation during wartime, while O’Flaherty argues that comprehensive regulation is compatible with innovation and that the regulation vs. innovation debate is a false dichotomy

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Prioritization of innovation vs. regulation in crisis contexts

Speakers

– Oleksandr Bornyakov
– Michael O’Flaherty

Arguments

Ukraine uses technology as a weapon for survival and defense of fundamental rights during Russia’s invasion

States have a fundamental duty to protect citizens from risks, including in digital contexts

Summary

Bornyakov emphasizes technology as a survival tool requiring flexibility in regulation during wartime crisis, while O’Flaherty maintains that states have fundamental duties to protect citizens through regulation regardless of circumstances

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Unexpected differences

Role of crisis context in shaping regulatory approach

Speakers

– Oleksandr Bornyakov
– Michael O’Flaherty

Arguments

Ukraine adopts a soft regulation approach to AI to avoid stifling innovation during wartime when technology is backbone of economy and defense

States have a fundamental duty to protect citizens from risks, including in digital contexts

Explanation

Unexpectedly, the speakers disagree on whether crisis situations (like war) should modify regulatory approaches. Bornyakov argues that wartime necessitates softer regulation to preserve innovation capabilities, while O’Flaherty maintains that state duties to protect citizens remain constant regardless of circumstances. This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are committed to human rights protection.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on regulatory philosophy (soft vs. comprehensive regulation) and the role of crisis contexts in shaping regulatory approaches. While all speakers agree on fundamental principles like human rights protection and the importance of trustworthy technology, they differ on implementation strategies and the balance between innovation flexibility and regulatory oversight.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications. The disagreements are philosophical rather than fundamental, but they have important practical implications for how AI and internet governance should be implemented, particularly in crisis situations. The speakers share common goals but propose different pathways to achieve them, which could lead to divergent policy approaches across different jurisdictions and contexts.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that democratic principles must be embedded in digital governance structures and technology development processes

Speakers

– Marianne Wilhelmsen
– Michael O’Flaherty

Arguments

The multi-stakeholder model reflects democratic values of participation, transparency, accountability and respect for human rights

In the digital age, democracy must extend to the code we write, the platforms we build and the policies we enact

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognize that the internet faces significant threats and requires proactive protection to maintain its openness while safeguarding rights

Speakers

– Marianne Wilhelmsen
– Michael O’Flaherty

Arguments

The open, global, interoperable internet is under pressure from fragmentation, digital divides, and control efforts

We need to be proactive in addressing challenges to ensure the Internet remains a space where innovation thrives while human rights are upheld

Topics

Human rights | Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers advocate for flexible, nuanced regulatory approaches that avoid stifling innovation while maintaining necessary oversight

Speakers

– Oleksandr Bornyakov
– Michael O’Flaherty

Arguments

Ukraine adopts a soft regulation approach to AI to avoid stifling innovation during wartime when technology is backbone of economy and defense

European regulatory instruments like the Framework Convention and AI Act are subtle, nimble and designed to promote rather than stifle innovation

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Technology serves as a critical defense tool for Ukraine during wartime, with AI integration planned across public services while maintaining European standards for citizen safety

The regulation vs. innovation debate is a false dichotomy – both are necessary and compatible, with European regulatory frameworks designed to promote rather than stifle innovation

The multi-stakeholder model of internet governance represents grassroots democracy in action, reflecting core democratic values of participation, transparency, and accountability

States have a fundamental duty to protect citizens from digital risks, and human rights must be protected online just as they are offline

The open internet is under increasing pressure from fragmentation, digital divides, and control efforts, requiring proactive international cooperation to maintain

Europe’s innovation lag stems from structural issues (lack of digital single market, underdeveloped capital markets, cultural risk aversion) rather than over-regulation

Safe and trustworthy technology will ultimately achieve greater commercial success and adoption in the long term

Resolutions and action items

Get the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights ratified with sufficient numbers to bring it into force

Ensure full enforcement of the EU Digital Services Act without losing political will

Properly implement the EU AI Act at both EU and member state levels to genuinely protect human rights

Support private sector self-regulation by helping develop codes of practice

Deploy smart human rights assessment tools like the Huderia methodology for both external and self-regulation

Ukraine to sign the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights

Continue development of Ukraine’s national AI strategy and Win-Win AI Center of Excellence

Norway to host IGF 2025 in June as part of ongoing international cooperation efforts

Unresolved issues

How to address the regulatory challenges posed by future artificial general intelligence and artificial super-intelligence, as current models may be inadequate

How to effectively combat increasing internet fragmentation and digital divides globally

How to balance Ukraine’s soft regulation approach with adequate citizen protection during wartime conditions

How to address the structural barriers to European innovation (capital markets, bankruptcy laws, immigration policies) that actually impede technological advancement

How to ensure marginalized communities and next-generation digital citizens have adequate voice in internet governance

How to effectively counter disinformation campaigns and protect democratic institutions in the digital age

Suggested compromises

Ukraine’s adoption of a ‘soft regulation’ approach that provides companies time to prepare for new legal standards while offering guidance during self-regulation periods

The EU AI Act’s risk pyramid approach that allows most AI to operate under self-regulation rather than strict external oversight

The Framework Convention’s design that establishes powerful principles while leaving wide margins for states to implement them according to national contexts

Voluntary codes of conduct for companies as an intermediate step between no regulation and strict external regulation

Combining European regulatory standards with flexibility for innovation, particularly in wartime or crisis contexts

Ukraine has become an outpost for the whole Europe, and in this battle for survival our most powerful weapon is innovation. Today technology helps Ukraine to defend our fundamental rights, the right to live, our freedom, and self-determination.

Speaker

Oleksandr Bornyakov

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by positioning technology and AI not as abstract policy concerns, but as literal tools of survival and defense of fundamental human rights. It transforms the theoretical debate about balancing regulation and innovation into a concrete, life-or-death reality.

Impact

This statement established a powerful foundational context that elevated the stakes of the entire discussion. It demonstrated that for some nations, AI innovation isn’t just about economic competitiveness or regulatory compliance—it’s about existential survival and protecting basic human rights under extreme circumstances.

We cannot allow this to happen in times of war when technology is the backbone of Ukrainian economy and defense, and that’s why we have chosen a soft approach to regulation… This approach gives companies time to prepare to the new legal standards for AI.

Speaker

Oleksandr Bornyakov

Reason

This introduces a nuanced perspective on the regulation vs. innovation debate by proposing a ‘soft approach’ to regulation that acknowledges both the need for standards and the practical constraints of wartime innovation. It challenges the binary thinking about regulation being either present or absent.

Impact

This comment introduced a practical middle-ground solution that influenced the subsequent discussion’s tone, moving away from an either/or framing toward more sophisticated approaches to balancing competing needs.

The open, global, interoperable internet that has empowered billions is under pressure. We are witnessing increasing fragmentation and a surge, widening digital divides and a surge in efforts to control and restrict access.

Speaker

Marianne Wilhelmsen

Reason

This comment shifts the discussion from focusing solely on AI regulation to addressing the broader existential threat to internet freedom itself. It introduces urgency by suggesting that the foundational infrastructure of digital democracy is under attack.

Impact

This observation broadened the scope of the discussion beyond technical AI governance to fundamental questions about preserving digital rights and democratic access to information, adding a layer of urgency to the regulatory framework discussions.

I take the opportunity this afternoon to absolutely, fundamentally, and without hesitation, refute that assertion. The bundle of myths that put together lead to those assumptions… safe technology is more trustworthy technology, and more trustworthy technology ultimately will win out, including commercially.

Speaker

Michael O’Flaherty

Reason

This is a direct, forceful challenge to the central premise that regulation stifles innovation. O’Flaherty doesn’t just disagree—he systematically dismantles the argument with academic evidence and proposes that safety actually enhances long-term commercial success.

Impact

This comment represented a turning point in the discussion, shifting from accepting the regulation-innovation tension as a given problem to questioning whether that tension actually exists. It reframed the entire debate and provided intellectual ammunition for a different approach.

Look also at the AI Act of the European Union, with its so-called risk pyramid… most AI will not fall under a strict external oversight. Rather, its safety will be determined by self-regulation.

Speaker

Michael O’Flaherty

Reason

This comment reveals the sophistication and nuance of existing European AI regulation, directly countering claims that European regulation is heavy-handed or innovation-stifling. It shows that current frameworks are already designed with innovation in mind.

Impact

This technical explanation helped shift the discussion from abstract concerns about regulation to concrete understanding of how modern AI governance actually works, providing factual grounding for policy discussions.

We now have to confront artificial general intelligence and artificial super-intelligence, and I suspect that our current regulatory models will not be up to the task.

Speaker

Michael O’Flaherty

Reason

This forward-looking statement acknowledges that even the most sophisticated current regulatory frameworks may be inadequate for future AI developments. It introduces humility and the need for adaptive governance approaches.

Impact

This comment opened up discussion about the limitations of current approaches and the need for continued evolution in governance frameworks, preventing the conversation from becoming too self-congratulatory about existing solutions.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by transforming it from a theoretical policy debate into a multifaceted conversation about survival, democracy, and adaptive governance. Bornyakov’s wartime perspective provided moral urgency and practical constraints that grounded abstract policy discussions in life-or-death realities. Wilhelmsen’s observations about internet fragmentation broadened the scope beyond AI to fundamental digital rights. O’Flaherty’s systematic refutation of the regulation-innovation dichotomy provided the intellectual framework for moving beyond zero-sum thinking toward more sophisticated governance approaches. Together, these interventions elevated the discussion from technical policy considerations to fundamental questions about how democratic societies can preserve human rights and innovation capacity under extreme pressure, while remaining adaptive to future technological developments that may exceed current regulatory frameworks.

How to effectively implement and enforce the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy, and Rule of Law once it comes into force

Speaker

Michael O’Flaherty

Explanation

O’Flaherty emphasized the need to get sufficient ratifications for the Framework Convention to come into force, but the practical implementation challenges remain to be addressed

How to ensure full enforcement of the Digital Services Act without the EU losing its nerve

Speaker

Michael O’Flaherty

Explanation

O’Flaherty expressed concern about maintaining commitment to enforcing existing regulations and called for ensuring the EU maintains strong enforcement

How to develop regulatory frameworks for artificial general intelligence and artificial super-intelligence

Speaker

Michael O’Flaherty

Explanation

O’Flaherty noted that current regulatory models may not be adequate for future AI developments, indicating a need for new approaches

How to formalize and widely implement the Huderia methodology for AI impact assessment

Speaker

Oleksandr Bornyakov and Michael O’Flaherty

Explanation

Both speakers mentioned the Huderia tool as important, with Bornyakov noting they are piloting it and looking forward to its formalization by the Committee of AI

How to balance soft regulation approaches with ensuring adequate protection of citizens’ rights during wartime

Speaker

Oleksandr Bornyakov

Explanation

Bornyakov described Ukraine’s choice of a soft regulatory approach due to wartime needs, but this raises questions about maintaining adequate protections

How to address the real causes of Europe’s innovation lag beyond regulation

Speaker

Michael O’Flaherty

Explanation

O’Flaherty cited Professor Bradford’s research identifying five non-regulatory factors hindering European innovation, suggesting these areas need further investigation and action

How to effectively support private sector self-regulation and development of codes of practice

Speaker

Michael O’Flaherty

Explanation

O’Flaherty noted that while self-regulation is happening, more support is needed for the private sector to develop effective codes of practice

How to ensure AI systems are developed and deployed with transparency

Speaker

Marianne Wilhelmsen

Explanation

Wilhelmsen identified the lack of transparency in AI system development and deployment as a growing concern that needs to be addressed