Keynotes

Summary

This discussion focused on the intersection of human rights, artificial intelligence (AI), and internet governance in Europe. The speakers, including representatives from Ukraine, Norway, and the Council of Europe, addressed the challenges and opportunities presented by digital technologies and AI.

Ukraine’s Deputy Minister of Digital Transformation highlighted the country’s progress in integrating AI into public services, despite ongoing conflict with Russia. He emphasized Ukraine’s commitment to European standards and soft regulation approaches to foster innovation while protecting citizens’ rights.

Norway’s State Secretary stressed the importance of preserving an open, global internet while addressing concerns such as digital divides, online harms, and disinformation. She emphasized the need for human-centric approaches to technology and the significance of multi-stakeholder internet governance models.

The Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner, Michael O’Flaherty, addressed the false dichotomy between regulation and innovation. He argued that effective regulation is essential for protecting human rights and fostering trust in technology. O’Flaherty outlined several key areas for focus, including ratifying the Framework Convention on AI, enforcing the EU’s Digital Services Act, and developing smart human rights assessment tools.

The speakers collectively emphasized the importance of balancing technological innovation with human rights protection. They called for collaborative efforts across sectors and borders to address the complex challenges posed by AI and digital technologies. The discussion underscored the critical role of European institutions in shaping responsible and rights-respecting approaches to technological advancement.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Ukraine’s progress in digital transformation and AI development despite ongoing war

– The importance of balancing AI regulation with innovation

– Norway’s focus on digitalization and hosting the upcoming Internet Governance Forum

– The need for human-centric approaches to technology and internet governance

– Refuting claims that regulation stifles innovation in Europe

Overall purpose/goal:

The discussion aimed to highlight key issues and developments in digital technology, AI, and internet governance from European perspectives. Speakers emphasized the need to protect human rights while fostering innovation as technology rapidly advances.

Tone:

The overall tone was serious and forward-looking, with speakers conveying a sense of urgency about addressing challenges posed by new technologies. There was an undercurrent of optimism about Europe’s ability to lead in responsible tech development, despite acknowledging some areas where Europe lags behind. The tone became more forceful and direct when refuting claims about regulation stifling innovation.

Speakers

– Oleksandr Bornyakov

Role: Deputy Minister of Digital Transformation of Ukraine

– Marianne Wilhelmsen

Role: State Secretary at the Ministry of Digitalization and Public Governance of Norway

– Moderator

Role: Moderator of the discussion

– Michael O’Flaherty

Role: Commissioner for Human Rights

Additional speakers:

– Gianluca (mentioned briefly, no further details provided)

– Secretary General (mentioned, but name not provided)

The Intersection of Human Rights, AI, and Internet Governance in Europe

This discussion, held as part of EuroDIG 2025 in Strasbourg, brought together key figures from Ukraine, Norway, and the Council of Europe to address the complex interplay between human rights, artificial intelligence (AI), and internet governance in Europe. The speakers explored the challenges and opportunities presented by rapidly advancing digital technologies and AI, emphasising the need for balanced approaches that foster innovation while protecting citizens’ rights.

Ukraine’s Digital Transformation Amidst Conflict

Oleksandr Bornyakov, Deputy Minister of Digital Transformation of Ukraine, highlighted his country’s remarkable progress in integrating AI into public services, despite the ongoing conflict with Russia. Ukraine has set an ambitious goal to become one of the top three countries in AI development and integration into the public sector by 2030. Bornyakov emphasised that innovation has become a crucial tool for defending Ukrainian citizens, positioning technology as the backbone of both the economy and national defence.

Ukraine has adopted a soft approach to AI regulation, publishing a white paper based on a bottom-up methodology. This strategy allows companies time to adapt to new legal standards while providing them with soft law tools to improve their ethical practices. Fifteen market leaders have already signed a voluntary code of conduct, establishing internal rules for the ethical use of AI products that impact millions of users globally.

Bornyakov detailed specific AI applications in Ukraine, including the use of AI in the Diya app for public services and the Maria educational app. He also announced the launch of the Win-Win AI Center of Excellence and Ukraine’s plans to sign the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy, and Rule of Law. Additionally, Bornyakov revealed plans to launch a national large language model, demonstrating Ukraine’s commitment to developing sovereign AI capabilities.

Norway’s Focus on Digitalisation and Internet Governance

Marianne Wilhelmsen, State Secretary at the Ministry of Digitalization and Public Governance of Norway, outlined her country’s ambitious goal to become the world’s most digitalised nation by 2030. She emphasised the critical importance of preserving an open, global internet while addressing concerns such as digital divides, online harms, and disinformation.

Wilhelmsen stressed the need for human-centric approaches to technology, arguing that innovation must not come at the cost of fundamental rights. She likened the internet to critical infrastructure, stating that it has become “the infrastructure of our democracies, the engine of our economies and a central part of our daily lives,” requiring careful maintenance, protection, and governance.

The State Secretary highlighted Norway’s preparation for hosting the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in 2025, emphasising the importance of the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance. She also touched on Norway’s national digitalization strategy, which aims to create a more inclusive and sustainable digital future.

Balancing Regulation and Innovation: A Human Rights Perspective

Michael O’Flaherty, Commissioner for Human Rights, addressed the perceived dichotomy between regulation and innovation, strongly refuting claims that regulation stifles technological advancement in Europe. He argued that effective regulation is essential for protecting human rights and fostering trust in technology, which ultimately leads to greater success and adoption of innovations.

O’Flaherty referenced Professor Anu Bradford’s five reasons for Europe lagging in innovation: underdeveloped capital markets, punitive bankruptcy laws, cultural risk aversion, lack of a digital single market, and limited access to global talent. He then outlined six key suggestions for improving regulation:

1. Ratification of the Framework Convention on AI

2. Full enforcement of the EU’s Digital Services Act

3. Proper implementation of the EU’s AI Act

4. Development of codes of practice for private sector self-regulation

5. Creation and use of human rights assessment tools for AI regulation

6. Preparation for emerging technologies such as artificial general intelligence (AGI) and artificial super-intelligence

The Commissioner emphasised that existing human rights laws and institutions, developed since World War II, provide crucial tools for addressing the challenges posed by AI, particularly in areas concerning human dignity, justice, and labour rights.

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the critical role of European institutions in shaping responsible and rights-respecting approaches to technological advancement. It highlighted the need for collaborative efforts across sectors and borders to address the complex challenges posed by AI and digital technologies. As Bornyakov aptly stated, “Together, Ukraine and Europe can build an innovative AI continent that’s safe for our citizens,” encapsulating the spirit of cooperation and shared responsibility that permeated the dialogue.

The conversation set the stage for ongoing work in developing nuanced, effective regulation that supports innovation while safeguarding human rights and societal well-being. As technology continues to advance rapidly, the insights and commitments shared in this discussion will undoubtedly inform future policy-making and international cooperation in the realms of AI governance and digital rights.

The moderator concluded the session by thanking the speakers and highlighting the importance of continued dialogue on these critical issues. Brief mentions were made of other participants, including the Secretary General and the Luxembourg Presidency, underscoring the broad engagement in this important conversation about Europe’s digital future.

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

Importance of balancing AI regulation and innovation

Speakers

– Oleksandr Bornyakov
– Marianne Wilhelmsen
– Michael O’Flaherty

Arguments

Ukraine has 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.

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.

O’Flaherty strongly refutes the assertion that regulation hinders innovation in Europe. He argues that regulation is necessary for safety and trustworthiness, and that European regulatory instruments are designed to be subtle and nimble.

Summary

All speakers emphasized the need to balance AI regulation with innovation, ensuring that regulation protects rights without stifling technological progress.

Importance of human rights in AI and Internet governance

Speakers

– Marianne Wilhelmsen
– Michael O’Flaherty

Arguments

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.

O’Flaherty emphasizes that existing human rights laws and institutions are crucial for addressing challenges posed by AI. He argues these tools, developed since World War II, are essential for engaging with issues of human dignity, justice, and labor in the context of AI.

Summary

Both speakers stressed the importance of applying human rights principles to AI and Internet governance.

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers expressed ambitious national goals for digital transformation and AI integration in their respective countries.

Speakers

– Oleksandr Bornyakov
– Marianne Wilhelmsen

Arguments

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.

By 2030, Norway aims to be the world’s most digitalized country.

Unexpected consensus

Importance of private sector self-regulation

Speakers

– Oleksandr Bornyakov
– Michael O’Flaherty

Arguments

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.

O’Flaherty emphasizes the need to support the private sector in self-regulation within the regulatory context. He suggests that developing codes of practice can help the private sector implement necessary self-regulation.

Explanation

Despite their different perspectives (Ukraine focusing on wartime innovation and O’Flaherty on human rights), both speakers emphasized the importance of private sector self-regulation in AI development.

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the need to balance AI regulation with innovation, the importance of human rights in digital governance, and the role of private sector self-regulation.

Consensus level

There is a moderate level of consensus among the speakers on key issues. This suggests a shared understanding of the challenges and opportunities in AI governance, which could facilitate future cooperation and policy development in this area.

Different viewpoints

Approach to AI regulation

Speakers

– Oleksandr Bornyakov
– Michael O’Flaherty

Arguments

Ukraine has 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.

O’Flaherty strongly refutes the assertion that regulation hinders innovation in Europe. He argues that regulation is necessary for safety and trustworthiness, and that European regulatory instruments are designed to be subtle and nimble.

Summary

While Ukraine favors a soft, bottom-up approach to AI regulation, O’Flaherty advocates for a more structured regulatory framework, arguing that it doesn’t necessarily stifle innovation.

Unexpected differences

Overall assessment

Summary

The main area of disagreement revolves around the approach to AI regulation, with Ukraine favoring a softer, self-regulatory approach, while European representatives advocate for more structured regulation. However, all parties agree on the need to balance innovation with safety and human rights protection.

Disagreement level

The level of disagreement is moderate. While there are differences in approach, particularly regarding the strictness of regulation, all parties share common goals of promoting innovation while protecting citizens’ rights and safety. This suggests that there is room for dialogue and potential compromise in developing effective AI governance frameworks.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers expressed ambitious national goals for digital transformation and AI integration in their respective countries.

Speakers

– Oleksandr Bornyakov
– Marianne Wilhelmsen

Arguments

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.

By 2030, Norway aims to be the world’s most digitalized country.

Key takeaways

Ukraine is rapidly integrating AI and digital technologies into government services and processes, viewing innovation as a key defense and development tool.

There is a need to balance AI regulation and innovation, with a focus on human-centric approaches and protecting fundamental rights.

The multi-stakeholder model is crucial for effective Internet governance and protecting digital rights.

European countries are developing national digitalization strategies and regulatory frameworks for AI and digital services.

Regulation does not necessarily stifle innovation; safe and trustworthy technology can be more successful in the long term.

International collaboration is essential to address challenges in Internet governance and emerging AI technologies.

Resolutions and action items

Ukraine to sign the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy, and Rule of Law

Norway to host the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in 2025

Ratification of the Framework Convention on AI

Full enforcement of the EU’s Digital Services Act

Proper implementation of the EU’s AI Act

Development of codes of practice for private sector self-regulation

Creation and use of human rights assessment tools for AI regulation

Unresolved issues

Specific strategies to address the challenges posed by artificial general intelligence (AGI) and artificial super-intelligence

Detailed plans for creating a digital single market in Europe

Concrete steps to address Europe’s underdeveloped capital markets and punitive bankruptcy laws

Specific measures to change the cultural risk aversion in Europe

Detailed policies to improve access to global talent through immigration reforms

Suggested compromises

Ukraine’s adoption of a soft approach to AI regulation, balancing innovation needs with ethical considerations

The EU’s risk pyramid approach in the AI Act, allowing for self-regulation of lower-risk AI applications while maintaining oversight for high-risk ones

Flexible implementation of the Framework Convention, allowing states a margin of discretion in how to implement its principles

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.

Speaker

Oleksandr Bornyakov

Reason

This comment frames AI innovation as a means of protection and safety, rather than just economic or technological advancement. It also emphasizes collaboration between Ukraine and Europe.

Impact

This shifted the conversation towards viewing AI as a protective tool and highlighted the importance of international cooperation in AI development.

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.

Speaker

Marianne Wilhelmsen

Reason

This analogy effectively illustrates the critical importance of the internet and the need for its careful governance.

Impact

It set the tone for discussing internet governance as a crucial aspect of maintaining democratic societies and economic stability.

Let us work together to build a digital future that’s inclusive, equitable and sustainable.

Speaker

Marianne Wilhelmsen

Reason

This comment emphasizes the importance of collaboration and sets clear goals for the future of digital technology.

Impact

It reinforced the theme of international cooperation and provided a framework for discussing the desired outcomes of internet governance.

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.

Speaker

Michael O’Flaherty

Reason

This comment directly challenges the notion that regulation hinders innovation and introduces a counter-argument based on state responsibility.

Impact

It shifted the discussion towards a more nuanced view of regulation and innovation, encouraging a deeper analysis of their relationship.

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.

Speaker

Michael O’Flaherty

Reason

This comment reframes the debate, moving away from a binary opposition between regulation and innovation to a more constructive approach.

Impact

It encouraged participants to think more creatively about how to achieve effective regulation that supports innovation, rather than viewing them as mutually exclusive.

Overall assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by reframing the relationship between AI innovation, internet governance, and regulation. They moved the conversation away from viewing regulation as an impediment to innovation and towards seeing it as a necessary tool for ensuring safety, democracy, and equitable development. The speakers emphasized international collaboration, the critical role of the internet in modern society, and the need for nuanced, effective regulation. This led to a more complex and constructive dialogue about how to balance technological advancement with human rights and societal well-being.

How can we balance AI regulation with the need for innovation, especially in countries facing urgent challenges like Ukraine?

Speaker

Oleksandr Bornyakov

Explanation

The Deputy Minister of Ukraine emphasized the importance of AI for their defense and economy, while also acknowledging the need for regulation. This balance is crucial for countries in similar situations.

What are the specific challenges and opportunities in developing a national large language model for Ukraine?

Speaker

Oleksandr Bornyakov

Explanation

The Deputy Minister mentioned plans to launch a national large language model, which could have significant implications for AI development in Ukraine and potentially serve as a model for other countries.

How can the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance be strengthened to address emerging challenges like AI and internet fragmentation?

Speaker

Marianne Wilhelmsen

Explanation

The State Secretary of Norway emphasized the importance of the multi-stakeholder model and the need to adapt it to new technological challenges.

What specific measures can be taken to ensure that AI and internet governance protect marginalized communities and the next generation of digital citizens?

Speaker

Marianne Wilhelmsen

Explanation

This was highlighted as a key concern in ensuring that internet governance is truly inclusive and protects all users.

How can we develop effective human rights assessment tools for AI regulation and self-regulation?

Speaker

Michael O’Flaherty

Explanation

The Human Rights Commissioner emphasized the need for smart assessment tools, mentioning the Huderia tool as an example. Further research in this area could significantly impact AI governance.

What new regulatory approaches might be needed to address artificial general intelligence and artificial super-intelligence?

Speaker

Michael O’Flaherty

Explanation

O’Flaherty suggested that current regulatory models may not be sufficient for these advanced forms of AI, indicating a need for further research and policy development.