The Role of Parliamentarians in Shaping a Trusted Internet Empowering All People

Jeehan Mahmood

The analysis examined several important issues related to trust, online violence, elections, artificial intelligence (AI), and the role of parliaments in the Internet Governance Forum.

The first point raised was the lack of trust in politics, substantiated by polling data. This is a concerning trend as trust is essential in the political domain for effective governance and decision-making. Without trust, the legitimacy and effectiveness of political institutions are compromised. Therefore, efforts must be made to rebuild trust and restore confidence in political processes.

A significant concern highlighted in the analysis is online violence, particularly directed towards children and women within the political sphere. This form of violence presents a threat to both individual well-being and democratic processes. By targeting vulnerable groups, online violence undermines their ability to participate fully in political discussions and decision-making. It is imperative to combat this issue to ensure a safe and inclusive online environment for all.

The analysis also emphasised the need to safeguard the integrity of elections, given the prevalence of interference across the globe. Electoral interference undermines the principles of democracy and the credibility of electoral outcomes. Adequate measures must be put in place to protect the electoral process from external influence and manipulation, thereby ensuring fair and transparent elections.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) was another crucial topic discussed in the analysis. The potential risks and benefits associated with AI are significant. While AI holds promising prospects for various sectors, there are concerns regarding its ethical implications, data privacy, and potential biases. To address these issues and promote responsible AI development, a publicly trustworthy framework is necessary. This framework should encompass guidelines to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness in AI systems.

Lastly, the analysis outlined the positive role of parliaments in the Internet Governance Forum. Parliaments have a responsibility to create the legal framework and safeguard human rights within the digital realm. This role signifies the importance of parliamentary participation and decision-making in shaping internet governance policies. By actively engaging in the Internet Governance Forum, parliaments can contribute to a more inclusive and democratic digital landscape.

In conclusion, the analysis highlighted the pressing need to restore trust in politics, combat online violence, safeguard the integrity of elections, establish a publicly trustworthy AI framework, and acknowledge the valuable role of parliaments in internet governance. These insights call for concerted efforts to address these issues, promote transparency, and preserve democratic values in an increasingly digital world.

Junhua Li

Junhua Li emphasises the importance of effective data governance and the need for a balanced political direction to safeguard individuals’ rights, including privacy. He highlights the potential consequences of fragmented national approaches to data governance, such as exclusion and misalignment with global goals. Li advocates for a coordinated and unified approach to ensure that data governance protects people’s rights and promotes global objectives.

Additionally, Li promotes the development of new technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), in a trusted manner to foster innovation. He emphasises the importance of policies, laws, and regulations that facilitate collaboration among stakeholders, ensuring the responsible development of these technologies while upholding ethical considerations. By advocating for a trusted and responsible approach, Li envisions a future where innovation thrives without compromising individual and community well-being and values.

Furthermore, Li calls for the creation of a digital space that effectively addresses online misinformation and disinformation. He recognises the internet as a tool for individual and collective empowerment and emphasises the need to secure it to prevent the spread of false information. This highlights his commitment to fostering a digital environment where individuals have access to accurate and reliable information, promoting informed decision-making and an engaged citizenry.

Moreover, Li encourages lawmakers to consider recommendations from global-level discussions and apply them at the regional and national levels. By doing so, lawmakers can contribute to establishing an inclusive, safe, and secure internet governance structure. Collaborating with stakeholders, lawmakers can mitigate the risks of digitalisation and ensure that its benefits are accessible to all. Through these efforts, Li envisions an internet governance framework that empowers individuals and enhances opportunities for social, economic, and political participation.

In conclusion, Junhua Li’s viewpoints underscore the importance of robust data governance, responsible technological development, and the creation of a digital space that combats misinformation and disinformation. His advocacy for inclusive and secure internet governance reflects his commitment to safeguarding individuals’ rights and promoting global objectives. By implementing his recommendations, policymakers can contribute to a future where technology drives societal progress, innovation thrives, and the digital realm becomes a space for empowerment and engagement.

Sumana Shrestha

The speakers in the discussion focus on the regulation and policy development needed to keep up with the fast-paced advancements in technology. They highlight the importance of updating regulations to address the challenges posed by new technologies. While regulators and policymakers often manage to catch up, there is a need for proactive measures to ensure that regulations are not lagging behind.

Contextualising global frameworks is another key point emphasised by the speakers. They argue that countries should adapt global frameworks to their specific needs and unique conditions. This approach acknowledges that one size does not fit all when it comes to regulations and policies. By tailoring global frameworks to local contexts, countries can better address the challenges and opportunities presented by technology.

Child safety and digital literacy are also highlighted as critical areas that require attention. The speakers stress the need for basic minimum standards across the world to protect children online and ensure that they have access to essential digital literacy programmes. By establishing these standards, countries can provide a safer online environment for children and empower them with the necessary skills to navigate the digital world.

Learning from each other and replicating best practices is seen as another way to advance technology regulation and policy development. By sharing knowledge and experiences, countries can avoid reinventing the wheel and benefit from successful approaches implemented elsewhere.

Trust-building and cooperation among stakeholders are also emphasised for the optimal use of digital technologies. The speakers argue that collaboration between governments, private sector entities, and civil society is crucial to build trust and ensure that technology is used in a safe and responsible manner. They point out the implications of optimally using digital technologies to interact in a digitally safe space.

The migration of educated individuals and the resulting challenges in policy implementation are also discussed. The speakers highlight the need to address this issue and find ways to retain talent within the country, as the influx of skilled individuals can hamper policy development and implementation.

The importance of strong cooperation in policy implementation is emphasised. The speakers advocate for institutionalising efforts to strengthen cooperation, leveraging the network and knowledge gained from past experiences. By working together, countries can overcome challenges and ensure effective policy implementation.

Cooperation and generous knowledge and technology sharing are deemed necessary to ensure global digital safety. The sharing of advanced algorithms, for instance, can help combat digital challenges such as deep fakes. The speakers stress that global digital safety benefits everyone and that cooperation is essential in achieving this.

The speakers also touch upon the importance of contextualising technology for different countries and localities. They acknowledge that the level of digital literacy varies globally, and technologies should be people-centric and tailored to fit specific contexts. They provide an example of a pop-up alert that helps individuals discern internet information, illustrating the importance of user-centric design.

The need for globally agreed-upon minimum standards is highlighted, particularly in areas such as digital safety and accountability. The speakers argue that certain non-negotiable standards are essential for protecting minors and highlight the commendable work done by the EU in this regard.

The role of parliamentarians in the policy-making process and their potential collaboration with UN bodies and other platforms is highlighted. The stability and continuity provided by parliamentarians, especially in countries like Nepal where government changes frequently, make them valuable partners in achieving policy objectives.

Access to knowledge and the importance of learning from various countries and frameworks are emphasised. The speakers advocate for access to knowledge pots and stress the need to learn from each other’s experiences and customise frameworks for specific countries.

The speakers also discuss the importance of a unified approach to data management. They argue for uniformity and a minimum standard for handling data across different sectors. This collective approach allows for customisation while maintaining consistency and avoiding a fragmented approach.

The possibility of bringing regulations that deal with rapidly changing technology is mentioned. The example of Nepal, where the government can bring laws that are active for 60 days and replace them with permanent laws, is cited. The banning of cryptocurrency due to a lack of understanding of its volatility and technology is highlighted as an example where appropriate regulations need to be implemented.

The importance of staying proactive and connected with researchers, academia, and innovators to understand upcoming changes in technology is emphasised. By engaging with experts in the field, policymakers can stay informed and make well-informed decisions.

The speakers address the challenges posed by disinformation, misinformation, and fake news in the digital age. They emphasise the need for collective conversations to manage these social issues, as the internet knows no boundaries. Tackling these challenges requires a coordinated effort across countries and platforms.

Advocacy for minimum standards to protect citizens in low-resource settings is highlighted. Small companies often lack access to data and struggle to keep up with larger tech platforms. The speakers argue that regulations on content moderation are necessary wherever these platforms operate to ensure the well-being of citizens in low-resource settings.

The collective bargaining power of the EU is seen as influential in implementing regulations. The EU’s ability to negotiate and enforce regulations sets an example for other countries and regions.

Innovation and youth engagement in policy dialogues are encouraged. The speakers stress the importance of innovation, particularly in countries with limited resources, and the need to involve the youth in shaping policy decisions. They argue that the younger generation should set the narrative now to avoid difficulty in changing it in the future.

Government accountability and the role of parliamentarians are emphasised. Parliamentarians are seen as key players in holding the government accountable for its decisions. The speakers argue for a democratic process where fundamental rights are safeguarded and changes can be made through elections.

In conclusion, the speakers present a range of valuable perspectives on technology regulation and policy development. They highlight the need for proactive measures and contextualising policies to address the challenges posed by technology. The importance of basic minimum standards, knowledge sharing, cooperation, and public engagement are emphasised. Additionally, the speakers stress the importance of government accountability, youth engagement, and a unified approach to data management. The EU’s collective bargaining power and the need for innovation in low-resource settings are also discussed. Overall, the speakers provide valuable insights into the complex task of regulating technology and developing effective policies in a rapidly evolving digital landscape.

Vint Cerf

The Internet is a powerful tool that has the ability to amplify both beneficial and harmful voices and behaviors. This presents a significant challenge in maintaining discipline and order in the online sphere. On one hand, the Internet allows for the rapid distribution of content and provides a platform for individuals who may not have been able to voice their opinions otherwise. This amplification of voices can lead to positive outcomes, such as spreading awareness about important social issues or giving a platform to marginalized communities. However, on the other hand, the Internet also amplifies harmful voices and behaviors, which can have serious consequences. Disciplining and regulating online content in order to mitigate the negative impact is a complex challenge that requires careful consideration.

Technologists play a crucial role in addressing this challenge. They have an obligation to assist lawmakers and parliamentarians in understanding how computer-based applications work and do not work. By providing insight into the technical aspects, technologists can help lawmakers create effective and constructive regulations. It is crucial to focus on the outcomes rather than specific technologies when developing rules and legislation in order to address the issues surrounding harmful online content.

The expansion of the Internet into interplanetary space brings forth a new set of challenges. The head of the Interplanetary Networking Chapter of the Internet Society, Yosuke Kaneko, has released a report on how the interplanetary internet would function. This expansion opens up opportunities for commercial activities on celestial bodies such as the moon. However, along with these opportunities arise legal and jurisdictional challenges. It is predicted that there will be commercial activity on the moon within the next two years, which will undoubtedly lead to questions regarding property rights, mining claims, and legal disputes. The current legal framework, including the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, only covers these issues in a modest way, leaving room for further exploration and development of regulations.

In conclusion, the Internet’s power to amplify both beneficial and harmful voices and behaviors poses a significant challenge in disciplining online content. Technologists have a responsibility to assist lawmakers in understanding the workings of computer-based applications to create effective regulations. Additionally, the expansion of the Internet into interplanetary space introduces new challenges, including legal and jurisdictional issues. As commercial activities on celestial bodies increase, questions regarding property rights and legal disputes are likely to arise. It is essential to address these challenges and develop appropriate regulations to ensure a safe and responsible online environment.

Moderator

In a recent discussion, various speakers expressed their perspectives on technology, governance, and societal issues. Vint Cerf, a prominent internet pioneer, revealed his preference for music composed before 1850, demonstrating his appreciation for classical music. On the other hand, Junhua Li advocated for a globally unified approach to data governance and emphasized the importance of developing artificial intelligence in a trusted manner. These different viewpoints highlight the diversity of opinions within the discussion.

The speakers also addressed the challenges and importance of trust in politics. Polling data from different regions highlighted the low levels of trust in politics, emphasizing the need for trust to be earned over time through transparent and ethical behavior. It was emphasized that people must have confidence in the fairness of electoral processes for trust to flourish in the political sphere.

Countering online violence, particularly towards women and children, emerged as a significant concern. The speakers unanimously agreed that legal and technical measures should be employed to combat this issue. Furthermore, creating a digital space that counters online misinformation was seen as crucial, with the internet being viewed as a tool for individual and collective empowerment.

The discussion also addressed the challenges posed by election interference and the threats it poses to democracy. New ways in which information circulates, along with the opportunities for micro-targeting audiences, were mentioned as factors that challenge democratic processes. It was argued that attempts to influence or interfere with the electoral process must be closely monitored and addressed to uphold the integrity of democratic systems.

One key theme that emerged throughout the discussion was the need for adaptable laws and regulations to keep pace with technological advancements. The rapid speed of technological change presents challenges for traditional legislative processes, requiring lawmakers to adopt agile governance measures. The focus should be on regulating the impact of technology rather than the technology itself.

The involvement of parliamentarians in global governance and the formulation of policies and regulations was highlighted as an essential aspect of decision-making. Collaboration between international organizations and parliamentarians was seen as crucial for ensuring the development of effective and inclusive governance frameworks. The input and participation of parliamentarians in specialized international organizations were seen as beneficial for policy-making and regulation.

The discussion also touched upon the importance of guidance from the UN system and other intergovernmental or international institutions, especially for smaller or developing countries. The expertise and resources provided by these organizations can help bridge the knowledge gap and enable these countries to navigate the complexities of technology governance.

Additional observations include the emphasis on proactively engaging with researchers, academia, and innovators to understand upcoming technologies and their potential impacts. It was also noted that the involvement of youth in policy-making and governance is crucial, as they comprise a significant portion of the population and provide unique perspectives and needs.

In conclusion, the discussion shed light on various aspects of technology governance and its impact on society. The speakers highlighted the need for trust, adaptable laws, collaboration, and guidance to address the challenges posed by technology. By considering these perspectives and working together, policymakers and stakeholders can navigate the complexities of technology governance and ensure that technology contributes positively to society.

Brando Benifei

The analysis of the provided texts reveals several key points raised by different speakers. One important point is the need to strike a balance between legislation and technology developments in order to keep up with the fast-paced technological advancements. It is recognized that trying to legislate every aspect of technology can be challenging, and therefore, a balanced approach is required.

Another significant point raised is the importance of involving all stakeholders in the creation of legislation. It is argued that including different perspectives and expertise can lead to more effective and comprehensive legislation. This involvement can help ensure that the needs and concerns of various stakeholders, such as academia and representatives from international organizations, are addressed and taken into consideration.

The implementation of legislation is highlighted as a critical aspect that must be done properly and realistically. It is emphasized that legislation should be enforceable and not become obsolete. This suggests the need for careful planning and consideration during the legislative process.

Power imbalances, particularly in the context of technology, are another concern brought forward. It is crucial to be aware of these imbalances and strive for fairness and equity in legislation. This point underlines the importance of ensuring that legislative measures do not disproportionately benefit certain entities or further widen existing inequalities.

Legislating on complex issues like artificial intelligence (AI) requires in-depth understanding and detailed study. Several texts mention the need for comprehensive analysis and research before enacting legislation on such complex and rapidly evolving technologies. This argument supports the idea that legislation on AI and similar technologies should be based on a solid understanding of their potential impact, risks, and ethical considerations.

The involvement of different stakeholders, including academia and representatives from various international organizations, in legislative discussions is seen as essential to avoid making wrong decisions. It is argued that engaging experts and diverse perspectives can help identify potential pitfalls, unintended consequences, and alternative solutions.

Cooperation is highlighted as a fundamental element in defining issues related to technology, AI, and the internet. Global collaboration, common definitions, and standards are emphasized as crucial for establishing a trustworthy internet and facilitating the responsible use of AI. The importance of international organizations, such as the United Nations, is emphasized in establishing these common frameworks and promoting cooperation.

Fundamental rights and safety considerations are seen as a priority when addressing domestic issues of technology. Legislation should be implemented to protect safety, health, and fundamental rights in the context of technological advancements. This argument highlights the need for a balanced approach that considers both the benefits and potential risks of technology.

Parliamentarians are identified as having a unique perspective in understanding the impact of technology developments on individuals. They are seen as distinct from executive branches, as they focus more on the individual impact of tech developments. This point suggests that the involvement of parliamentarians in the legislative process can bring a more holistic and individual-centered perspective.

There is a call for multiple layers of regulation and legislation in terms of time spans. It is argued that sustainable, longer-term regulations should be used alongside shorter-term, experimental regulations to gain experience and adapt to changing circumstances. This approach recognizes the need for flexibility and the ability to respond to emerging challenges.

Effective legislative measures are seen as essential to avoid market fragmentation, particularly in the context of the European Union. It is argued that solid legislation is necessary to overcome fragmentation and ensure a harmonized market.

The analysis also highlights the importance of democracy keeping pace with modern challenges. It is suggested that democracy needs to adapt to emerging challenges to remain relevant and appreciated by the people.

The engagement of young people in political and social discussions is emphasized as essential. It is argued that their involvement is necessary to prevent others from making decisions on their behalf. The exclusion of young people from decision-making processes is seen as detrimental to public discourse and effective governance.

However, some observations suggest that the rhetoric about the importance of young people is often not reflected in reality. Politicians may use rhetoric to highlight the significance of youth, but their actual involvement in decision-making processes might be limited.

There is also strong support for youth participation in discussions about climate change and digital rights. The texts highlight the impact that young people have had in uniting globally and influencing politics regarding climate change. It is argued that young people should build momentum around digital citizenship and digital rights, recognizing their significance in the modern world.

The limitation of freedom on the internet is seen as a delicate topic. It is argued that restrictions should be proportional to significant reasons that justify limits on freedom of expression. This point suggests the need for careful consideration and balancing of freedom and security in the digital realm.

Finally, there is a strong call for a united internet that fosters a more united world. This perspective emphasizes the need to oppose efforts that aim to separate the internet and instead work towards global collaboration that can lead to a more interconnected and cooperative world.

In conclusion, the analysis of the provided texts highlights the importance of striking a balance between legislation and technology developments, involving all stakeholders in legislative processes, implementing legislation properly, considering power imbalances, and in-depth understanding before enacting legislation. It also emphasizes the significance of cooperation, fundamental rights, engagement of young people, and a united approach to address the challenges posed by technology and the interconnected world.

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

The analysis highlights the importance of adopting an innovative and agile approach to regulate new technologies. It argues that legacy regulatory practices are not suitable for the fast-paced nature of technology advancements. Responding to uncertainties and standards is crucial in effectively regulating new technologies.

Another key point is the need for regulators to engage with stakeholders and understand the ground realities of the industry. Isolation can hinder the effectiveness of regulation, and actively interacting with stakeholders allows regulators to gain better insights into the challenges and dynamics of the industry.

In terms of understanding the standards of new technologies and their development, the analysis emphasizes the importance of innovation. It suggests the establishment of policy labs within innovation centers and tracking the progress of new use-cases developed by entrepreneurs and companies.

The analysis also emphasizes the role of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in parliamentary affairs. Latifa Al-Abdulkarim, an AI and law professor, highlights the importance of AI tools for understanding and summarizing legal legislations. Collaboration with governments and parliaments across countries further emphasizes the significance of AI tools in this domain.

International cooperation and dialogue are crucial for various aspects such as cybersecurity, data flow, AI risks, data policies and principles, and public security. The Saudi Parliament’s involvement in AI governance and regulations demonstrates the need for regulatory frameworks in these areas.

On a global scale, discussions surrounding global digital trust involve bodies like the United Nations (UN) and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The analysis suggests that global thinking on AI principles can be applied to national measures, taking into account cultural norms, values, and existing legislations.

Saudi Arabia’s implementation of UNESCO’s recommendation ethics on AI and the establishment of an International AI research and ethics center highlight the country’s commitment to ethical AI practices. The involvement of parliamentarians in global governance is also emphasized, urging global bodies to consider and involve them in decision-making processes.

The analysis identifies the need to speed up the lawmaking process to keep up with the rapid advancements in technology. Regulatory sandboxes are suggested as a means to bridge the gap between evolving technology and slow lawmaking. Engaging the opinions of the youth in decision-making processes is also highlighted, considering their representation in the population.

Lastly, the analysis touches on the issue of state-controlled internet accessibility. It argues against such control, referencing a case of internet shutdown in Pakistan due to political instability. It suggests that the International Parliamentary Union, along with countries facing similar problems, provide best practices and solutions related to internet accessibility.

Overall, the analysis presents a comprehensive overview of the regulation of new technologies and the involvement of parliamentarians in global governance. It provides evidence-backed arguments and suggests potential solutions for the challenges posed by technological advancements.

Audience

The speakers at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) highlighted several concerns regarding internet governance and trust, with a particular focus on the African continent. One major concern was that platforms based outside of Africa do not consider local values and norms, leading to a lack of trust among African internet users. The US Cloud Act was cited as an example of legislation that puts African internet users at risk.

To address this issue, it was argued that the African perspective should be taken into account when developing global internet standards. This is especially important as many African countries are set to hold elections in 2024, making trust in the internet crucial for these regions. It was emphasized that legislation should consider local African values, norms, and culture to ensure a trusted and inclusive internet.

Another concern discussed at the IGF was the potential threat of spreading disinformation by non-state actors linked to state actors during elections. It was noted that 70 democracies, including Ghana, are scheduled to hold elections in 2024, which creates a significant risk. Examples were given of countries such as North Korea, China, Russia, and the US, where non-state actors have been known to spread disinformation. It was argued that this poses a serious threat to the integrity of elections and highlights the need for measures to address this issue.

To achieve a safer and more trusted internet, it was proposed that the African continent should take a collective stand. Europe was cited as an example where a collective stand is taken instead of individual member states. The Pan-African Parliament and the African Union were called upon to take more action in this regard.

Youth engagement was highlighted as crucial in the creation of internet trust and security. It was emphasized that involving young people in the decision-making process is essential, and their participation would multiply the effect of actions taken. A speaker from Nepal raised the question of how policymakers plan to engage youth in enhancing internet trust.

Concerns were also raised about governments blacking out or shutting down the internet for political benefits. An incident in Pakistan was mentioned where there was a complete internet blackout for several days due to political reasons. It was suggested that internet governance bodies should take action in situations where governments violate the fundamental human right of internet access. The audience expressed opposition to state-induced internet blackouts and called for the implementation of regulations and laws by the IGF to prevent such actions.

Internet shutdowns by governments during times of political instability were another significant concern. It was proposed that parliamentarians should enact regulations or laws to prevent the state from cutting off internet access.

The importance of internet freedom and not degrading access under the guise of legitimate issues was also emphasized. It was argued that restrictions on internet freedom should be proportionate to significant reasons. There was a call for a common understanding and cooperation among stakeholders to define acceptable restrictions on internet freedom.

In conclusion, the discussions at the IGF highlighted the need for a more trusted and inclusive internet, particularly in the African context. The African perspective should be considered in the development of global internet standards, and measures should be taken to address the threat of disinformation during elections. Youth engagement, government accountability, and internet freedom were identified as crucial elements in achieving a safer and more trusted internet. The IGF was urged to take action by implementing regulations and laws to prevent government-induced internet blackouts. Overall, the discussions emphasized the importance of collective action and cooperation to create a more secure and inclusive online environment.

Tomoko Ukishima

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Kyoto 2023, to be held in Japan, aims to foster an environment that promotes the principles of an open, free, and trustworthy internet. This forum acknowledges and appreciates the commendable efforts made by the United Nations and the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) in this regard.

One of the key aspects of the forum is the parliamentary track, where members of parliament will engage in discussions about crucial matters related to the use and development of the internet. By sharing good practices and solutions, participants aim to implement effective and efficient policies through constructive dialogue with various stakeholders. This inclusive approach ensures that diverse perspectives and expertise are considered, leading to well-informed decisions.

The forum also places significant emphasis on shaping digital trust for the internet. This involves discussing topics such as data governance, artificial intelligence (AI), and disinformation. Participants will engage in constructive conversations about the challenges and opportunities associated with these areas to foster greater trust among users and stakeholders.

Additionally, the forum seeks to establish international guiding principles for all AI actors. This initiative began after the G7 Hiroshima Summit, and the goal is to establish a set of principles governing the usage and development of AI in a responsible and ethical manner. The engagement of various stakeholders in this development process is vital to ensure that the principles reflect a wide range of perspectives and are suitable for global adoption.

In conclusion, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Kyoto 2023 in Japan is a significant event that aims to promote an open, free, and trustworthy internet. Through the parliamentary track, discussions will be held on important internet-related issues, leading to the implementation of effective policies. The forum will focus on shaping digital trust by addressing challenges related to data governance, AI, and disinformation. Additionally, efforts will be made to establish international guiding principles for all AI actors. By fostering collaboration and dialogue, this forum plays a crucial role in shaping the future of internet governance and fostering a safe and inclusive digital environment.

Moderator:
I think you can. Now it’s coming. Yes, hello. Welcome to this year’s parliamentarian roundtable. My name is Thomas Schneider, I work for the Swiss government, and I’m delighted to act as a moderator here. So this is not about me, I’m just the facilitator for our discussion with parliamentarians, but not only among parliamentarians, but as you see also with some other people that play a role when it comes to digital governance. The parliamentarian track is something that has emerged over the years at the IGF, because people have realized that it is not only governments, civil society, business, and the technical community that has a role and should be present, but also parliamentarians, as they have a crucial role, of course, in setting, making the rules for our societies when it comes not only but also to, of course, digital governance. And this year’s parliamentarian track has, like the previous years, a series of events, this is just one of them, and it’s focusing around shaping digital trust and the role that parliaments and parliamentarians and the legislative per se has in all of this. And of course we know that trust is fundamental for all digital issues, but it’s particularly fundamental if we deal with new technologies like algorithms and artificial intelligence systems, but also when it comes to data, because data is an important resource, but without trust it is difficult to use data. Okay, so we are not yet ready, okay, so we need to slow down and wait. for the setting to be. So you give me a sign when you’re ready? Okay, perfect. Okay, so we can have a look at the audience and enjoy the nice view of people smiling and talking to each other, looking into their computers. Waiting for the session to continue. Exactly. We’re all wondering what kind of music that Vint Cerf is having on his headphones. But it’s still hippie music from the early 70s from California. No? Is it algorithms? Yeah.

Vint Cerf:
No, I prefer music published prior to 1850. Prior to 1850? Prior to 1850, yes, I’m a classicist. Okay. And so anything after 1850 I’m not interested in.

Moderator:
That explains why there’s a logic in the internet that you co-created because you’ve been listening to music that also follows a logic.

Vint Cerf:
This is the march of the gods into Valhalla.

Moderator:
Thanks, Vint, for this enlightenment. So are we ready? Not yet. So, yeah. Okay. This is a really nice venue. It’s a really nice architecture. It’s my first time here in Japan, so I’m quite enjoying it. And, yeah. So, welcome back to this roundtable. We have a lot of people here, but we have to start with the remote people. So, let’s start with the remote people. Or maybe we can still start, so if the remote people miss the Is it okay? Yes, okay, so welcome back to this parliamentarian roundtable that is, as I said, focusing this year on, in particular, on AI systems. So, we have a lot of people here, and we have a lot of technologies like using AI systems and also like using data where people only share data when they trust that nothing bad happens to their data and then also to themselves. So, having said this, I will not lose much time, and actually we’ll move on to introducing our first speakers, and we’ll start with Undersecretary Yoshimitsu Tomoe, who is a

Junhua Li:
co-president of the United Nations IGF and became the Chief Executive Run for president of the United Nations, he will share his views on power, integrity and market prides. Now I would like to acknowledge many important people who continue to be involved in the discussion of these two sectors. privacy in order to empower United Nations to balance the assistance of the political direction. That reflects people’s aspirations. It under secures the rights including the respect of privacy. We cannot afford the fragmented national approaches to the data governance. That leaves space for exclusion and misalignment with our global goals. With the growing digitalization of the global economy and the speed and speed with which new technologies are absorbed in our daily lives, we need to ensure that technology is deployed following a human-centric approach and according to our shared values. Policy, laws, and regulations should facilitate the collaboration to develop new and immersive technologies like artificial intelligence in a trusted way while continuing to foster innovations. And we need to create a digital space that curves the reach of the online misinformation and disinformation, securing the Internet as a tool for individual and collective empowerment for distinguished parliamentarians, distinguished guests, distinguished delegates. As lawmakers in your various jurisdictions, you can take the key message and the recommendations from those global-level discussions to the regional and the national levels and work with stakeholders to build a structure of the Internet governance that uplifts and empowers all peoples. You can also help to minimize the risks associated with digitalization to ensure that individuals can enjoy its benefits in an inclusive, safe, and secure manner. I invite you to strengthen your engagement with IGF across its various sessions. and focused areas, and consider the work carried out in these forums as resources for your national parliamentary discussions and activities. I wish you to continue to have fruitful exchanges and look forward to hearing your recommendations. I thank you. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you, Mr. Undersecretary General. Next, we do have somebody connected online. It is Ms. Jehan Mahmood, Minister of Parliament of the Maldives, and a member of the Bureau of the Inter-Parliamentarian Union Standing Committee on Democracy and Human Rights. I hope you are connected.

Jeehan Mahmood:
I hope you can hear me.

Moderator:
Yes, welcome.

Jeehan Mahmood:
Distinguished members of Parliament, panelists, IGF participants on Nobel Ukeshima, it often feels that trust is in short supply. Polling data from all regions show levels of trust in politics are not very high. Yet, in the political domain as elsewhere, trust is absolutely essential. People need to be able to trust that elections are free and fair. People need to be able to trust in their representatives to act responsibly on their behalf. For parliamentarians, public trust is a constant preoccupation. We know from firsthand experience that trust has to be built over time. Agreed rules, well-functioning institutions, and ethical behavior. are just some of the key ingredients to building this trust. For this reason, it is very important that today we are focusing on a trusted internet, a safe digital environment. I would like to draw attention to three areas that are of ongoing concern to the IPU. One is online violence, especially including violence towards women and children and also including in the political sphere. We simply cannot allow online violence to go unchallenged. We need to stand together to say that online violence is unacceptable and to take the legal and technical measures to combat violence. Take the legal and technical measures to combat violence online with as much vigor as we do offline. The internet must be a safe space for everyone, including and especially children. Another area of concern is elections, of course, and specifically attempts to influence or interfere with the electoral process. This is happening around the world, not only in the largest countries, even in really, really small countries such as Maldives, where I come from. The new ways in which information circulates and the new opportunities for micro-targeting audiences challenge us all. We must do more to safeguard the integrity of elections. The legitimacy of our governments and our parliaments, our elections depend upon it. Lastly, artificial intelligence, which has emerged into the public consciousness with such force in recent months. The potential benefits are enormous. The potential risks are also. How do we as lawmakers, technical experts, civil society, come together to build a force? framework for development and use artificial intelligence that the public can trust. This is one of the key questions of our times, our age, even as technology itself continues to evolve at a rapid pace. For parliaments, it is very important to be present here at the Internet Governance Forum and to be part of the ongoing exchange between stakeholders at national, regional, and international levels. We bear a heavy responsibility for creating the legal framework and as guardians of human rights of all citizens. We need to ensure that all voices are heard so that we can take actions that will build a trusted internet. I’m certain that the debates that are taking place at IGF this week will continue within the IPU and in our national parliaments. Thank you. Wishing you all a very fruitful forum.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Jian. Next, we have a member of parliament of the host country of Japan, Tomoko Ukishima. Please go to the lectern. Thank you.

Tomoko Ukishima:
Good afternoon, everyone. I am the chairperson of the House of Representatives General Affairs Committee, Tomoko Ukishima, on behalf of the members of parliament of Japan. And as the chairperson of the House of Representatives General Affairs Committee, which handles policies on telecommunications, let me say a few words. I would like to offer my heartfelt appreciation to the parliamentarians and distinguished guests for attending IGF Kyoto 2023. And I welcome you to this parliamentary track. I also take this opportunity to thank the United Nations and the IPU, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, for your efforts in hosting this session and for all your past efforts. Thank you so very much. As the host country of IGF 2023, it is a pleasure to provide this opportunity to gather the multi-stakeholders to discuss the promotion of open, free and trustworthy Internet. IGF has many sessions organized by diverse entities, such as the high-level sessions, workshops, Day Zero pre-events and such others. Among them, this parliamentary track discusses important issues on the use and development of the Internet, governance and associated digital technology by the members of parliament of member countries and shares good practices and solutions. The session is also an opportunity to implement effective and efficient policies through dialogue with other stakeholders. The results of discussions here will contribute widely to the Internet policies of various countries. The main topic of this year’s parliamentary track is shaping a digital trust for the Internet we want. In particular, we will discuss the three important topics for the international community, which are, one, data governance, two, AI, and three, disinformation. These were discussed at the G7 Digital and Tech Ministers’ Meeting hosted by Japan this year. These topics include the broader discussions on guaranteeing a trusted connectivity to address the digital divide by reducing risks of AI to society and economy and maximizing the benefits to humanity. Regarding AI, based on the results of G7 Hiroshima Summit, we started the Hiroshima AI process in May. Toward the end of this year, through this process, we will embark on the development of international guiding principles for all AI actors. All the G7 members share awareness on the importance of exchanging opinions by multi-stakeholders in that process. I believe that IGF and the parliamentary track will offer a valuable opportunity to hear the voices of broader stakeholder community. I’m looking forward to an active discussion on these important topics. In closing, I am praying for the great success of this meeting. Thank you very much.

Moderator:
So next I have somebody that is not a parliamentarian, as you know, but somebody that has been around probably to all the 18 IGFs. So something we have in common. He’s had several roles. I’m just mentioning his latest and very important one. He’s the chairman of the leadership panel of the IGF Windsurf. Please have a seat off the floor.

Vint Cerf:
I’m always nervous when people clap before you’ve said anything, and you should probably just sit down because it won’t get any better than that. Well, I address you as a technologist in awe of the parliamentarians who have been given the impossible task of discovering productive rules for bringing discipline to the complex technologies and applications of the Internet and computer-based systems. I do not envy you your task, but I hope I can help it. One of the key features of the Internet and computer-based systems is their ability to amplify whatever it is we do, and we see this in the form of rapid distribution of content around the world, access to materials, a megaphone to people whose voices might otherwise not be heard, which is very important, but then also voices that we don’t want to listen to are equally amplified, and that is a challenge. How do we discipline that? I must warn the legislators that you can make laws, but you’re not allowed to revise the laws of physics. So if you ask the engineers to double the speed of light in aid of your legislation, we will have to disappoint you. The legislators are trying to fashion the rules of what I will say is a 21st century social contract. As citizens of each country and citizens of the world, as netizens in the internet, we wish for a social contract in which the rules of behavior allow us to feel safe and secure in this online environment. So it’s very important for the parliamentarians to appreciate both the capabilities and the weaknesses of computer-based applications. So the technologists have an obligation to the parliamentarians to help them understand in some fundamental way how these systems work and how they don’t work. What the experts should do is to help inform the thinking of the parliamentarians in fashioning rules that will achieve the objectives of the social contract. So our targets generally are trust and safety and security and privacy and accountability and agency and a long list of other desirable properties of legislation. One thing I would urge the parliamentarians to do is to focus on outcomes rather than on specific technologies. Just at the moment we are mesmerized by artificial intelligence and machine learning and large language models, but I believe that that is in some sense a distraction. What we should be most concerned about is how these systems are being used. What are the effects and side effects of their use? Are there harms that we need to defend against? Mr. Moderator, with your permission, I would like to open up one other topic which you probably may not be expecting, but this is to give the parliamentarians fair warning that you have an open territory. that is upon us within the next couple of years to consider, and that is the expansion of the Internet into interplanetary space. It is well underway. The head of the Interplanetary Networking Chapter of the Internet Society is here with us, Yosuke Kaneko, who is part of JAXA, the Japanese space agency. He’s just released on our behalf a report describing what an interplanetary Internet would look like and what its implications are. I want you to think for a moment about the return to the moon, the Artemis missions, which involve the cooperative efforts of the European Space Agency, the Japanese Space Agency, the Korean Space Agency, and, of course, NASA in the U.S. When the return to the moon happens, which is coming within the next two years, there will be commercial activity on the moon. There are all kinds of implications of that commercial activity, which have only been considered in very modest terms, like the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Now, I realize, Mr. Moderator, this is super far out, but the problem is it’s only two years away. And so I want to make sure that you are conscious of the fact that we will have to cope with questions like, can you own property on the moon? If NASA is willing to purchase the results of mining on the moon, then the question is, do you get to own the mine? What if there’s a dispute about ownership? Where does that get resolved? What if there’s a claim jumper? Do we have a space police force? These are all questions that are going to come up in the context of the expansion into space, and the Internet will be there along with it, and it will bring its own set of challenges. So if it weren’t enough to deal with the terrestrial Internet, by the time that we have the 2024 and 2025 IGFs, who suspect that that topic will be on the agenda as well. So thank you very much, Mr. Moderator, and I turn this back to you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Vint, and thank you for telling us that our lives will become even more complicated, but at least that means that when the IGF will be prolonged by the UN General Assembly in 25, we will have IGFs 26, 7, 8 on Mars, on Venus, and on Jupiter, and we’ll just need to find out who exactly will then host the IGFs there, but we’ll definitely, look, we are looking forward to meet you again on Jupiter in 27. I’m sure the Martian delegation will be in touch with us soon. Thank you very much for these enlightening remarks by all four of you. I would now like to invite you to make way for the three parliamentarians that will come up here that will try and interact with me and with you on three questions that we think are in the core, or at least some relevant questions when it comes to, and we’ve heard about the challenges, but at the same time, the important role of parliamentarians. So we have Honorable Sumana Shrestha. She’s a member from Parliament of Nepal. We have Honorable Latifa Al-Abdul Karim, Shura Council member from Saudi Arabia, and we have Honorable Brando Benifei, member of the European Parliament. Please welcome, thank you. Thank you. So maybe we start with a question to the outer space regulation that is underway in your countries. I really tend to think that Vint is actually right, because we’re seeing, of course, lots more activities within and around satellites. And I guess this is an issue that will keep us busy in many ways in the years to come. So yeah, we’re looking forward to that. But let’s stay with traditional things like artificial intelligence and so on for the time being, because this is easy enough for us all to try and cope with. So my first question to you would be, knowing that legislators are key actors developing the legislation that should contribute to a trustworthy digital space as well as it does to a trustworthy analog space, the question is, how can we improve regulatory capacity and how can we develop, and this is one of the key words, agile governance measures to keep up with the rapid pace of technology? So maybe we start just, we can switch orders in the next questions, but we start with you, Latifa.

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim:
Okay, thank you. Thank you, Thomas, and I’m really happy to be here today. And yes, let’s come from the space maybe now to the earth and prepare for the space. I personally strongly believe that technology shouldn’t be regulated in the same legacy regulatory practice that we are used to be. We cannot really have a rigid regulation. So definitely we need to prepare for innovative regulation methodologies. Regulators should be in the loop of developing the systems. They should not work in isolation from the practice that we are having today. In order to have successful, I would say. In order to have successful regulations, I think it’s not enough to just work on the ground in an office. We have to go to the field. We have to go to the field. What does that mean? For example, when we think about the economy, we have to respond to all uncertainties. And we have to make sure that the new regulations are in line with the new standards. At the same time, I think that this kind of approach brings the trust and trust that we seek. If we have time… I think that we need to have a strategy. As parliamentarians, we need to prepare a multi-stakeholder group between different committees with different backgrounds. And prepare a roadmap, our plan, a roadmap. Starting from the priorities and starting from asking ourselves the questions like… What exactly is the technology that we need to regulate? And how to regulate it? And why do we need to regulate it? And make sure from answering these questions that we are reaching coherence between the regulations that we are planning to have. Maybe the other role is our oversight. So, oversighting the responsible bodies. The responsible, like, one or more bodies to make sure that they are also moving in parallel with the long-term regulation that we are targeting. So, we have short-term work and long-term work. So, the short-term work is making sure that in the practice we have regulatory sandboxes. We are monitoring the adoption of the principles and the data policies. The cybersecurity and monitoring the compliance of all these. And in addition, maybe something that I want to highlight is… We need a new approach in order to know the standards of those new technologies. So, having the call for policy labs within the innovation centers. So, we can monitor the progress of the development of the new use cases that entrepreneurs and other companies are really developing. I think I exceeded my time. So, I will move to you, Suman.

Sumana Shrestha:
Thank you very much. Great to be here. Good afternoon, everyone. I think there are four folds to understanding or answering your question. First is to recognize the last part, which is technology really is developing at a very rapid pace. And regulators or policymakers end up somehow catching up most of the time. Which means we need to have a resourceful… What I mean by that is a knowledge… pool of academia, of researchers, of early adopters who can quickly then identify here are the risks you need to step in and regulate. I think that is the first part. And then really having plan A, B, C, D, E, F all the way, however long it takes to iteratively then come up with policies that truly keeps it safe. The second is to recognize and really advocate for the unique conditions our countries are in, and really to ask for support in platforms like this to come up with global frameworks that then can be contextualized to our specific needs. The third would be, again, recognizing the constraints under which our countries operate. For example, does Nepal really have the platform to monitor or regulate really large tech companies? What would be some of the best ways to keep everybody safe? So then it would really be coming up with basic minimum standards across the world, across the boundaries to keep children safe, to have basic literacy programs like a pop-up that comes up when somebody is trying to interact with technology or in digital space. And finally, the third would be sessions like this where we learn from each other and we replicate the best practices. We learn from each other’s mistakes so that we’re not reinventing the wheels. Thank you.

Brando Benifei:
Well, the question has been largely answered, but I can add a few points. We can say that there is always a tension between trying to co-legislate. So, I would like to conclude by saying that we are in a very difficult time. We are in a very difficult time, but we can negotiate, talking, and taking into account, and I can say that by looking at this place and this conference, this context we are in, by involving all the stakeholders and trying to be able to deliver our legislation, keep it at the same level, we are in a very difficult time, and we need to be very careful about the market, on the development of the technological products, if we talk specifically about that. And I think that, however, this needs to be done with the care of the fact that there are vested interests, there are also elements of power, especially when we are talking about the technology, we need to be very careful about that, and we need to consider the imbalances of power that are there, and so we need to be able to maintain enough autonomy, and also understand in the various contexts which are the strong points, we can say, of each context, for example, if you can say that we are in a very difficult time, we need to be very careful, and we need to be able to use elements of soft power to build a stronger position when you try to implement legislation, because the point is, we cannot just, especially in this area, we cannot just say we want to approve legislative texts or rules, we need to be sure that they can be implemented. So, we need to be very careful about that, and we need to be very careful about the fact that we need to understand the best way not to be obsolete when you And so, I really, and I just conclude on this, I keep it brief, I think it was very, very punctual, very correct what we heard before by Mr. Cerf about the need to concentrate on the use of the technology, the areas where they are used, in the case of the artificial intelligence, for example, on which I’m working, especially the so-called use cases, rather than the technology itself. In my opinion, it’s not always possible, but it needs to be rather an exception than the rule. The rule should be to look at how concretely each technology impacts and it’s used, so that in this way already we know we can be more future-proof in our work.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. So, what I’m hearing from all of you is the need for interdisciplinary multi-stakeholder interaction, exchange, learning from each other, which makes a lot of sense because also parliamentarians are not necessarily experts in all the technology when they are elected, but of course you have to gather knowledge if you try to develop reasonable legislation that is supposed to deliver on many fronts. The question is, actually the next one is adding up to this, is given that we all want to strengthen the cooperation across different stakeholders, governments, industry, experts from civil society, academia and the parliament, but how do you do this? How do you do this in your country? How do you get your personal networks together? How do you get the knowledge that you need in order to legislate? How does it work in your specific surroundings? And what can be done to be improved? Now, let’s start from the other end and the next one will take the middle.

Brando Benifei:
Well, I have to say that the model of the European Parliament… in this sense is interesting, because we build a lot of occasions to discuss and to prepare our work. I give you an example. On artificial intelligence, we have been preparing the legislative work we are doing now, on which I know many are also looking with interest. I was talking with colleagues before the debate. We got there to do legislation after more than one year of a special committee that was studying the subject from many different perspectives. It was an occasion and a place of debate with academia, with stakeholders of all kinds, of representatives of various international organizations, etc. It has been extremely useful, because it gave also the parliamentarians the necessary perspective to work on such complex matters on a legislative form. So I think the experiences could be different, but I think it’s very important that there is some programming and some investment in the time we have. What do I mean? And I will be brief on this point. I mean that you know that parliamentary terms have a certain length, and it’s important that there is enough time used to get deeper into the subject before decisions are taken. Unfortunately, sometimes there is pressure due to electoral reasons or due to urgencies that happen. But most of the time, if we do not reflect in the correct timing before we take the decisions, and we involve all the stakeholders in our discussions, then we take the wrong decisions and we need to correct after. So I think this is something that is very important to… So, I think it’s very important that we have the right timing for each phase to prepare and then enact and also make it effective when we talk about certain pieces of legislation.

Sumana Shrestha:
I think you’ve hit the jackpot of the question, is how do you elaborate and implement on the policies that you make, right? I feel if every developing country could implement everything that’s written, I don’t think there would be a problem with that. So, I think it’s very important that we have a framework and a framework for what we call developing countries to begin with. I think that’s where the rubber hits the road. And I think before we start the conversation of cooperation, it starts with this topic of trust. How do you build trust across all these stakeholders that then truly enables an open-hearted cooperation and maybe even collaboration? So, I think the first thing is that we need to understand what are the implications of optimally using digital technologies to interact in a digitally safe space. That is the utopia that we are all aiming for. That is the time when our elections are truly fair. That’s the time when a lot of what duplications are removed and we are optimally allocating resources, right? That’s the time when the digital infrastructure is really, really, really important. And the second thing, which is also one of the ways that we can make the best and best policies is this question of capacity. Do we have the human capacity to actually get this done? And then comes this fundamental question that I believe ails a lot of developing countries, including Nepal, which is this mass migration of really educated people, which then leads to a lot of the issues that we have in terms of how do we actually make this happen, and how do we make it happen in a global ecosystem where things are institutionalised? And finally, I think the cornerstone of strengthening would be institutionalising the effort that we’ve started such that, again, it goes a bit towards what I said earlier, is then building on to the network that we have, building on to the knowledge that we’ve learned in the past and, as I said, there’s a need. When we can come together to really strengthen the cooperation. Thank you.

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim:
Thanks a lot, and I would like to add on the top of my colleagues’ points. They mentioned the stakeholders, the intelligence needs of the world, and I would like to add on that. I think that we need to have a lot of tools, a lot of AI tools in the Parliament. This is something that we didn’t tackle before, and it’s really very helpful. Taking from my experience, I’m a professor in AI and law, so I really working on those kind of legal and interagency solutions of how to use those, and also to help in finding times when we have very limited time to understand many things, summarizing those legal legislations in general, and comparing between them. On the top of the other side of the table, we have a very strong collaboration with governments, with parliaments, and across, like, 150 countries, within our friendship committees, so we are meeting those parliaments, and we are discussing and sharing practices, and collaborate on the level of the economic impact and social impacts of cybersecurity, on the data flow, free flow, and on the AI risks and data policies and principles, and also on the policies and the principles of public securities. So connecting those policies and principles to you, the Governor, helping with the policies and principles, so these kinds of collaboration and meetings and dialogues helps us a lot in sharing, and, like best practices and helping each other in order to forming those new regulations. Also, as a member, Saudi Parliament is a member of the Aasman program. Like all the Chair, we have authored discussions and such on the issues in the Uruguay discussing the second-World summit of future committees. Mainly, we were focusing on the AI governance and regulations and challenges including the discussion with representatives from the business and the civil society and the academia. So, we have something called interactive AI on realmente rights for AI rights. So I solved a couple of problem to advance but we have to do it now, and this is what we mean by regulating the loop. We have to be a parliamentary track in those loops. I heard yesterday from the parliamentary session the need for AI to be a part of the regulatory framework, and I think it’s a good idea. I think it’s a good idea to have a framework of AI policies and AI governance standards and other frameworks that will help into also sharing knowledge between the countries. One thing more that we need to consider is to bring out the AI readiness between the countries, and we are talking about the AI readiness. So, I think it’s a good idea to have a framework of AI that will be a part of the regulatory framework, and I think that’s the important part of this work. Thank you. .

Moderator:
Thank you very much. So, again, I think cooperation is the key. Relying on experts is one element. I think talk to each other is key in this context, not just in terms of communication. Talking to each other is fine, but then, the question is to what extent is it necessary or possible to align safety standards across regions, countries, and industries to build trust in a, let’s say, through interoperability or harmonisation knowing that we have a certain level of harmonisation. I think that’s a big challenge, and I think that’s a big challenge. I think that’s a big challenge, and I think that happens in another country, but so, how do you think we can strengthen shared standards, not only legal standards, but also technical and other standards, so that we have a certain level on the global level of harmonisation with standards, with minimal requirements for safety and security and other So, how do you, what is needed in terms of cooperation across country borders from a parliamentarian point of view in order to build that trust in digital technology through parliaments as well? Thank you. I think the key really is, you know, I think the key is, you know, I think the key is, you know,

Sumana Shrestha:
I think the key is, you know, I think the key is, you know, in realizing what I said earlier, which is when the digital space is safe for everyone, then we truly are better off. Then it’s a win-win situation for every country, every person in the world. So starting from that view, then I think there is a lot that’s possible. One of the key area that I would like to highlight is in being generous with sharing knowledge and technology. For example, I’m sure there are some organizations, some corporations, some companies, some academia, some researcher in some part of the world, most likely developed part of the world, that are coming up with algorithms to detect deep fakes. So technology or knowledge like that would then, if it’s available in low resource setting, those are the times we can truly collectively tackle misinformation, disinformation that separates us, that divides us. So a generous view that we need to share our knowledge, share technology to keep everyone safe would be, I think, instrumental. The second would be to realize while there are common minimum standards that we can agree to when it comes to writing codes, how we store, work with digital public goods, I think the other one is to realize that every technology needs to be adapted to different country, to even within different country to different locality. So it’s very important to contextualize technology. To give a very simple example, the digital literacy, no matter what kind of technology you build, if the human being interacting with that technology, it’s just like saying, it doesn’t matter how complicated password you use, if you just write it in a piece of paper and stick it to your computer, it does not work, right? So I think it’s important to recognize the level of digital literacy that it’s in a spectrum. So it’s very important that we work on helping each other also contextualize, and it could be as simple as a pop-up that comes up whenever we interact with large tech that says, all right, do not believe everything you read, you see in the internet. As simple as that, right? So those are, I think, some of the, we need to agree to certain minimum standards that we hold all of us accountable to. It could be questions like what are some of the non-negotiables when it comes to keeping the minors protected? And I think EU has done a fantastic job that we can really learn from. So once those minimum standards are set and we agree to, I’m hoping globally every company, every organization that’s working in this space will also adhere to those minimum standards. And then on top of that, we really contextualize on these, for every locality, and we contextualize to make sure our technologies are really people-centric for whom it’s designed to be. Thank you.

Brando Benifei:
Well, I think that if we talk about a trustful internet and an open space, and if we look at AI or other technologies that we are discussing in this this context, it’s clear that cooperation is crucial because simply some issues cannot be dealt with domestically. They need to find a global cooperation space. However, I think it’s important not to confuse the levels of what we are talking about, because there are issues, there are risks, there are problems, and the relative opportunities, if risks are confronted, that are inherently domestic. They are linked to daily lives of people and they need to be dealt with with legislation that is protecting safety, health, fundamental rights, by looking at the concrete daily use of technologies. While for sure the global cooperation is fundamental and inevitable, if we look at more larger, we can say systemic risks of cyber security, even of geopolitical kind, but also of the need to have common definitions, common standards, common understanding of what we are doing. International organizations are crucial, like where we are and with the UN, but also other fora where this is being discussed. We heard Prime Minister Kishida talking about the Hiroshima process, that it’s very important on the generative AI, but this can be applied to the Internet and to much more. And in fact, we have seen that we can learn from each other. We can see that on some decisions, for example, on data protection or on what we ask the platforms to do, we see that we learn from each other. I’ve seen that something we have done in Europe was discussed and partially adopted in other places, and we could also learn by the new versions of what has been decided, also how to do better where it has originally fought in the first place. We are seeing this happening and I think this is very important that we work in this direction. And to be honest, I think that parliamentarians are especially able to do this well and to orientate and push in the right directions the executive branches, which are less apt to look at the need of the individual person, because they have another perspective necessarily, while the parliamentarian is able to look at the impact on the individual, which I think is very important in this moment when we look at the developments of new technologies, both in the area of the Internet in general and in AI, that has been a lot discussed in this context. Thank you.

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim:
I would like to add on the top of the Brando’s point when he mentioned that it is there. So, global digital trust is there. We have already discussed that with global bodies like the UN and OECD, for example, with ITRI, for example. So, I think it’s very important that we have with the UNESCO, and I was one of those members in the ad-hoc expert groups for the UNESCO recommendation ethics on AI, which is the first, I would say, global standards on AI, and we were like around 24 multi-stakeholder group, and from different regions, from different backgrounds, and you could expect the conflict and opinions, the conflict in choosing the principles, the conflict in choosing the values, they’re distinguished between those values and principles, so within those discussions and arguments and negotiations, we reach those common, I would say, principles and policy actions, and when it comes to policy actions, also there is a lot of approaches that you could do to tackle certain principles, and as you know, UNESCO’s recommendation ethics on AI has been adopted by 193 member states, so it is possible to bring out those global thinking and apply it to your own country or to your national measures. How to apply it to national measures? Then we have to consider your own principles, your own values, your own cultural norms, and reflect it on the global principles, and select from those global principles what’s exactly important to you and important to your existing legislations. In Saudi, for example, we were one of those first countries who implemented the UNESCO’s recommendation ethics on AI. We have selected those principles that is very important to us. We are making sure that the implementation of those principles are tackled throughout the development lifecycle. We have selected the governance body who will really look after those principles within the other government entities, and providing incentives also for those government entities to work on that one. Before two months in July, the Prime Minister also called for the international AI research and ethics center that will be in Saudi Arabia to keep on those global dialogues and global discussions around AI research risks and ethical directions. So, yes, it is possible, and you can normalize it to your own needs and move on and keep on the exchanging of the knowledge and practices.

Moderator:
Thank Thank you very much. We do still have a little bit of time, so maybe we can expand on a few questions. As somebody that works for a government, we are following and participating in quite a large number of intergovernmental organizations, and also other organizations that develop guidance either for governments or for regulators. And of course the Inter-Parliamentary Union is a very useful body, but it’s not specialized in particular issues like other international organizations. So would it be useful to you if the ITU, UNESCO, but also others like OECD or other specialized entities that deal with particular issues, or those dealing with climate or dealing with health issues where you have data and AI also in the WMO, WHO and so on, if they would be more in close contact, not just with the states and the governments and the regulators, but also with the parliamentarians, would you think that would be something that would be useful for you? That’s one question that I’m asking myself if I listen to you. And yeah, I’ll let it be for this one, and maybe you have, what is the guidance that you would, because the EU is a big construct, you can hire many experts to look into issues, but maybe smaller countries or developing countries have less resources to task and pay experts. So what is the guidance that you would ask from the UN system and other intergovernmental or international institutions?

Sumana Shrestha:
Definitely. Similar to the line that you were mentioning, I think it would be very useful if the UN body and a lot of other platforms would work a lot more closely with the parliamentarians. At least in Nepal, we have government that changes quite frequently, so what’s really stable are the parliamentarians that you have in position. for five years, so that is a decent time to work on something and institutionalize it, so that gives it a continuity, number one. And number two is similar to what you said, in low-resource setting it’s very important to have access to what I said earlier, knowledge pots, in terms of what has been done, what are different frameworks that different countries have applied, and to learn from them and to see which one can then be taken and contextualized for our countries. So I think it’ll be very useful to have a much stronger parliamentarian track and parliamentarian interactions with various platforms and with the UN organizations. And I think it’s the third thing to add on to what I said earlier, is we need to step a little bit back from a very sectoral approach, right? Health, WHO, this, that organization, and have a lot more collective conversation, so we remove duplications from within the UN system as well, and then there is a lot more cohesive approach to data in general, how do we think about data in general, instead of just thinking health data or climate change data, so that would create uniformity and this minimum standard, which can then be contextualized for each sector. I think that’ll be useful. Thanks.

Moderator:
Do you all agree, or is there something you would like to add? I think it’s our

Brando Benifei:
experience also, I think I agree, but maybe it would be important also to learn a bit one from another, in the sense that there are very well advanced forms of cooperation with some of these organizations, while others, also among the ones you listed, there is more sparse, more seldom consultation. So I think we can also learn from the best examples, and I have seen these also working on AI, and I think that we can again try to get it more streamlined to some extent.

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim:
I think I have answered this question before, maybe. I mentioned some ideas for the IPU to work on, and something else that I would like to add, when those global bodies like UN or UNESCO or others who are working on forming global direction, it is very important to consider parliamentarian here. It’s not like the parliamentarian track that brings all the IPU members or for discussion, it’s also for providing insights for the recommendations or any documents or any global governance direction that a certain organization is working on. Here, the involvement of parliamentarians will be very important as well.

Moderator:
Thank you, and maybe another question that you have answered, but only to some extent in the first question, given that we are facing a really rapid change in technology, but also that we don’t have like older new technologies like cars or other things that you buy something and it remains stable for years, doesn’t change, given that the software, that the AI systems change almost daily, and for instance in my country, like working out the law in Switzerland normally takes about five years, and then if some people don’t like it, they can challenge it, it goes to a referendum, and if the people say no, then it takes another five years for another version, so if legislating takes several years and technology keeps changing and we have new applications that pop up, how, and we have, we never have like a finished product, we are living in a better version world, how do we reflect this in legislation? Of course you said we should not legislate the technology. or regulate technology, but it’s impact. But if the technology changes, how can we go also to a kind of creating better version laws that you can constantly adapt instead of having laws that take five or even more years to elaborate? What is your vision? What do you discuss among parliamentarians how this very lengthy process can be speeded up?

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim:
It’s not only in Switzerland, it’s everywhere. It depends on the type of law, especially when we are talking about technology and data, where we spend almost 10 years and just providing the PTBL in our country. So the idea is, I will go back to it again, it’s we need to move in parallel. We should have this long term that will take the 10 years plus draft and while we are building this draft, and everyone should work on this draft. So from today, all the parliaments, if you didn’t start writing the draft, you have to, because you don’t know whenever you will need it and when you need to enforce it. So it should be there. However, on the short term track, regulatory sandboxes, it’s very important. The following up from those regulatory sandboxes in order to draft the law is very important. Otherwise, we don’t know how to really cover or tackle all those aspects from the technology that is changing while we didn’t actually finish the first draft of the law.

Moderator:
Yeah, thank you. So you say you need to work on several layers of time spans. One is the longer term, more sustainable regulation, and the other one is more allowing for experimenting in defined areas that help you to gain experience. Yes.

Brando Benifei:
Well, I go a bit along the lines in the sense that I think it’s, as it was said, time spans, but also the kind of instruments that we use because we do not have just laws. We can also think of more kind of soft legislation and frameworks that can be adapted gradually. It depends on what you need to do. Clearly, I give you an example. When you need to, I mean, to overcome a fragmentation of rules, and that’s a typical thing looking at the European Union, the fragmentation of the internal market, you need a legislation that is solid because it needs to avoid the fact that you fragment the internal market. But on other aspects, you can also rely on more executive actions with some degree of scrutiny from parliament. This is something that could be applied also to other contexts, and I think we need to be flexible in this sense because the issue of timing is crucial. As I believe in democracy, I think that for it to be appreciated by people, it needs to work, and it needs to work, it needs to be in time with the challenges, and this is not always the case.

Sumana Shrestha:
Just adding on to what Brandon said, I think we’ve got different toolkits. In Nepal, an executive can bring a law that’s active for 60 days for then for parliament to bring a replacement law. So for something that is threatening to the national security, if it’s pertaining to technology, we can definitely bring a law that’s active for 60 days. It’s also possible to bring regulations. Regulations are quite powerful. For example, when cryptocurrency really was taking off, and Nepal is a closed-loop economy when it comes to foreign currency, the government basically banned it because we didn’t understand what it was. We didn’t understand its volatility. We didn’t understand what was behind it. We just didn’t understand blockchain technology. So there are a lot of tools available to deal with rapidly changing technology, but I think the key really is to be proactive and to remain connected with the researchers, with academia, with the innovators to understand what’s coming up in the horizon, and that, I think, is the key to remaining not too far behind new innovations. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. I don’t know if we do have a few minutes left, so if you agree, we could also, since there are mics, give the floor to people in the audience if they have questions or issues they would like to address to you as parliamentarians. That may be an occasion that some people would want to seize. So if, yes, please introduce yourself and then make your comment or ask your question.

Audience:
Thank you very much. My name is Sam, Honourable Sam George, I’m a member of parliament from Ghana. I think that the statements that have been made and the sentiments that have been shared things we agree largely, but as a Member of Parliament from Africa, I’m looking at, I think I can associate closer with Nepal on the platform. Saudi Arabia is not a developing economy and they’ve got the wealth to push the agenda. The European Parliament has got as strength as Europe. I’m beginning to ask myself, most of the platforms that we deal with that we want to have the trusted internet on are based either in Europe or America. Since 2019, when we’ve been having this parliamentary track, I haven’t seen a US congressman attend any of the IGF sessions, and they pass the legislations for their platforms that creates the distrust and mistrust that we have on the continent. So I’d want to find out, for example, and yesterday at the parliamentary track session I spoke about the US Cloud Act. Now that was passed by the US Congress. That puts African parliamentarians and African internet users at risk because we run on this US-based platform. So if we really want to have a trusted internet and we want to build global standards, we want to find out how the African perspective comes into building of these platforms when the legislations that are passed don’t look at us and take into consideration our local values, our norms, and our culture. It’s also important for us to understand that in building a trusted platform or internet, we need to just not look at non-state actors, but non-state actors that are linked with state actors, especially looking at 2024, which is a critical year on the African continent. It’s the year of elections. It’s the year of democracy. My country, Ghana, is going to be running elections in 2024, and it’s about 70 other democracies across the world. Now if you look at non-state actors linked to countries like North Korea, like China, like Russia, and the US, and the issues of disinformation and misinformation, and the fact that many of our political parties are going to be picking operations or election operatives from this country. to help us run elections and they’re the ones who are going to be pushing this disinformation, we need to begin to have conversations and being able to call out non-state actors that are linked to state actors and saying to them to have a safer Internet, these players have to take up the responsibility of ensuring that we fight this information. I don’t see any African government getting actively or having the capacity to execute this information without help from these big players and these platforms need to have a responsibility. But that said, I’m not going to end without putting some responsibility on African parliamentarians in Africa as a continent, because I look at Europe and Europe does it as a collective, not as individual member states, and so we need to see more action from the Pan-African Parliament and the African Union, the AUC, taking a collective stand on the African Union development data policy frameworks to ensure that as a continent we have a collective voice to then bring these big tech players to the table to have a conversation. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. Well, since you’re a member of the Parliamentarian Track, of course you may ask the organizers of the Parliamentarian Track that they should try and do more to get congresspeople or parliamentarians from the United States and maybe other countries in too. So I don’t think we can answer the question, but feel free to react of course.

Sumana Shrestha:
I’d just like to echo, and I completely understand, small countries, developing countries, we don’t have the collective bargaining that EU has to put in place a lot of regulations that it has. But if Nepal is unsafe, so is a lot of other countries, we truly are boundary-less when it comes to internet, right? So I think it is a collective conversation we need to have about how do we manage, how do we tackle these common social evils of misinformation, disinformation, and vital going fake news. I think that is what I feel we need to advocate for, is what are some of the minimum standards that we all need to abide by? What are some of the content moderation regulation we need to place wherever all these large tech platforms operate? How do we bring about parity? So especially small companies that are trying to innovate in this space are already very far behind. They don’t have access to as much data that has been mined in all these years. What are some of the things we can do to truly enable innovations in countries like ours? So completely echo with you, and I feel like what we need to do is collectively advocate for some minimum standards that is going to keep citizens in low-resource setting also safe. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. Yes, we can take one more, I would say.

Audience:
Namaste, everyone. This is Vivek Sillal from Nepal for the record. So this was a very interesting session from the honorable MPs. A lot is being done and a lot is being needed to be done in coming days to make the Internet more open and accessible. But my question is, as a parliamentarian, as a policymaker, how do you plan to indulge youth in this process that you multiply the effect of creating the trust? So with that, my question is to each MPs, how in your region you are engaging the youth or you plan to engage in coming days to have this Internet more secure and more trustable? Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. That’s a very good question. How do you bring in youth, you as parliamentarians?

Brando Benifei:
Well, I try to connect this specific area of interest to a larger issue for young people and so potentially young voters, but also in general young people that could be engaged in political, social discussions. I try to give a clear message that if they do not engage, they do not care, and it’s also the duty of the institutions and society to give them the instruments to be involved, but if they refuse to do it, then others will do in their place. All the political forces, all the institutions fill their mouths with words about the centrality of young people, that they are not the future, not the future, the present, they even say, but it’s unfortunately often fake, because if you have a system where for elections, for existing power, everything is in the hands of the older generations, and it’s also some physiological aspect, in some situations it’s pathological, but to some extent is physiological. You need to convince them that they need to be part of the process, because otherwise there will be a lot of good words about young people, because who would ever say, I don’t care about young people, I care only about the older generations. No politician will say that, but this doesn’t matter. If the ones that decide are only the older people, young people will be, with their interests, with their needs, they will be expelled by the public discourse, and everything will be just rhetoric and just images, but not reality. So I try to be a bit brutal with them on this fact, because I see that on such a big topic like the climate change, young people were able to unite globally and shake politics, shake institutions. I think it’s very important that they do the same, and they are doing it partially, but with less, I can say, momentum. They should build more momentum around digital citizenship, digital rights, and the development of a global understanding on the internet, on the AI. I think young generations can really contribute very much, and we need to push them to be more engaged. I completely echo what you’re saying in terms of,

Sumana Shrestha:
there is not, look, so my personal story is, I’m a first-time parliamentarian. I’ve been in parliament for eight months. Before that, I was completely in private sector. I joined politics, formal politics, because I no longer believed that the older generation is going to do anything substantial when it comes to climate change, when it comes to a lot of vices that exist, that there is inherent interest to not act on these aspects. I think it’s very important to act, and that’s one of the things that I try to do, to inspire people who are not actively engaging in this dialogue to do that. There are two ways in which I’ve tried to do that. One is breaking down, I think is the jargons that really put off. It’s a lot of really big statements that put off younger generation. So breaking it down for them what this particular policy would mean in their day-to-day life, what the lack of this policy would mean for them in their day-to-day life. I think that is the first way in which I have tried to engage. We call it legalese, legal Nepali. So breaking down legalese into very common day-to-day sentences. And then the second thing is to really try to encourage them, just like, Brandon, you said. If you don’t set the narrative now, somebody else will. And it will be so difficult to change that narrative 15 years down the line when it would really, really start to hurt. So those two ways. Thank you.

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim:
Thank you. Plus one to all of them. They have already mentioned what I want to clarify. And in Saudi, I think the case is also different, because the majority is the youth. The majority are under the age of 30. So everything we are working on is working for them and with them. So in this case, from all the sectors, we are tackling all the requirements for the youth and absolutely considering their opinions and all the directions.

Moderator:
Yes, thank you. And I must say, these three parliamentarians here are probably below the average age of a parliamentarian. We know this from big countries, also in the West, where you see parliamentarians that are way older. But also in Europe, you have sometimes. But also, of course, Saudi Arabia has a different age distribution than other countries. So let’s take one final comment or questions, and then one final round of comments, and then we close.

Audience:
Assalamu alaikum. This is Umar Khan from Pakistan. I have a question from the lady sitting next to the moderator. She belongs to a law background. I also belong to a law background. My question is, as you say, it’s all about the access to internet. But if we can see sometimes the governments or the state, just for the political benefits or gains, blackout or shut down the internet. So when we say access to internet is one of the fundamental rights of every human, so just shutdowning, blackout of the internet for the political gains, what internet governance can do, what regulation can we bring by the internet governance, by this platform, just to tackle the issue with the concerned governments, like in my country this year, there was a complete blackout for at least three to four days just for political gains. Or taking those rights from the people who are educated digitally, so what IGF can really do in this regards, what regulation can we bring, and how can it be implemented?

Moderator:
So I’m not sure what the question is.

Audience:
My question is, if we say that access to internet is one of the human rights. Access to internet. Yes, access to internet. internet, then blackout of the internet by the state just for the political gains, what regulations, laws can be brought by the IGF, or what implementation can be done by the IGF in this regards, when we say access to internet is one of the right of human? Yes, we are as

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim:
parliamentarians consider the access to the internet for all the … Internet shutdown, I’m

Audience:
asking for the internet shutdown. Internet shutdown? By the state, yes. By the state? Yes.

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim:
So, in our case, we don’t have the issues of having the internet shutdown, but what your question is, what can the parliamentarians in general do when it comes to internet shutdown?

Audience:
Yes, in case of the political instability in the country, the state or the government acting in the state, just for the political gains or to put the opposition or the people, so they just, there is shutdown in Pakistan last year, so what regulation or rules or the laws can be brought in this regards for the state to not cut the people from the access of internet?

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim:
I think such questions should be answered by the IPO with countries with similar problems, so you can, for that interest, you can take the best practices of what can others do in order to not to control the accessibility of the internet no matter what.

Moderator:
Maybe if I can add to this, I think there are several aspects to the question of, this is my 18th IGF, and in the early IGFs, the question whether there should be a right to be connected to the internet and to telecom was, it has disappeared somehow, it has at some point in time turned to be whether there should be a right to be disconnected, but that’s something else, but if you take the human rights in terms of right to freedom of expression and freedom to information, that is something that is widely accepted, but then the question is, is there a right to have access to have a free access in the sense for not having to pay for it so there’s also an economic question what is what is the right is it the right to communicate but do you have the right to choose every means for free you may have to pay for newspapers you may have to pay for television and so on so this is one of the elements and the other one isn’t there are in in different regions are different provisions different let’s say restrictions that you can apply to freedom of expression or freedom of information for instance in Europe you can restrict freedom of expression freedom of information under certain conditions that need to be laid out by laws on national level that need to be in conformity with the Human Rights Convention but there are there are moments under certain condition where you can restrict certain communications in emergency situations but they need to be clearly defined and previsible and and then also there’s normally a discussion around was this the right measure appropriate was it really an emergency situation so there’s a review on whether or not these these laws have been applied but this is a European approach that I’m familiar with it may be different in in other areas well I

Sumana Shrestha:
would say one of the the executive body usually have a lot of resources and they are able to make the decision that’s the executive body right but once they do that then I think it’s a job of parliamentarians and you should expect that of your parliamentarian to hold the government accountable to ask precisely this set of questions was it absolutely necessary did you have an alternative if you had an alternative why did you go for that right and let the democratic process kick in if fundamental rights were encroached and let this wiping clear of the slate happen during the elections I I would say the standard that you should hold your parliamentarians accountable is to really hold the government accountable for its action I I really agree with

Brando Benifei:
what was just said I think it’s That’s the point. I mean, could it be done differently? Was that proportionate to the objective that was maybe a legitimate objective, but was that proportionate? Because sometimes this is the way you start degrading the freedom of access to internet, that you use some excuse linking it to some legitimate issue. And in the end, it’s, like you said, a political gain, a political gain or game, even, that in the end is at the detriment of a principle that I think we should try to build some common understanding, that limiting the freedom of internet should be proportionate to really significant reasons that could also justify, in general, limits to freedom of expression, which seems to me a really, really delicate topic where there should be some work to build a common understanding. And today, we see the efforts to separate internet, in some cases, to talk about the division of the internet. But I think that this context where we are is instead going in the opposite direction, that we should have a united internet for a more united world that can work together.

Audience:
Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. I think these are the perfect words to end the session. I’m sorry the time is over, but I’m sure that you have a chance to meet and talk to the parliamentarians present at the IGF here. And I think this is definitely a value-added for the IGF, but also for the parliamentarians. And I hope that we can expand it. And I hope that next time, we have also people from the US Congress, parliamentarians from the U.S. Parliament here to exchange with them. So thank you all for the very interesting debate and I’ve been learning a lot about what is important for parliamentarians. Thank you very much.