The Virtual Worlds we want: Governance of the future web | IGF 2023 Open Forum #45

Pearse O’Donohue

The European Union (EU) has set out its vision and strategy for the future of virtual worlds, emphasizing the importance of aligning them with EU values and principles while respecting existing legislation. The aim is to establish a technological transition that allows for a seamless connection between people and machines.

In July, the EU released its strategy, which highlights the need for virtual worlds to mirror EU values and adhere to EU legislation. This ensures that the digital landscape remains in line with EU principles and regulations. The EU envisions a future where virtual worlds serve as a reflection of its values and operate within the existing legal frameworks.

The EU’s strategy also focuses on the broader transition towards web 4.0 and virtual worlds. This transition aims to create an environment that supports the growth and development of businesses. The EU aims to foster world-leading applications and provide businesses with certainty regarding the principles they must follow. By doing so, the EU aims to prevent virtual worlds from being dominated by a small number of major players, ensuring a more diverse and competitive market.

Additionally, the EU recognizes the importance of global governance in shaping the future development and use of virtual worlds. The EU plans to establish an expert group that brings together member states and other stakeholders to share a common approach and exchange best practices. By relying on recognized instruments such as the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles and a Declaration for the Future of the Internet, the EU aims to create a framework that promotes effective governance of virtual worlds on a global level.

One prominent advocate for empowering individuals and promoting diverse participation in virtual worlds is Pearse O’Donohue. O’Donohue supports the EU’s efforts to create an environment where the European industry can develop world-leading applications. The goal is to ensure that people and businesses have control over the transfer of their data, virtual assets, and identities. By prioritizing individual empowerment and diverse participation, the EU seeks to foster a more inclusive and user-centric virtual world environment.

In conclusion, the EU’s strategy for the future of virtual worlds focuses on aligning them with EU values and legislation, promoting open and interoperable development, establishing global governance frameworks, and empowering individuals. By embracing these principles, the EU aims to shape virtual worlds that reflect its values, foster innovation and competition, and empower users in an evolving digital landscape.

Elena Plexida

ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is responsible for coordinating the global internet and its unique identifiers, such as domain names, IP addresses, and protocols. Without ICANN’s coordination, the internet would not function as seamlessly as it does.

One of ICANN’s key strengths lies in its multistakeholder governance model. This model ensures that decisions and policies regarding the internet involve the participation of various stakeholders, including governments, businesses, and civil society. This inclusivity and collaboration have been crucial in protecting and enabling the global internet.

The integration of virtual worlds with the real world presents governance challenges that need to be addressed. As virtual worlds become more interconnected with the physical world and with each other, effective governance mechanisms are required. It is proposed that a multi-stakeholder approach, involving all relevant stakeholders, be adopted to find solutions that accommodate the integration of virtual and real worlds on a global scale.

While standards in virtual worlds are elective rather than normative, some level of standardization is necessary to ensure interoperability and a seamless experience across different virtual worlds. The multi-stakeholder model can play a vital role in setting these standards, as it allows for a collaborative and consensus-based approach. This approach avoids premature imposition of heavy-handed normative standards, promoting flexibility and adaptability in standardization.

ICANN recognizes the potential of immersive meetings as the next application of its work. Immersive meetings aim to enhance communication and collaboration by creating virtual environments where colleagues from around the world can interact as if they were in the same physical space. This vision aligns with ICANN’s global outlook and its commitment to promoting an interconnected and inclusive internet.

The emphasis on interoperability in the metaverse by Elena Plexida highlights the importance of seamless communication and connectivity across virtual worlds. ICANN’s motto, “One world, one internet,” reflects their goal of achieving a unified and cohesive experience in the digital realm. Elena Plexida’s perspective sheds light on ICANN’s broader vision and its dedication to shaping a cohesive and inclusive digital landscape.

In summary, ICANN’s coordination of unique identifiers and its multistakeholder governance model are pivotal in ensuring the smooth functioning of the global internet. The integration of virtual and real worlds requires a multi-stakeholder approach to address governance challenges effectively. While standards in virtual worlds are elective, collaboration and consensus play a vital role in achieving interoperability. ICANN recognizes the potential of immersive meetings and supports interoperability in the metaverse. Overall, ICANN’s work and the perspectives of Elena Plexida contribute to the ongoing efforts to shape an inclusive and interconnected digital landscape.

Audience

During the discussions on the impact of the metaverse, several key points were highlighted. Firstly, there was a consensus on the need for governance and a review of existing instruments to fully comprehend the complexities and impact of the metaverse on human rights, the rule of law, and democracy. The Council of Europe is even currently working on a report specifically focusing on this matter. It was acknowledged that the current instruments in place may not adequately cover the various complexities of the metaverse, such as its impact on the brain and mental autonomy.

The evolving nature of the metaverse was also emphasized. As the metaverse is still in its early stages of development and constantly evolving, it is challenging to anticipate all its implications. This raises questions about the sufficiency of existing instruments and the need for more dedicated frameworks, such as the proposed new AI treaty, to address the unique challenges posed by the metaverse.

Additionally, discussions highlighted the crucial role of certain bottleneck technologies in the development of the metaverse. Janne Hirvonen particularly emphasized the importance of enabling technologies and technology standardization in realizing the full potential of the metaverse.

Another important aspect discussed was the effective handling of data accumulation and access. It was recognized that the construction of the metaverse heavily relies on data handling. To ensure the development of artificial intelligence (AI) and virtual worlds within the metaverse, it is crucial to effectively manage the accumulation and access of data by both individuals and companies.

Furthermore, the role of regulation in the technology industry was emphasized. Regulation was seen as a driver for digital innovation and ethical behavior. It was suggested that economic tools could promote responsible innovation, and businesses could benefit from behaving ethically. Notably, implementing ethical behaviors was seen as a way for businesses to financially benefit.

In conclusion, the discussions on the impact of the metaverse highlighted the need for governance and a review of existing instruments to address the complexities and impact on various aspects of society. The crucial role of bottleneck technologies, data handling, and regulation in the development of the metaverse were also emphasized. It is evident that further exploration and collaboration are needed to fully understand and navigate the challenges and opportunities posed by the metaverse.

Masahisa Kawashima

The analysis reveals several key points regarding challenges and potential developments in technology for the future internet. One major challenge identified is the enforcement of data privacy and AI governance policies. The current internet cannot guarantee that transported data is not fake, raising concerns among users who want assurance that their data is protected. To address this challenge, there is a need for standardization to ensure that data privacy and AI governance policies are effectively implemented.

Another major challenge highlighted is network latency in the context of virtual reality (VR) and extended reality (XR) technologies. For VR and XR, a high capacity and low latency network is needed, with network latency for interactive virtual rendering services being less than 10 to 20 milliseconds. This challenge emphasizes the importance of robust and reliable networks to support these emerging technologies.

Regarding communication infrastructure, the analysis points out the instability of the high frequency radio band used for achieving high capacity and low latency communication. The instability of radio links operating in this high frequency band makes it unsuitable for supporting industrial use cases. This poses further challenges for industries that rely on high capacity, low latency communication.

On a positive note, there is a suggestion for closer integration of radio and optical communication to enhance radio communication. This integration is believed to enable high bandwidth and low latency radio communication. A mention is made of Nokia being on the board of directors of Eye on Global Forum, supporting the credibility of this suggestion.

Additionally, the analysis highlights the promising potential of training and education in the virtual world. VR and XR technologies offer new opportunities for immersive and interactive learning experiences, aligning with the goal of achieving quality education (SDG 4). The positive sentiment towards training and education in the virtual world suggests that it can be a valuable tool in enhancing educational approaches and outcomes.

Lastly, the analysis briefly mentions the emotional benefits of meeting late family members in the virtual world. While no supporting facts are provided, this observation highlights a concept that could have personal significance for individuals.

In conclusion, the analysis emphasizes the need for standardization to enforce data privacy and AI governance policies in the future internet. It also identifies challenges related to network latency and high frequency radio communication and suggests potential solutions such as integrating radio and optical communication for better quality communication. The analysis recognizes the promising role of VR and XR technologies in training, education, and potentially emotional connections. These insights provide valuable considerations for future advancements in technology and infrastructure.

Tatsuya Yanagibashi

The current state of Metaverse-related standards is characterized by fragmentation and a lack of a unified approach. There is no single standard organization, similar to the 3GPP for wireless communication, that is leading the way in driving innovation in this field. This disunity hampers progress and poses challenges for the development of a fully functional Metaverse.

However, proponents of a better governance model argue that establishing a single organization, such as the Metaverse Standard Forum, could pave the way for interoperable Metaverse standards. Nokia, for instance, is actively involved in the Metaverse Standard Forum and is optimistic about its potential. Such a unified approach, with shared standards and guidelines, could foster collaboration and lead to a more streamlined and efficient Metaverse ecosystem.

Networks play a crucial role in elevating the performance of Extended Reality (XR) devices. Currently, XR devices carry the heavy load of intensive computing processes. However, networks can alleviate this burden by offloading some of the processing to the edge. By distributing computational tasks, networks make XR devices lighter and more energy efficient, ultimately enhancing the user experience.

Furthermore, XR devices are predicted to surpass smartphones as the dominant user-end device by 2030. As technology continues to evolve, XR devices are anticipated to become more advanced and accessible, attracting a wider audience. This shift in dominance has far-reaching implications for various industries, including entertainment, gaming, education, and communication.

Traffic analysis indicates that the rapid growth of mobile broadband traffic, along with the increasing volume of XR device-generated traffic, may exceed the capabilities of existing 5G networks. This prompts the need for 6G-like technology to handle the aggregate traffic effectively. It is anticipated that by 2028, the demand for a more advanced and capable network infrastructure will emerge, requiring the implementation of next-generation technologies.

Looking ahead, future generations of network technology, such as 6G, hold great promise for enhancing virtual conferences and telepresence experiences. The aim is to create a more immersive and realistic virtual environment where participants can feel as if they are physically present in the same room. This can be achieved by capturing users’ surroundings in high resolution and accurately representing the lighting conditions within the virtual environment. These advancements have the potential to revolutionize communication, collaboration, and remote work, leading to multiple innovations, particularly in the field of telepresence.

In conclusion, the current state of Metaverse-related standards is fragmented, lacking a unified approach and hindering innovation. However, there is a growing advocacy for better governance, represented by organizations like the Metaverse Standard Forum. Additionally, networks play a vital role in improving the performance of XR devices by processing at the edge. XR devices are predicted to become the dominant user-end device by 2030, necessitating the development of more advanced network technologies like 6G. Future advancements in 6G technology hold the potential to enhance virtual conferences and telepresence experiences, ultimately transforming the way we communicate and interact in the virtual realm.

Bitange Ndemo

The analysis explores the importance of accessibility and inclusivity in infrastructure and education, highlighting their role in promoting equal opportunities and reducing inequalities. It argues that considering accessibility and inclusivity from the beginning, especially in terms of who builds the infrastructure, is crucial. Government-led initiatives in creating road infrastructure ensure equal usage and minimize access issues and competition problems that may arise from private infrastructure creation. Successful examples of countries that have built infrastructure serving everyone further demonstrate the positive impact of such efforts.

In the realm of education, the analysis discusses the evolution of learning, from ancient philosophies to the concept of connectivism with the rise of the internet. It emphasizes the growing use of virtual reality technology, particularly in Africa, and the potential benefits it can offer if accessible to all. The adoption of virtual immersive learning is seen as a significant step towards creating inclusive educational experiences, as it fosters better understanding of the content.

Throughout the analysis, a positive sentiment towards accessibility in infrastructure and inclusive education is evident. The involvement of governments in constructing accessible infrastructure is highlighted as essential to ensure equal access for all individuals. Likewise, the argument is made for education systems to embrace technological advancements, such as virtual reality and the metaverse, to provide improved and inclusive learning experiences.

In summary, the analysis underscores the significance of accessibility and inclusivity in infrastructure and education as means to reduce inequalities and promote equal opportunities. Government-led efforts in constructing accessible infrastructure are crucial, while incorporating technological advancements into education, like virtual reality, can enhance inclusivity. By considering and implementing these factors, societies can strive towards a more equitable future.

Cathy Li

The analysis highlights the crucial importance of international collaboration for the successful establishment of the metaverse. Currently, there are prohibitions or limitations in place in 62 countries regarding the flow of data across their borders. This presents a significant challenge for the development and functioning of the metaverse, as data is an essential element in its operation. To overcome these barriers, new governance solutions are needed that can facilitate the free flow of data across jurisdictions, ensuring the smooth operation of the metaverse globally.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has been actively involved in addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by the metaverse. Prior to October 2021, the WEF has been covering the topic of the metaverse and Web 4.0. The organization has initiated efforts to ensure the responsible deployment of technology in the metaverse. It has convened a community of more than 300 experts with the aim of generating a socially useful, inclusive, equitable, and responsible virtual world. The WEF’s engagement in this area demonstrates its commitment to mitigating risks and harnessing the benefits of the metaverse for the betterment of society.

A comprehensive governance framework and new regulations and policies are essential to address the advancements and complexities of technologies such as the internet, AI, and the metaverse. Current laws and regulations may not suffice to adequately govern and regulate these rapidly evolving technologies. There is a pressing need to establish a comprehensive governance framework that takes into account the diverse aspects of the metaverse, including consumer metaverse, industrial metaverse, and the implications for identity, privacy, security, and interoperability.

Interoperability is not just a technical issue but also influenced by market factors and economic incentives. Standards bodies often have multiple competing standards, and the one that aligns best with market economics usually prevails. Therefore, fostering interoperability requires considering the economic incentives and market dynamics in addition to technical requirements.

Technical interoperability involves addressing various infrastructural requirements, such as data privacy, security, identity, asset ownership, and payments. These aspects must be carefully worked out through a standard-setting process that takes into account market signals. Achieving technical interoperability will be crucial to ensure seamless integration and interaction within the metaverse.

Usage and jurisdictional interoperability are also important considerations. Usage interoperability should take into account global design and collaboration from the onset, ensuring that different regional access and demographic usage patterns are accommodated. Different regions across the globe may have varying levels of access to compute and networks, and the usage patterns of different user groups, such as children, may differ from those of adults. Jurisdictional interoperability involves addressing issues related to data compliance, transacting, accountability, and the establishment of an identity framework. The importance of jurisdictional interoperability is emphasized by the Japanese government’s long-standing advocacy for data free flow, highlighting the significance of ensuring seamless data flow across jurisdictions.

The topic of data ownership is subject to debate. Some argue that data ownership should not be determined solely by market power or regulations and policy. Instead, a balanced approach involving both policy and business innovation is advocated. This approach entails businesses innovating and coming up with convenient, user-friendly business models and use cases that facilitate data ownership. Data ownership is considered key to the development of generative AI and can contribute to the overall advancement of the metaverse.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the critical need for international collaboration, comprehensive governance frameworks, and new regulations and policies to successfully establish and govern the metaverse. Key considerations include the free flow of data across borders, responsible technology deployment, interoperability (both technical, usage, and jurisdictional), and a balanced approach to data ownership. By addressing these aspects, stakeholders can harness the immense potential of the metaverse while mitigating risks and ensuring inclusivity, security, and sustainability in this emerging virtual realm.

Paul Fehlinger

Paul Fehlinger, the Director of Policy Governance Innovation Impact of Project Liberty, is a strong advocate for responsible innovation and ethical governance of technology. He believes that this can be achieved through an inclusive, multi-stakeholder approach. Fehlinger emphasizes the importance of taking a comprehensive view of the innovation cycle. He suggests that responsible innovation should be assessed from various stages including design and development, funding, commercial deployment, and regulation. By considering the entire cycle, Fehlinger believes that a more holistic and effective approach to responsible innovation can be achieved.

In addition, Fehlinger points out that economic incentives play a crucial role in making responsible innovation practical and viable. He argues that responsible innovation should not only align with ethical principles but should also make good business sense and offer economic benefits. Striking a balance between responsibility and competitiveness at a global level is essential.

Ethics by design is another key aspect highlighted by Fehlinger. He believes that ethical principles should be embedded in the design of technology itself. This includes considerations such as the necessary public interest digital infrastructure, the balance between centralization and decentralization, and the importance of interoperability and user data control. Fehlinger asserts that the technological dimension is of paramount importance, and that ethics need to be ingrained from the outset.

Furthermore, Fehlinger calls for a shift in mindset regarding user participation. He argues that users should be viewed as more than just consumers in virtual worlds. He believes that the societal aspect of virtual worlds should be factored in from the beginning, empowering users and involving them in a more meaningful and active role.

Fehlinger expresses concern about the rapid pace of technological development and the urgency in understanding its implications. He believes that there is still much to be learned and that it is crucial to get it right. Engaging with different communities early in the innovation cycle, despite uncertainties, is essential. Fehlinger suggests making early attempts to regulate technology and updating approaches as necessary.

It is worth noting that Fehlinger has been involved in various initiatives and consultations globally. He is working towards developing ethical principles for responsible technology in an inclusive, multi-stakeholder manner. His expertise and experience shape his stance on responsible innovation and ethical governance.

In conclusion, Paul Fehlinger advocates for an inclusive, multi-stakeholder approach to responsible innovation and ethical governance of technology. He highlights the importance of considering the entire innovation cycle, incorporating economic incentives, embedding ethics in technology design, and rethinking user roles. Fehlinger’s insights underscore the need for a holistic and proactive approach to ensure responsible and ethical use of emerging technologies.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri

The concept of virtual worlds and the metaverse becoming a tangible reality is rapidly approaching, thanks to advancements in technology. These virtual environments hold tremendous potential and can bring numerous benefits to various sectors such as healthcare, education, design, logistics, and engineering.

However, alongside this optimism, concerns have been raised regarding the division between the real world and the virtual world. There are worries about the internet becoming fragmented, as our existence becomes split between these two realms, rather than enjoying a unified online space.

Another challenge lies in the feasibility of taxation and financing within virtual worlds, raising questions about how governments will adapt to these new digital economies. Additionally, the adaptation of laws and justice systems to virtual worlds is a significant consideration. This includes determining how criminal activities will be tracked and judged within these environments.

To ensure the success and inclusivity of virtual worlds, it is crucial to advocate for an open, stable, and globally interoperable virtual world. Creating an environment that allows for seamless communication and interaction between users regardless of their location or technological infrastructure will be essential.

The reliability and security of the technological infrastructure supporting virtual worlds are paramount. Efforts must be made to establish robust systems that safeguard user data and ensure a safe online experience.

One challenging aspect that arises in virtual worlds is the behavior of avatars and the legal and ethical questions it raises. The actions of avatars within virtual worlds can have real-world implications, particularly concerning the interaction between adult avatars and minor avatars. These scenarios require careful consideration and appropriate regulations.

Furthermore, data accumulation and its impact on the development of virtual worlds and artificial intelligence (AI) should not be overlooked. The concentration of vast amounts of data in the hands of a few can influence the direction and progress of AI and virtual worlds. Managing personal and organizational data is a crucial issue that needs to be addressed to mitigate potential risks.

Building the metaverse, the ultimate embodiment of virtual worlds, presents a significant puzzle, with data management being a key challenge. The proper handling of user and company data is of utmost importance, and issues related to data management will continue to be significant in the formation of the metaverse.

In conclusion, while virtual worlds hold great promise and offer exciting possibilities, navigating the challenges they present is essential for their successful implementation. Promoting open and inclusive virtual worlds, ensuring a reliable and secure technological environment, addressing legal and ethical concerns, and managing data effectively will be crucial in shaping the future of virtual worlds and the metaverse. Despite these challenges, efforts are being made towards a better future through digital transformation, paving the way for a new era of virtual experiences.

Alexandra Kozik

The concept of the metaverse is gaining momentum as the next step in the evolution of the internet. It is described as a more immersive and embodied internet experience, where users can interact in virtual worlds using advanced technologies. Alexandra Kozik, a prominent figure in the field, believes that the metaverse will be built by different stakeholders using a constellation of technologies and platforms.

To ensure the success of the metaverse, the development of common technical standards is crucial. Kozik emphasizes that without these standards, the metaverse risks becoming fragmented, with each platform operating on its own terms. To prevent this, industry, governments, and experts must work together to establish these standards. By doing so, interoperability can be achieved, allowing users to seamlessly navigate between different platform destinations and experiences. This not only promotes economic benefits, competition, and consumer choice but also creates a cohesive and connected metaverse.

Moreover, Kozik advocates for active multi-stakeholder participation in setting rules and standards for the metaverse. She highlights the importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation in developing both technical and governance standards. This approach encourages participation from European industries and fosters collaboration between various stakeholders. Kozik mentions notable initiatives such as the European Metaverse Research Network, which researches the risks, opportunities, and governance of the metaverse. By involving different perspectives and expertise, the metaverse can be shaped in a way that benefits all stakeholders.

Additionally, there is support for lowering barriers to entry and promoting inclusivity in the metaverse. This includes ensuring that small businesses and developers have equal opportunities to participate and contribute to the metaverse. The aim is to create an inclusive space that facilitates access for all individuals, regardless of their size or resources. This aligns with the sustainable development goals of decent work and economic growth, industry innovation and infrastructure, and reduced inequalities.

Furthermore, immersive technology has shown potential applications in various sectors, including healthcare training and education. Kozik mentions engaging in discussions with surgeons who are already using the technology to enhance their skills. The immersive nature of the technology enables a more realistic and interactive training experience, benefiting aspiring healthcare professionals. Additionally, there is an exploration of using immersive technology in education, allowing students to learn subjects like physics and history in a more immersive and engaging way. The potential of immersive technology extends beyond these sectors, with possibilities being explored in manufacturing as well.

In conclusion, the metaverse is seen as the next evolution of the internet, offering a more immersive and embodied experience. To ensure its success, the development of common technical standards, active multi-stakeholder participation, inclusivity, and the exploration of immersive technology in various sectors are essential. These efforts will shape the metaverse into a connected, cohesive, and inclusive space for users worldwide.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Dear ladies, dear gentlemen, all friends, welcome to this session on virtual worlds we want. I am Mia-Petra Kumpula-Natri. I am a member of the European Parliament. I am from Finland. I want to personally and also on behalf of my colleagues, the European Parliament members, to thank the hosting ministry Japan for organizing excellent surroundings for the IGF this year in Kyoto. Also, I want to thank Pearse O’Donohue, who is sitting next to me, from the European Commission for initiating and organizing this session. It will be very interesting to talk with the panelists that we have here and also audience online and audience here, participants. We have opportunity for the last 20-25 minutes to participate in questioning these experts that we have got together here. We are some on place and two experts joining us online and also audience online is welcome to join. There is a moderator helping us with the reaching your questions if you have any. So, looking at the future, looking at what is today, we are already talking about the metaverse, virtual worlds, however you want to name it. It has been a long time something to think of, but now it is getting real possibility along the technological developments. There are imagination of the good healthcare, education, design, whatever virtual worlds could bring on the logistics, engineering, manufacturing. What goes first? Or is it in the end that it is the games and virtual culture that flowers? Is it then shops, online shopping having the shape? Is it helping us to teach, learn, visit, experience? Actually what we know that it will have an impact on how its citizens will interact with the digital environment, but also within. And when citizens and people meet with each other, it leads to be various also that how we interact. So is it emphasizing the lessons we have learned with internet, two-dimensional internet that not everything is easy and good, even if it is vital for everyone to be able to join. So I think we can aim for the open and stable and free virtual worlds to be inclusive and global if it is not interoperable. Is it that some people go to the other world and some people stay in this universe? So how to make it reliable and secure and what is needed from the technological environment? Is there enough networks to be able to carry this computer power in the hands of you? Or is it a global effort to do things together? So me as a politician, I have more questions. I hope the panel will guide us forward and set the phase and frameworks for what is needed that we can go together for something better, enlightening more good sides and possibilities and avoiding some risks that might come. One risk being that we are splittering our existence and not enjoying the common internet on the virtual world and based on this one. I see my notes also as a politician mentioning taxes. How to tax anything if everything is online or in virtual worlds? Then governments come with ideas of financing too. And then criminalities, are there some laws in order to police forces and justice systems to find the guilty and judge? So with these opening remarks, I give the floor for the first speaker who is Pearse O’Donohue, Director of the Future Networks in the European Commission.Pearse, the floor is yours.

Pearse O’Donohue:
Thank you so much, Ms. Kumpula-Natri, Miapetra. And thank you for your support of this event. And I need to turn it on. Thank you. I’ll start again. Thank you very much, Mia Petra, for your support. And thank you for everyone who’s here to participate and online. Because discussing here today the virtual worlds we want, it’s particularly timely. In fact, we are at a critical juncture. Most of the technologies that underpin virtual worlds, which we know perhaps individually and separately, virtual reality, extended reality, AI, of course, but also the underpinning technologies, cloud, Internet of Things, Internet technologies, even high-performance computing, as well as the infrastructure and devices, they have all reached a high level of development with perhaps the exception of AI, but we see how fast that is happening. But for the metaverse, for virtual worlds, we’re still at the dawn of this transition. And hence, we have the chance to set the guardrails, to set a framework for what is happening. It’s also particularly important to discuss the subject here at the IGF, as the governance of virtual worlds is a crucial element to be defined now, since the whole Internet governance community is engaged in the debate of the future of the Internet governance architecture, with everything that’s been going on here about the global digital compact and WSIS. And one of the obvious challenges where we need to support the IGF is in relation to its role in and response to new technologies, such, of course, as artificial intelligence, but also virtual worlds. From the point of view of the European Union, we set out our vision and strategy for the future web just in July, when the Commission adopted a new strategy on an initiative on web 4.0 and virtual worlds. And that was to give us a head start in the next technological transition. And that allowed us to make some policy proposals, rather than any definitive solutions, following a round of consultations with our stakeholders, from industry to academia and civil society. And it is crucial in the context of the IGF to note that that is a process which we wish to continue in the course of setting these guardrails for the metaverse. Importantly, we also held citizens panels to hear directly from people what opportunities and challenges they see in this significant shift, and also how they should be supported, how governments and others should support them and steer the transition to virtual worlds in the right direction. The strategy has a long-term perspective, and as I said, it is also in the context of web 4.0, which might risk for some, certainly not in this community, but for others, be a bit techy. But the virtual worlds will be an important manifestation of web 4.0, from the point of view of the normal user as well as business. And beyond the tech jargon, this is really working on a wider, deeper technological transition, which will allow a seamless connection between people and the machines that they are using. It will be more immersive, but that will deeply impact the way we work, interact and socialise. Our strategy in the Commission is anchored in the idea that developments towards web 4.0 and virtual worlds must reflect EU values and principles. They must also, of course, respect existing EU legislation to ensure that individuals, people, are safe, confident and empowered, where people’s rights as users, consumers, workers or creators are respected. And this is why there’s also continuity in the policies that we have followed recently, have all been geared to ensuring a human-centric internet, and that is also the case for virtual worlds. We’re really aiming at creating and supporting a nurturing environment for the European industry, where businesses can develop world-leading applications, scale up and grow, but with certainty about what are the guardrails, what are the principles that they must respect in making that work, making the investments in the technology. Another element, and again, this is not new, the question is how do we apply it in this case, is ensuring that virtual worlds, the technology and services, the environment are open and interoperable, to ensure that the virtual worlds will not be dominated by a small number of big players, and that people and businesses are able to control the transfer of their data, virtual assets and identities, as the avatars and identities become an even more important part of this process. Our strategy also looks at what are the EU strengths. We obviously have a culture-rich continent with a lot of extraordinary cultural heritage, which is being, or has to be digitised. We have industrial players in core enabling technologies. We have major companies, but also innovative SMEs, all of whom can play a role, and where we have made significant investments in fostering data spaces, digital twins, etc., which will actually be an element that feeds into the operation of the virtual worlds in a trustworthy and secure manner. We can also count on a solid future-proof legislative framework in place, to ensure that the users are protected and that SMEs can benefit from this world as well. But there is an outreach. reach element to this, and where we hope to learn from and work with global partners, who are, of course, facing the exact same challenges. Because we have a lot to learn. And like so many other elements of the internet, we want to ensure that it actually increases interoperability and openness and does not become a tool for marginalization or fragmentation. We want to empower people and reinforce the skills required to develop innovative applications, services, and content. We want to support a web 4.0 industrial ecosystem to scale up excellence in research and development, to foster innovation, and to prevent fragmentation within our single market. We want to support societal progress and the provision of virtual public services. It’s not all about gaming, after all. We are going to have two new public flagships in the area of smart cities and in health, respectively. And they are areas, of course, that directly impact on the quality of life of citizens. And then the last pillar, leaning on all of the other three and what I’ve already mentioned, is about the governance at global level, but also, of course, EU level, on how we shape global standards for open and interoperable virtual worlds and web 4.0. And to promote, of course, those standards in line with EU’s vision and values. We’re already seeing signs, as Mia Petra was also speaking to me about earlier on, about attempts to preempt that standardization process for purposes which we would be deeply suspicious of, and also which would not provide the guarantees with regard to the protection of the individual, the protection of identities, and the protection of data along the lines of the values that we try to be consistent about in all of our actions with regard to digital technologies. So standardization is key, and the governance of the metaverse is and will be key. So today, we’re going to discuss what. What are the virtual worlds we want? What should they look like? But also, if we can agree on a common set of principles and values underpinning the virtual worlds, it’s perhaps even more important then to discuss how. How do we deliver that? The elements we need to deliver on a certain vision of virtual worlds. And if that can come from the IGF, it automatically has validity. It has strength and should be a common tool that we can use with partners who are not necessarily present here as a common view of what the metaverse should be shaped like. And as I said earlier, from the EU side, we want to ensure that they’re designed to be open and interoperable, and also to enable true user empowerment and diverse participation. So we have to have a look again at the capacity, the ability, the feasibility of access and use by others who are not properly connected, do not have the means to allow the latest whiz-bang set of goggles that have just been announced, but where basic accessibility and connectivity issues are still a major challenge towards the uptake of such technologies. That requires innovation, creativity, but also, of course, collaboration. And addressing the governance at global level will be required to achieve openness and interoperability, and it will be key to future developments and uses. Otherwise, elements of society and elements of government will simply shut down on the whole process to the detriment we feel of society and the economy. International engagement is needed on things like content, on practice. Also, of course, avoiding, ensuring that there is not disinformation. Also, that there is not censorship, having a positive impact on that tension with freedom of speech while protecting the individual. And of course, surveillance versus privacy, where we have to ensure the protection of the individual. So, of course, I think in this community, there will be very little doubt that we are all committed to engaging in this multi-stakeholder internet governance in the design of an open and interoperable virtual world. Again, the question is, how do we convince others to do the same? To develop human rights-based virtual worlds, we have to rely on the recognised instruments. We have in Europe the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles, as well as a Declaration for the Future of the Internet. And we know that these are mirrored by actions and views and principles held in other areas, because that Declaration for the Future of the Internet, as we discussed here on Sunday, already has almost 70 signatories, including in the Global South. Of course, governance for openness and interoperability can only be accomplished by this community. I repeat that point, and we will not stop saying it. But it is also important that as we rely on the IETF, on ICANN, and on other important bodies, we must ensure that the IGF is at that same level, being allowed to play its role, and that national and regional initiatives, including regional internet governance fora for multi-stakeholder internet are allowed to have their input to that important technical and policy process. So we are launching, for our part in Europe, an expert group which will bring our member states together with others to share a common approach and the best practices on the virtual world. As I said, in line with the consultation process that we are running, we want to set with the community and with member states the guidelines for this important technological process. We will support the creation of a technical multi-stakeholder governance process to address essential aspects of virtual worlds that are perhaps not sufficiently elaborated so far in the global institutions, the governance institutions so far. So we must look at how we deal with this issue in the IGF, and we have to address it positively and critically. What is it that the IGF needs to do? What support, for example, do governments need to give to the IGF to engage in the intersessional work to ensure that it is the locus for this discussion? I hope that today’s discussion will contribute significantly to our dialogue on the role of the multi-stakeholder governance model for virtual worlds, and that will help us in our work, but help others also, and bring us together in a common understanding from the outset about how do we achieve true user empowerment, diverse participation and accessibility. Thank you very much.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Thank you very much. We only got one hour and 15 minutes to solve the questions, or to elaborate at least the scenery that the Commission was giving us from the European Commission. So next, I go for the experts that we have gathered here together. I will put the plenary to talk about three big titles, regulation and governance, then accessibility and inclusivity, and then the third, interoperability and standards. But I’ll let the experts to have their own vision, not entitled only for this title. Three, four minutes each, and we will start with Cathy Li. Cathy Li is with us online. She’s the head of AI data and metaverse at the World Economic Forum with the vast knowledge and experiment on the businesses on VPP media investment arm, including digital media buying and real professional who has been working in London, New York and Beijing. Cathy, are you with us? I would like to have your comment. What would be needed to support such a vision we heard here, open, interoperable, safe, good governance? Is it legislative? What institutions? Please, the word is yours.

Cathy Li:
Thank you, moderator, and good to see everyone. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening to all the audience as well. It’s an honor to be here. So my name is Cathy Lee. I head the AI data and metaverse work and the co-head of the Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution at the Forum, working on the Forum. So first of all, I do want to mention that indeed at the Forum, we have been covering the topic of the metaverse, virtual worlds and Web 4.0 for probably the longest time since I think before October 2021. And that was important because that was before even meta changed their brand name. So you can imagine that we’ve been working on this issue for the longest period. But the ambition at that time was really to anticipate the global discussions on the metaverse and virtual worlds. That’s how we launched the Defining and Building the Metaverse initiative to basically realize the benefits and mitigate the risks of virtual worlds and Web 4.0. And the initiative really intends to surface technology and policy harmonization needs, explores and guides the economic impact and use case development and co-design the kind of necessary frameworks for responsible deployment. What we did was we leveraged the kind of peer-to-peer cross-sectoral collaboration and managed to convene a community of more than 300 experts from across the public and private sectors to generate socially useful, inclusive, equitable and responsible virtual worlds. The work cuts across two tracks, value creation and governance. And value creation, we’re talking about not just about creating value for the industry, but most importantly, for the society overall as well. The initiative advances recommendations on topics such as the digital identity, ethics, IP rights and digital assets. The value creation track really maps out the new value chains and business model across industries, identifying potential use cases, future use cases, while analyzing the impacts and the risks. of virtual worlds to society and culture. The governance track recommends policy frameworks for the global and responsible technology deployment while championing equity, inclusion, diversity, and accessibility. So far, the initiative has produced work on demystifying the consumer metaverse, social implications of the metaverse, interoperability in the metaverse, and privacy and safety in the metaverse. Next, the initiative will focus on developing guidance on metaverse industry transformation, identity, and security. Ultimately, the initiative will provide guidance, provide a guidance, a governance framework for the virtual world, but 4.0. And here, it’s very important to, first of all, talk about the definition of the metaverse. We at the forum never thought this would be limited to a 2D or 3D AR, VR, XR kind of virtual environment. It’s important to think of the metaverse as the future, as the next iteration of the internet, and what kind of economic and social opportunities we wanted to generate from the next iteration of the internet, and equally, what kind of guardrails we wanted to put in place. And if we walk back from that vision, what do we need to do today to make sure that we have the kind of future that everyone can benefit from? So I do want to address very briefly your first question in terms of how do we make sure that there’s international engagement for the market stakeholder community? Because again, that’s been what we have been doing for the past two years, and it’s not an easy process. Because in a borderless metaverse, the only way to mitigate the risks of regulatory arbitrage and secure individual’s data and rights is to develop global governance solutions. But we still are seeing a significant lack of harmonization across jurisdictions. For example, a study conducted in 2021 by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation discovered that 62 countries currently have prohibitions or limitations in place regarding the flow of data across their borders. Furthermore, the data which these restrictions are being implemented is increasing. This underscores the importance of international collaboration that spans borders to both streamline and safeguard the movement of data, which is a critical consideration as a borderless. this metaverse continues to develop. Those who collaborate across borders must continue to take into account the ethical, jurisdictional, and coordination challenges related to two key factors. One is the new types of data and their associated definitions. And two, emerging forms of social interactions linked to embodiments and presence. Moreover, given the new natures of several metaverse technologies and experiences, it’s likely that the new governance solutions, both legal and non-legal, will need to be developed and trialed across jurisdictions to be able to effectively govern virtual worlds. And to facilitate this process, we need multi-stakeholder bodies developing principles and frameworks on metaverse governance, standard-setting organizations working to ensure technologies are open and interoperable, and government engagement in the rule-setting and enforcement process, and a strong industry buy-in, which will be key as well. I’ll stop there. I’m very happy to continue the discussion later on, but that will be some of my initial observations. Back to you. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Thank you so much. We will deep dive into some questions more. Next, I will have the pleasure to ask Elena Plexida, who’s the Vice President for the Government of IGO Engagement in the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN. Prior to joining ICANN, she worked for the European Commission too, but has been then championing our common internet in ICANN names and numbers. Does it apply in the metaverse? Having the premise that it’s a global phenomenon, it needs global governance as also challenged here. What we can learn from the systems? Could we draw parallels from the governance model that ICANN is now running? I’m going to turn it over to the next speaker, who is going to talk about the global internet and how it can be used in the future.

Elena Plexida:
Thank you, Miapetra, hello, everyone. Indeed, ICANN coordinates the internet unique identifiers, the names, the numbers, the protocols, and especially the names, the domain name system. It’s a coordination without which you wouldn’t have the global internet, the global internet as we know it today. It’s a coordination without which you wouldn’t have the global internet, the global internet as we know it today. We have multistakeholder models across the spectrum, government, civil society, academia, engineers, users, and they collectively make the policies that govern the domain name system. That’s the ICANN multistakeholder model, if you will. And all our sibling technical organizations like the ITF that Piers mentioned before have their own multistakeholder governance model. We have a multistakeholder governance model, the ICANN multistakeholder model. It’s a multistakeholder model, it’s a multistakeholder model for international engagement. We are talking about decision-making, that in the case of the ICANN multistakeholder model, it can change things like the very route of the internet. This governance model has enabled and has protected the global internet so far, the technical layer that keeps the internet together, that’s what I mean by the internet. So, the ICANN multistakeholder model has worked very well for the internet for the last 25 minutes, 25 years. It will be fantastic, eh? It should work as well for the next 25 years, I guess. So, it absolutely must be preserved to govern the technical underpinnings of the internet so they can continue to support anything that comes on top of them in the future. So, I think that’s all I have to say about the ICANN multistakeholder model. It’s a multistakeholder model, it’s a multistakeholder model for the global internet. Be it virtual worlds, be it web 4.5, be it 5, be it whatever inflated version of the web anyway. Now, if we were talking about virtual worlds in a closed environment, gaming, it’s a multistakeholder model, it’s a multistakeholder model for the global internet. and this would be an application issue and we wouldn’t be discussing much. However, the virtual worlds are meant to integrate with the real world or with each other, with day-to-day interaction with the real world, and that’s what the European Commission Communication is aiming to discuss, this augmented reality. So then the question becomes, how do you keep in sync the virtual and the real world? And how do you keep in sync the real world with many virtual worlds? When you go into the mentors in a virtual browser, virtual computer and type www.icon.org, where do you go? I think Pierce mentioned that before as a question. Or how about property? How does a property belong to, who does it belong to? What are the different obligations that are tied to that property in the many different worlds, as an example? So then you are indeed into a governance issue. Now the real world, take for example real estate, is heavily regulated by sovereign governments. Stakeholders participate by providing views. They’re being consulted. The governance system that supports the internet technically, as I explained before, does not work that way. Stakeholders, including governments, along with the other stakeholders, they decide. So the question becomes, as the virtual worlds and the real world start to integrate, what happens at the juncture in terms of governance? Clearly I don’t have the answer. Except to say that we do need everyone around the table. Globally, you do need multi-stakeholderism. But I can certainly say that you cannot have a stable and secure internet without the same individual worlds. So although the virtual worlds might be a long way out, we do have to start thinking about it. And thanks to the European Commission for putting the questions out there.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Thank you so much. Then about the, how to make this world accessibility and take inclusivity on board, responsible innovation and so. So next couple of speakers will touch that. I will first have His Excellency, a global technocrat with a diverse experience in business. Also been a professor. on entrepreneurship of the University of Nairobi Business School, worked for the Ministry of Information and Communication, and now as Kenya’s ambassador to Belgium and the EU. So, welcome, Bitange Ndemo. The floor is yours.

Bitange Ndemo:
Thank you for the question. The issue about accessibility and the word multi-stakeholder needs to be reconciled. Sometimes I say we need to define these concepts ahead of time so that everybody understands. If you look at the road infrastructure, the government does it and we all use it. We compete within that space. And if it were that every rich person makes the road, we would have a lot of problems, even in terms of competition. Accessibility and inclusivity would begin with who builds the infrastructure, because those who go ahead building this infrastructure create problems of access in such a way that competition can lower the cost of entry. So, if we are serious about this, we must rein in on some of those who participate in the multi-stakeholder arrangement to create access to these technologies and be able to do what some countries have done, which build infrastructure, and everybody rides on it like we do on the road infrastructure. By understanding that everything is changing, if I talk about education, we begin first. Every learning is predicated on some theory or philosophy. We spend on Plato’s philosophies of learning. Most of us learned through road learning, memorization, and then people like Pavlov in dog experimentation changed into behaviorism, and we moved out of there. Biagé came with constructivism. which has done a lot of good across the world, which countries changed their way of learning. This is now shifting. It’s shifted into what we call connectivism, where internet came and people are learning in certain ways. The trouble is that because of lack of access, not everybody enjoyed that space. We are shifting now into metaverse, where I am hoping that academicians would say we are in augmentation or augmentative stage or theory that would explain our learning. If you see the growth of virtual reality across the world, even in Africa, which usually comes from behind, you are seeing solutions which would amaze you. But these solutions must be accessible and inclusive across the board. To get them to be accessed and address everybody’s problems, a number of things has to be done from what has been said by previous speakers and also embracing new ways of creating new spaces of competition by destroying the structures that we have had before. What is happening now is the most defining moment of our time with these technologies. Unless something is done now, we are going to mess up a lot of people’s lives who may not access that, who may not be as competitive as I told you. Some of us begin through memorization to this stage. Others would be in the augmentation. One example I will give you, in my biology class, my teacher used to draw an apple on the board and a plus in the middle and would tell us this is the left ventricle and the right ventricle of the heart. And you’re trying to imagine what the hell does the heart look like. Now, if you look virtual immersive learning, you see the heart. You see where it is. You see how the blood flows. And you can actually walk out of there and explain to someone. If we deny young people that opportunity to learn in ways that they understand content beyond what we have seen before, we are doing ourselves a disservice. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Thank you. Very interesting. And my family comes from the far north Lapland. And they really thought when the internet came and now that you distance might lose meaning and they have more opportunities to, as you described very beautifully. Next one we will have from the Project Liberty Institute, which is describing its aims as enhanced ethical governance of the future businesses and technology. The Paul Fehlinger. Please, how do we foster responsible innovations? Foster innovation, but make it responsible at the same time in the world of words.

Paul Fehlinger:
Thank you so much. First of all, I just wanna say that in all the interventions of the two of you and my fellow discussants, I sense a lot of aspiration when we talk about virtual worlds and this is why I think the title, the virtual world we want is very wisely chosen. My name is Paul Fehlinger. I’m the Director of Policy Governance Innovation Impact of Project Liberty. As you said, we’re an organization for responsible innovation, ethical governance of new emerging and sometimes disruptive technologies such as everything involved in web three, web four. And we as an organization do basically three things. We enable evidence-based governance innovation through our research partnerships. Our founding partners are Stanford University in Silicon Valley, Sciences Po in Paris and France and Georgetown University in Washington, DC. And we catalyze multi-stakeholder cooperation to develop governance frameworks for responsible innovation and ethical technology. And very particular, we also are the steward of an open source public interest protocol for the internet which is called DSMP, the Decentralized Social Networking Protocol which is a protocol to enable user data control into operability between services and economic value participation. And thank you for the question on how to do responsible innovation practice because this is what we focus on. We’re currently leading together with the Aspen Digital Institute, a global multi-stakeholder initiative for ethical principles for responsible technology. It’s a global consultative process. We had regional consultations already in Latin America and Costa Rica in the past months. We were in Africa and in Nairobi just before the summer. We had consultations in Europe and Paris. We had here consultations in Japan on the sidelines of the Internet Governance Forum and in three weeks, we will hold our North American consultations in Silicon Valley. And we have already consulted with over 200 key actors across international organization, policy makers, businesses, investors, entrepreneurs, civil society and academics to precisely ask the question of what is responsible innovation with virtual worlds, new technologies? And I wanna share four takeaways without pre-empting the process and the final results which were released for public comments in December towards the end of the year. One first takeaway is that we need to look at the entire innovation cycle for responsible innovation. A lot of efforts in the past iterations of the web have been focused on regulation. But the innovation cycle also is how we design and develop technology, how technology is funded, how we do investment, which is something that was already mentioned, and how it’s commercially deployed and then how it’s regulated. And I wanna just say congratulations to the approach of the European Union because this initiative looks really very early in the innovation cycle. We basically discuss an upcoming innovation that is more of a concept today than a market reality for lack of computing power and other factors at this moment. So there’s also this opportunity to learn from the iterations of web one and web two as Piers said in the beginning and have a better approach for web three, web four. We are here in Japan, so Japan is talking about society 5.0, whatever number of an iteration you wanna give it. The second takeaway that we have heard so far from this initiative is that ethical governance is sort of a journey. Yes, there are overarching high-level principles and frameworks, and yes, existing rules apply also in the metaverse and virtual worlds, but with the conference, with this mix of multiple technologies, artificial intelligence, XR, blockchain, quantum computing power in the future, neurotechnology, when we integrate not only the visual but also computer brain interfaces in the interactions, this is certainly having unintended consequences that we don’t even know today. So a risk-based approach works very well when you know what you’re dealing with, but here we did, this is uncertainty. So what we’ve been hearing a lot is that we need a process-oriented approach, and this requires a mindset shift, a cultural shift that says, well, uncertainty is part of the game, so how do we make it work? And here, again, I think a lot of thinking has already been going in a very good direction towards more agile governance approaches that build on sandboxes that allow for experimentation and testing and for iteration and for multi-stakeholder partnerships, but it’s very important, and this is also something that was said over and over again, that multi-stakeholder partnerships and multi-stakeholder involvement for responsible innovation need to have teeth. There needs to be some form of enforcement at the end of feedback loops. A third takeaway, and this was highlighted, we had a town hall of Project Liberty yesterday, and something that was highlighted by quite a few people during this session was the economic dimension of making responsible innovation work. In the case of Europe, we want that Europe’s virtual worlds are competitive, so how can you be at the same time responsible and competitive at the global level, because, and this was mentioned already before, jurisdictions are different, there are different standards around the world, and so there need to be economic incentives. It needs to make good business sense to behave responsibly, and this is a discussion we need to have. And last but definitely not least, and this is one of the most important points I would even say when we discuss virtual worlds, the notion that regulation is very important, but as we look around the entire innovation cycle, we also need to look at the technological dimension and to see how ethics can be embedded by design and technology or through the technological design. Code is law and law is code, so what kind of public interest digital infrastructure do we need? How do we build interoperable infrastructures? And here the question is between centralization and decentralization, and I think it’s very important to have a discussion with the different stakeholders around the table on, do we need a holistic approach? Because we have learned from web one, web two, that there was a lot of patching, a lot of piecemeal solutions through regulation, but if we look through the entire stack and we start thinking about the protocol level on which virtual worlds will be based in or built in the future, we need to discuss if at this infrastructure protocol level we can embed by design certain principles such as user data control, such as interoperability and such as economic value participation, which is something which is very close to us at Project Liberty because we are the steward of one protocol that does exactly that, and there are other approaches as well and other initiatives working on similar approaches. And just to finish, and I think this is common sense and we all agree, we need a human-centric approach and I just want to share something very specific in that regard. We at Project Liberty, we’re part of the ITU’s focus group on the metaverse, where there’s a discussion on standards and interoperability, and we are realizing that a lot of the discussions focus on users as consumers, and I think it’s very important to slightly shift this mindset as well and talk about how to empower users beyond just being consumers of virtual worlds. There are commercial applications, there are industrial applications, there are commercial applications, but virtual worlds will also shift the fabric of connectivity as societies at large, so it’s important to keep this in mind from the onset and I look forward to the discussions. Thank you very much.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Actually, you paved the way for the three next speakers. Our last round is from the tech business right away. Is there ethical principles on the task of the engineers doing the R&D on the commercialization phase? How to make it really happen? Are the networks there? We will have the speakers from IOWN, Nokia and Meta. So first, Dr. Masahisa Kawashima, who is leading the entities R&D of innovative optical and wireless network technology director there. So what are the big technological issues we need international standards for? Please.

Masahisa Kawashima:
Thank you. So there are a lot of standardization items. For example, we have to update our technology suite for information representation to support 3D digital object for Metaverse. And also, we need to update infrastructure standardization standards to support high capacity and low latency networks for VR and virtual VR and MR applications. But I think these work items are relatively straightforward. And the most complex and challenging issue is how to enforce data privacy and AI governance policies. For example, when I walk into a shop in the virtual space, before entering the shop, I want to make sure that my data is protected. So for example, of course, today we have a server certificate mechanism. So it is easy to have a shop submit a certificate to attest the compliance with the policies. But I cannot be sure if what is attested really reflects how the server is operated, actually. So to enforce the policy technically is very difficult. Another example is when I use data from other data providers, I want to be sure that the data is authentic. Of course, we can have a certificate mechanism. But how can we prove, actually, how can I be actually sure that the data is not fake? So, such issues actually has not yet been solved in today’s Internet. Internet is a good transport network, but Internet itself cannot guarantee that transported data is not fake when the server site is not a fake site. So, we need to make the future Internet not just for transporting data, but the future Internet should be the infrastructure for trusted service and data exchange. And we don’t have such a technology suite. But without such a technology suite, launching a virtual world may harm many people. That is my view on that question. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Yes, thank you very much. And next one, Tatsuya Yanagibashi from Chief Technology Officer for Japan on Nokia Solutions and Network. I do remember when I’ve traveled from Finland to United States and it was cut off my mobile. It’s peaceful, no virtual reality, only singing birds. And I was thinking, was it my mobile phone? So what is it the world of standards and networks from Nokia perspective?

Tatsuya Yanagibashi:
Sure. So firstly, thank you very much for inviting and it’s great pleasure to have this opportunity to share our view on the Metaverse. So before actually I briefly touch upon kind of the technologies which is, I think, enabling the Metaverse to be real. I would also like to briefly touch upon, again, the importance of a standard and standardization efforts. Because I think those two things are still fundamentally important for building interoperable virtual environment, virtual world, Metaverse, right? And from our perspective, we have seen very good difference in the wireless communication standard that is actually called the 3GPP. So it has developed wireless communication standard for more than decades. And it has been so successfully done so far. And I and we, Nokia, believes that similar approach also required for the Metaverse standard as well. But here you can also imagine, I think we have a big problem today. There are so many Metaverse… Metaverse-related standard in the market today, and there is no 3GPP like the single standard organizations actually driving the innovations. And there are so many, as I said, Metaverse-related standard organizations, they don’t like each other, they ignore each other, sometimes they fight each other. So I don’t think this is the kind of ideal situation, and we definitely need to have a better governance model here. And from Nokia’s point of view, there are some organizations actually called the Metaverse Standard Forum. So this is a different organization from the ITU you just mentioned. So that’s another kind of opportunity, we think, where we can actually drive interoperable Metaverse standard. So and of course, Nokia is part of this organization. I think this might be probably the better environment where we can actually discuss Metaverse governance. So that’s the first comment. And then, you know, next question would be, you know, kind of the technologies to accelerate the Metaverse and the virtual world is, from Nokia’s perspective, the XR device is definitely promising technologies. So today, as you can imagine, that our communication is like a smartphone, right? This is the majority of user-end devices. But in 2030, for example, I think this is no longer the case. We believe that XR device has much more, you know, it’s going to be more dominant in user-end device, the market and segments. But today, you can also imagine that XR device available, we can use today, it’s still not human-friendly. You cannot really imagine with using such, I think, bigger, you know, XR device for 24 hours, right? That’s obviously impossible. XR, extended reality device, sorry. Yeah. XR. Yeah. So, what network can probably do and help in this situation is, you know, today XR device is having the bigger computing processing, but I think network can take care of some of processing at edge, for example, which makes XR device much lighter, you know, having better, longer battery life and, you know, even cheaper, right? So, I think this is where network can actually really help and this needs to be also discussed in, I think, Metaverse-related standard organizations as well. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Thank you. Even we are talking already virtual world, not AI anymore. I was reading the other day of the AI developing machinery to build more chips for AI, because they are needing more. So, I don’t know how quickly they introduce themselves to introduce something that they can be built. But then, now next one, next speaker will be from Brussels, from Meta. Alexandra Kozik, are you with us?

Alexandra Kozik:
Yes, I’m here.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Hi. Welcome and welcome to join us and give your perspective as the last speaker for the round. My children, I’m teasing all the time, that have sometimes a book, but now there is no Facebook, there is Meta. Tell us where you want to see us in future.

Alexandra Kozik:
Thank you very much and thank you so much for inviting us to this debate. Good morning from Brussels, of course, good afternoon where you are and sorry I can’t be there in person with you. So, you know, we’ve been talking a lot today about global governance standards, multi-stakeholder cooperation, you’ve asked us to weigh in on that. Of course, these are big concepts to unpack, so I thought what would be maybe helpful to do today is first share with you a little bit more about our vision for this and then give you a couple of examples, specific examples of how we’re working on that. So, first of all, some of you have referred to the definitions. We obviously believe that virtual worlds or the metaverse is simply the next chapter or the next evolution of the internet. So, but we think about it as much more embodied and immersive internet with that defining feeling of presence. So, obviously, like there is internet, the metaverse is not going to be a single product, it’s going to be a constellation of technologies, platforms and products and obviously it will be built by many different stakeholders. It won’t be built by one company alone, there will be developers, creators, civil society involved and this is obvious but important to stress because we obviously will not be the ones setting the rules for how this works. It will really require a multi-stakeholder effort to bring this to life and truly develop the right norms for it. So, from our side, we believe that the metaverse will only reach its full potential if it is built on a foundation of common technical standards. We talked about empowering consumers and citizens, we talked about empowering businesses, we believe that people need to be able to seamlessly navigate and travel between the multiple platform destinations and experiences that you will have in the metaverse, just like you can browse the internet today freely. So, this obviously will help create beneficial economic effects, it will favor competition, citizens’ choice. So, we really, really, really truly believe that this element of interoperability is important here. Of course, not every aspect of the metaverse experience needs to be or will be interoperable with the others but without the agreement that the baseline interoperability matters to connect the metaverse together, it will very quickly become fragmented and broken into silos. So, obviously, the development of technical standards in specific areas is crucial to create that baseline level of interoperability. And essentially, we will make sure that we can mirror the kind of open interoperability that is based in the metaverse. So, for this to happen successfully, the only way it can happen successfully is if we develop these standards in a collaborative fashion. So, industry, governments and experts must come together around these shared technical standards for the metaverse to be truly interoperable. And here, I wanted to just share a few concrete examples with you. I’ll share maybe three given the limits of time that we have, just to give you an idea of how we are engaging in some of these multi-stakeholder initiatives. So, the first one was already mentioned by the previous speaker, the Metaverse Standards Forum, which we joined in 2022. This is an industry-wide effort that brings together leading companies of all sizes together with standards organizations to talk about how to build that open, inclusive metaverse and essentially provide space for collaboration between these organizations to develop these standards. Now, of course, there are other speakers from the World Economic Forum. We also are involved in the WEF’s Defining and Building the Metaverse Initiative, which essentially seeks to guide the development of a safe, open, interoperable metaverse. And again, this is a great example of that multi-stakeholder approach to defining the governance frameworks for the metaverse. And we’re therefore actively engaging in that effort. And then maybe lastly, the XR Association, which is another forum for cross-industry cooperation. They bring together companies working across the whole spectrum of the metaverse technology. So, we’re talking about headsets manufacturers, technology platforms to companies that build components in internet infrastructure and enterprise solutions, etc., etc. So, it’s really the whole spectrum. And all of these, the three that I just mentioned, they’re very good examples of multi-stakeholder initiatives that really can help feed into that debate on governance we’re trying to have to help ensure that metaverse will be accessible to all participants. Now, against that backdrop where industry participates and comes together to collaborate on open standards, we really think that ideally, policymakers would be supporting and embracing those multi-stakeholder efforts to develop baseline technical standards. And very importantly, and this was referred to, I think, by some of the previous speakers, we really try to encourage as well that European industry participates in these efforts so that they are conceived with European values built in from the start. So, all this to say that aligning any future initiatives with the work of such international multi-stakeholder efforts around technical standards, I believe, will be vital, really vital to ensure that policies of the future really are in line with industry best practices and support responsible innovation globally. And some of the previous speakers have mentioned it, we are years ahead of this becoming a reality. And so, we now have the opportunity to develop some of these things in advance. And maybe lastly, I know I’m probably out of time, but I just wanted to mention one more thing which perhaps would be interesting to bear in mind. There is a network called the European Metaverse Research Network which is essentially a body of academics from several European member states. So, I think there are universities involved from Germany, France, Poland, Spain, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc. who are studying the risks and opportunities of the metaverse. They are examining how metaverse technologies will intersect with issues like privacy, safety, inclusion, future of work. And they’re looking at sort of the questions of governance as well. So, all of this combined, you know, these are, I think, good examples of some of these multi-stakeholder initiatives. And obviously, we from our side are very open to continue discussing this and engaging in any other efforts that are out there. But I thought it would be just helpful to give some very concrete examples of things that we are following and engaging in that we see happen to develop those common technical standards and government frameworks. I can say a few more things, but I will maybe stop here to allow some time for discussion. And I just wanted to sincerely thank you for inviting us to this debate and also available for any follow-ups and discussions afterwards for whoever would like to have one. Thank you so much.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Thank you so much. I think it’s time really to go straight for the questions as we have limited time, but we will keep that part as we promised for 20 minutes. So, audience, if we do have questions online, please indicate me from the technical secretariat, and then anybody in the room who would like to ask questions. You can always introduce yourself. A microphone is here behind, so you will be seen also. So, like in the previous, you can form a line and then have the floor. But if it’s here, then you can be seen on the… So, please introduce yourself.

Audience:
Good afternoon. I don’t know if this is on. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Radhika Chakina, and I come from the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is also looking at the metaverse. Of course, we are a human rights organization. So, from the point of view of the impact on human rights, rule of law, and democracy, we also organized a session on the metaverse two days ago, on day one, specifically from, again, a human rights point of view. So, one of the questions… We are also working now on a report that will be issued next year on this with IEEE. And one of the big questions that we have and we’re looking at is, of course, governance and the existing instruments. Are the existing instruments sufficient to cover the metaverse considering its complexities, its impact on the brain, on mental autonomy, and not only? Or something else will be needed, like the new AI treaty we’re working on or other acts. So this is the question. Do you think that what we have in place or what other international organizations have in place is sufficient or more needs to be done? Taking into consideration what was said before, that the metaverse is still evolving and it’s not really possible to anticipate all its applications. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Thank you. Who from the panel wants to take this one? And maybe I can guess that Liberty, do you want to answer on this one? And then maybe also Sinti online?

Paul Fehlinger:
With pleasure. I actually had listening to what you said. We are at the stage where we sort of think there’s a huge wave coming. This will be great, hopefully, for our economies, for citizens, and enrich our lives and not be to the detriment of it. Mental health and other issues were mentioned as well. So getting this right is a big question. You mentioned you run a big initiative as well, as many organizations who now look at this topic. And it still takes a year until you will have findings. So we are so early that we are still trying to figure out the basics of how what we have applies, what else needs to be invented. But I just want to highlight something else. At the same time, as we speak here right now, trying to figure this out, and this is what I mentioned with embracing uncertainty, there are engineers working on new things. They are not part of those discussions. They are not even aware of our efforts here in this room to try to get this right. There are entrepreneurs who launch startups. There are investors, venture capitalists who invest and who take bets on what technology will be mainstream or not. And I just want to highlight that it’s incredibly important, as we have the luxury, basically, of having a huge technological development and having champions already who put this on the map, launch big processes. If we want to get this right, we need to get early in the innovation cycle, but not when we have figured things out, because the reality is we will not have figured things out. Even if we encode things, probably they will not age so well and they need to be updated at one point. So it’s very important, even at a stage where we have not figured everything out, to involve those different communities. Doing so, and this is something that is something we should address in a multi-stakeholder setting, requires speaking a different language, because those people have economic incentives or technological incentives. They operate at different speeds faster and we need to find a way to bridge those different silos. And this is really important and there’s a chance to get this specifically right.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Thank you. Cathy, are you online? Do you want to take this one?

Cathy Li:
I would like to say I wanted to slightly contradict with the previous speaker, which is I wanted to point you to the work we’ve been doing. We’ve been doing this for more than two years and all of those experts, from engineers to entrepreneurs, they are part of the existing community already. And right now the consensus more or less is that, yes, the existing laws and regulations, some of them may cover, but many of them, you know, there’s a need for the new regulations to come in. And maybe regulation isn’t the right word, but more of a comprehensive governance framework from both the companies and organizations themselves. There needs to be the kind of right governance framework put in place, but also we need to take a look at what are the new policies and regulations that might be needed. And again, the work we’re doing is very comprehensive. Like I said, we already studied the consumer metaverse, industrial metaverse, social implications, identity, privacy, security, and interoperability. Covering all the kinds of new data that will be generated, the new technical standards that will be needed across the whole technology stack. Because this is a complicated, you know, future kind of construct of the Internet. I would encourage everyone to really think deep in terms of what exactly we’re talking about. Like one of the examples that the earlier participant speaker gave in terms of walking to a shop, that itself, that’s a very difficult interoperability technical standards issue. Because even with, let’s assume we all have avatars from one place to another, just even the slightest kind of modification to the physical features of that avatar, that has a different copyright intellectual property issue that’s attached to it. So obviously the current copyright laws and directives are not going to be sufficient. But at the same time, we also need to be careful about not to use any of the new proposed laws and regulations, for example, the upcoming new AI Act, to interpret the previous and existing laws and regulations. Because then we’re never going to come to a conclusion in terms of what’s actually needed and what needs to be put in place. We do need to go, we acknowledge that the technology is evolving and it’s going to continue to do that. But at the same time, there must be the kind of relevant and efficient, effective kind of protective governance framework put in place to protect humans’ rights offline and also online. But at the same time, looking at what are the potential net new regulations and policies that we need to embrace in the future.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Thank you. I will give also a short comment from Elena, please, from ICANN.

Elena Plexida:
Thank you. Just to add up very quickly to what the previous speakers were saying, we need standards in virtual worlds. But let’s remember, internet standards are elective, not normative. So this is where multi-stakeholder model helps to not bring the heavy-handed normative standards too early. Thanks.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Thank you. Yes, it breaks our imagination. What can avatar do for another avatar when it’s all unlawful or when you have adult avatars acting with the minor avatar? Is there laws complying? Is it only something like not nice, something that we find in the school rooms, but we don’t want to embrace it in the virtual world? So a lot for the mothers, a lot for the children, a lot for the parents and all to look at. But we have a next question from here, and then we have one online.

Audience:
Hello. My name is Janne Hirvonen. I’m from the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And many thanks for the speakers regarding this most inspiring discussion. As we are dealing with technology standardization, for instance, in various platforms, this has been really, really good discussion in that regard. But if we maybe look a bit closer at the enabling technologies that many of you already mentioned, could you maybe identify, let’s say, a few most crucial ones, maybe like one or two, three bottleneck technologies, which you see as a prerequisite for the metaverse to develop into that vision that we are already having at the moment? Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Thank you. Who from the panel wants to elaborate? Maybe Antiti?

Masahisa Kawashima:
Yeah, I think the most one is, of course, I think the network, because for VR and XR, we need high capacity and low latency network. For example, when we provide interactive virtual rendering service, the network latency should be less than 10 to 20 millisecond. This is very short. So we need such a network and you may think that we have 5G, and in future we will have 6G. But to achieve high capacity and low latency communication, we need to use a very high frequency radio band. And radio links with such a very high frequency band is very unstable. So it cannot support industrial use cases. So that is the challenge and that would be one of the hurdles for AR, VR realization.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
I will ask Nokia to have some comment on the 6G because it’s very concrete.

Tatsuya Yanagibashi:
Exactly. Yeah, I also have a similar view with Kawashima-san. So in accordance to our recent research, we actually analyzed how traffic actually grows in the future. And of course, we have baseline increments of mobile broadband traffic, but at the same time, we could also see an XR device generated traffic on top of mobile broadband. And then when it compares the amount of traffic, which is including mobile broadband plus XR devices, and then we already concluded 5G is not really sufficient. So this is actually starting like 2028 or something. I think 6G-like technology is really needed. So that’s probably one thing we definitely need to evolve in the future.

Masahisa Kawashima:
And also I want to just make one comment quickly. So to achieve high bandwidth, low latency radio communication, probably we should consider the closer integration of radio and optical communication. That would allow us to deploy many more radio-based stations and would solve the quality versus reliability issue. And that’s why we are running Eye on Global Forum. And Nokia is also on the board of directors of Eye on Global Forum.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Yes, Libri.

Paul Fehlinger:
I think this is an excellent question from the colleague from the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There should be a top five or top ten list of all the technologies. these enabling infrastructure things, we should look at a priority list. That would be something very useful. Just to contribute to this, I mentioned this already, we have a particular experience at Project Liberty of being the stewards of a protocol. So I think, again, I would put on that list somewhere the importance of the question, what do we need in terms of public interest infrastructure protocols? That means the enabling infrastructure on top of which businesses build their services, their virtual worlds, their applications. And it is possible to encode in protocols a certain number of ethical standards with regards to how much users can control their data that they share with intermediaries and virtual worlds. How easy or not it is, how centralized or decentralized we want those virtual worlds to be. Can users just switch virtual worlds and take with them their assets, their history of engagement, of an action, their social graph, their connections when they go from one to the other. And also, to what extent users can participate economically in the value creation that is done with the data they share, their neuro data, their interaction data, which is incredibly valuable. And today, there’s no infrastructure that allows all of this. And there is a possibility to think about holistic approaches. And it’s a very good moment in the innovation cycle to have those discussions and discuss what is necessary and what are the opportunities.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Thank you. I will have one question from online and then next one here on place in Kyoto. Noli Cristiano asked, considering that industries might want to close the technologies from interoperability and protecting their users to keep engaging in their platforms and not going to the other similar platforms, will interoperability in metaverse be really achieved? Will it be whole interoperable metaverse or will there be a short of more fragmented or of interoperable metaverse? Will that standardization with the industries achieve this ideal interoperability ideas of virtual worlds? Maybe we put meta on the floor. How do you see? Is there room for SMEs to flourish also smaller companies to join or is it via meta platforms or is it alongside?

Alexandra Kozik:
Yes, thank you for that question. It’s something I tried to touch upon earlier in my remarks, but to that question, is it really possible? From our side, we truly believe that there cannot be gated off experiences. So people need to seamlessly navigate the different experiences in the metaverse. So the idea is that just like you go and browse the internet today freely, you’ll be able to do the same thing in the metaverse. Of course, it will take a lot of multi-stakeholder cooperation and understanding to build this. This is why, as I was explaining earlier, we really think that there should be an agreement on the foundation of common technical standards, which will allow for that to happen. So that agreement on the baseline interoperability that will connect the metaverse together is really crucial. And you obviously need the right people at the table to make that happen. But for us, that is something we believe in. To the question from the speaker, we don’t think there should be gated off communities. It really needs to be a seamless experience for the citizen, for the small businesses, for developers, for those who will be using and benefiting from the metaverse. And this is why I was explaining some of the efforts that we’re involved in to build those common technical standards. And obviously, it will take a lot of effort. It will take a lot of expertise sharing. It will take involvement from the different stakeholders, but essentially, it’s about lowering barriers to entry and facilitating access by, as you’re saying, small firms, by developers, by citizens to make sure that it’s an inclusive space. So from our perspective, yes, absolutely, there should be that kind of an agreement on common technical standards to allow for the metaverse to be truly interoperable and inclusive. But of course, we’re still in the process of getting there. It will take time. So from our side, please feel free also to count on us and include us in any of these discussions. But at the very core of our belief, that’s essentially the vision that we have. So from our side, yes, absolutely. But of course, the devil is in the detail as always. Thank you.

Cathy Li:
Yeah, Petra, can I comment as well?

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Of course, please.

Cathy Li:
Yeah. So first of all, I do want to point out that interoperability is not just a technical issue. It’s not just a burden of hardware developers. Interoperability at the end of the day won’t be enforced only by standards. standards, technical standards, it will be by and large by market factors, by economic incentives. I think one of the speakers pointed out earlier when it comes to standards bodies, there are always multiple standards competing with each other. And eventually, the ones who will win might be the one that works with market economics better than others. And then also in terms of interoperability, like I said, it’s not just technical interoperability, which already encompasses different infrastructure requirements, data privacy and security, identity and onboarding, asset ownership, payments, all of this technical interoperability needs to be worked out. Again, both through a standard setting process, but also watch out for the market signals. And then also we’re talking about usage interoperability. That is about how do we actually design, and this might more be on the shoulders of hardware and software and infrastructure developers. Because here we’re talking about how do we make sure that the design and the collaboration is global for the hardware and software developers to keep that in mind from the very beginning. Because different regions, from Europe to Africa to Asia, may, first of all, have such differences in terms of access to compute, access to networks. So all of those need to be taken into consideration. Designing across also demographics, like you said, Petra, how children use the next iteration of the internet will be quite different from adults. So how do we make sure we can actually verify identity and hold all of the players involved accountable? That will be one of the key issues when it comes to ensuring usage interoperability. And then finally, also the jurisdictional interoperability. Again, like the data free flow issue that I was addressing earlier, that Japanese government has been championing for years, and the forum is also involved. That is also important when it comes to interoperability. It’s about data compliance, transacting and creating accountability, and most importantly, identity framework. What construct has our digital identity? How do we make sure that that’s properly protected and guarded? Is it only linked to certain companies and technology owners, or can we actually achieve the kind of decentralized identity framework? So just to sum up, the interoperability is not just only technical. We do need to look at it from multiple perspectives, which again, our work has touched on. And so I encourage you all to look up the work that we’ve done already.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
I have the next speaker here, but I dare to comment from one aspect that I’ve been working on the European legislation is the mentioning data. You refer to existing or the market power who plays best with the market powers, but then there is accumulation of the data in the hands of you, and then that gives quite different perspective for developing AI, developing virtual worlds, and it was mentioned here at least once that how do we, or a couple of times actually, that how can we handle our own data, our own identity? And then it also comes from the companies that how can they have their data, access their own data, and use their own data? So that is actually the single puzzle where we built the metaverse, is actually handling the data. And we have talked more the ways to handle, the techniques to handle, but then where the data comes from, and who has it. But next question, please, in a hall here. Unfortunately, it’s behind me.

Audience:
Please. It’s okay, it’s inspiring. My name is Peter Bruch, I’m the chairman of the World Summit Awards, and we are focusing on the impact level of digital innovation. And one of the things which I’m really interested in is regulation as a driver for innovation. Maria-Petra, you were jokingly before saying something about taxing. And I think Paul Fehlinger was a little bit more differentiating on this, and he said, the economic dimensions to make responsible innovation work. So my question then would be, give me three good examples of how it pays for businesses in the technology sphere to behave ethically. Because when you were saying, Paul, before, ethics by design, and you have to basically think about these things in advance. And I think our friend from the World Economic Forum was very much differentiating the various different kind of complexities of interoperability. But if you look at this from the side of ethics, then you just really have to start already much, much earlier. And my question then is, what are the economic means and the tools in order to make it work? Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
We’re running out of time. We may not have all the panel around, but if someone from the panel wants to answer, I see you were. Okay, let’s have it for Paul. Please. You give answer on this one. I will go around, give you one minute, and I will, if you want to conclude something, but if you don’t have anything special still to add, please tell me your favorite virtual world app you want to have yourself.

Paul Fehlinger:
This was an absolutely excellent question, and those are exactly the topics we should discuss. Two very quick answers, because we run out of time. One thing to share from Project Liberties Town Hall yesterday, because somebody asked exactly. the same question. There was a discussion and also in consultations we were having before. For this to work, we need a sort of race to the top situation in an ecosystem where users, consumers, business partners and clients can easily switch from one service to the other. The more centralized an ecosystem is, the less there are incentives to behave more ethically. If you look at the car industry, some people might, what Toyotas are also, Japanese cars are also very safe cars, but Volvo is often mentioned as a very safe car and people want to pay a premium to drive a very safe car. There have been fights on seatbelts 30, 40 years ago and resistance from the car industry to put airbags. Today you want to have the safest car and yes, a side airbag of course, please by default and standard. So this is a concrete example, but it requires competition in the market. It requires more decentralization than some actors say we have today in the digital economy. A second factor is you ask for very concrete examples. So cars, I think there’s no technology today, but I give you another example. It makes no economic sense today anymore to build very polluting businesses. It’s just too expensive. Nobody would do this. Clients would not buy the products and it just, economically speaking, makes no sense today to do this anymore. So the question is how can we create similar market conditions for a digital economy that is both highly performing, but also puts the right incentives in place through economic means.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Paul, do you have something that you want to experience in the virtual world?

Paul Fehlinger:
Heart was mentioned here, the education and seeing the heart from inside. Education is amazing. I think I’m particularly excited for the notion also of public service provision through virtual services. I think this could streamline a lot of things and make the life better for a lot of people and I’m very excited. I’m not a doctor myself, but as the son of doctors, I’m very excited about what it can do to train medical professionals in the future and for me diverse applications. And I think we will make amazing progress and also doing surgeries across borders virtually.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Don’t take it all, don’t take it all. There’s colleagues. There are a lot of exciting things. Yanagi Bashi, Nokia, do you have any in mind where you’re going to see virtual world application in 2028 on 6G?

Tatsuya Yanagibashi:
Well, yeah, actually, there are six places. I think kind of the many virtual applications we predict. For instance, a good example is I think kind of the innovations of telepresence. So today, when I think you joined online conference, you could only see the people, just the videos, right? And we cannot really feel like we are in the same meeting rooms. But I think in the real future, we could feel as if we are in the same meeting rooms and sharing the experience. And this can be accomplished by capturing where we are, right, more precisely in high resolutions, and then making some representations in the virtual environment. And we could also see where light is really coming and so forth, as if we are in the same environment, right? So this is something in the future of telepresence or virtual conference. So I think this is one of the.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Now we have Cathy and Alexandra two-dimensional. Would you then join us added reality without bearing heavy glasses on next time? Or something else you want to pick up, Cathy, please?

Cathy Li:
I actually wanted to echo just a comment you made earlier, Petra, which is absolutely key, data ownership. And I agree with you. That is not something that you want only determined by market power, nor that can only be achieved solely through regulations and policy. Because let’s not forget, we as users, we usually opt for convenience. So that is the part where you do need business to actually innovate and come up with real good use cases. Otherwise, if the setup, the business concept is too complicated, no one will use it. Then again, we won’t be able to achieve the goal of truly decentralizing data ownership back to human beings ourselves. So I do think that is the most key question now, also with generative AI. Everything always come back to data ownership. I do think that needs to be worked on both from the policy front, but also from business, from market perspective as well. So yeah, I want that to be my concluding words. And in terms of virtual worlds, I study all of them. But I actually don’t spend much time in it.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Thank you for that. And I enjoy your comment on the data as well. I still try not to use data ownership or the access zip for the data. Then Alexandra, very short comment. We are lagging behind the time schedule. I see people going past me already. .

Alexandra Kozik:
Yeah, and I’m happy to give people time back, but to your question about the applications, I think obviously there are many, many applications. For me, the most exciting ones that I’m seeing currently, and this is already happening, is in healthcare training, especially around surgery training, which is very exciting. We have some discussions with surgeons who are already using the technology, it’s incredible what it can do. And secondly, immersive education, I would love for my son to be able to learn physics and history in a much more immersive way than I did from a textbook. So that for me would be the two very exciting applications. But of course, there are many other applications already being explored, for instance, in manufacturing and many others. But I know we’re out of time, so I’ll let people get to their coffees.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Thank you so much. Then we have two panelists here. Thank you for Dr. Kara Awashima, who left already. Oh no, no, no, actually, Pitanga Demo, he had to go, but he already mentioned having the hard three-dimensional looking inside, seeing it pumping and so. Elena, ICANN, what would you see as the next application you want to change the universe?

Elena Plexida:
No, ICANN is a global organization, and we have colleagues around the world, so I would say something very basic, but I’d love to see that. Immersive meetings, being able to communicate with them much easier. There are people in Australia or New Zealand or what have you. But thank you for this session. If I can finish with that, ICANN’s motto, if you will, is one world, one internet. Everyone said that before, interoperability is key, so I would expand that a little bit and say, let’s make sure we have one world, one internet, one interoperable metaverse, or several, as long as they’re interoperable. Thanks.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Yes, and finally, Dr. Masahisa Kawashima, where would you enter into the virtual world?

Masahisa Kawashima:
Of course, training and education would be very promising, but if I could meet my late grandparents and my parents, that would be very nice.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri:
Imagine building from the images. Thank you so much, all the panelists and active participants and also audience online. Thank you so much. There will be some elements for virtual worlds we want, based on the work from IGF here and then also done in so many organizations that it’s hard to keep on track already, but it’s meaning that we are working on the better future. Thank you on my behalf. Thanks, Omer.