Pursuing a metaverse based on democratic values | IGF 2023 Day 0 Event #207

Pearse O’Donohue

The European Commission has demonstrated an unambiguous commitment to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, by consciously developing a strategy towards the transition to Web 4.0 and the nurturing of virtual environments, known as metaverses. Integral to this strategy is the ambition to create a diverse, widely distributed, and open digital realm that respects human rights at its core whilst accentuating key policy considerations such as sustainability. The formulation of these strategies has been engaging and inclusive – harnessing industry insights, academic perspectives, inputs from European Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality coalitions, citizens’ panels, and other stakeholder interactions. This composite process of wide-ranging collaboration serves to incorporate a diverse array of perspectives and challenges related to the issue in their policy outlines.

The European Union’s (EU) direction towards seamless digital transformation and interoperability lushly imbibes EU values of human rights, privacy, security, openness, and accessibility. There is a robust focus on designing an infrastructure that embodies principles such as openness, security, interoperability, identity protection, and effective transaction management within the fabric of virtual environments. Of crucial importance to the technological evolution of these virtual worlds is the incorporation of sustainability at the heart of the endeavour.

Effective development of metaverses is perceived to largely rely on securing international cooperation and standardisation. Enabling streamlined interoperability between different platforms, networks, and the seamless utilisation of identities, avatars, data, and virtual assets in secure environs is largely hinged on successful standardisation. Encouraging the productive use of open-source innovations, coupled with open standards, forms the bedrock for developing secure virtual identities and objects. Participating in open communication and engaging with existing multi-stakeholder institutions rather than initiating new ones has been considered as a more practical approach, with a state-led initiative deemed inadequate for fostering a culture of openness and interoperability. Pearse O’Donohue, a strong advocate for this model believes that existing institutions possess the capability to adapt and evolve in consonance with technology.

However, the aspiration towards digital realism is not without its intricacies. Privacy concerns, data protection challenges and the complexities embedded in virtual assets and cryptocurrencies represent substantial hurdles that cast a certain degree of negativity on the prevailing sentiment. Furthermore, the physical and psychological health implications for individuals inhabiting an increasingly digitised world are critical considerations. Issues related to excessive gaming and plausible subsequent health impacts could potentially be exacerbated in these immersive virtual environments.

Amidst these challenges, the engagement with various stakeholders, and national and regional initiatives is perceived as a beneficial approach towards accommodating regional and cultural variances in the digital sphere. O’Donohue emphasises the importance of cultural diversity in promoting innovation, collective effort, and creativity. Ultimately, the creation and safe navigation of virtual realities is not merely about technological sophistication, but equally about community comprehension of this technology and working alongside individuals who understand its nuanced dynamics. After all, the metaverse extends beyond a technical construct; it is a digital reflection of our diverse societies and cultures.

Neil Trevett

Launched in June 2022, the Metaverse Standards Forum has swiftly gained traction with its proactive approach to shaping the metaverse, embodying the collaborative efforts of over 2,500 registered member organisations across a wide range of industries. The forum aims to help existing standards organisations by providing a neutral, inclusive platform for drafting effective standards applicable to the metaverse, rather than trying to create new ones.

The forum’s objectives are rooted in the idea of the metaverse as a key evolution of the world wide web. This evolution centres on the integration of immersive spatial computing with traditional web connectivity, ushering in a transformative user experience. This progression is built upon a host of disruptive technologies, notably artificial intelligence (AI), graphics processing unit (GPU) processing for graphics and computation, extended reality (XR), Web 3.0, and advanced networking technologies, including and extending beyond 5G.

Topmost on the forum’s focus list are issues surrounding privacy, cybersecurity, and inclusiveness within the metaverse. These concerns have resonated strongly amongst forum members, leading to a dedicated team working on establishing norms and regulatory frameworks. They underscore the importance of industry-wide awareness of the privacy and security risks inherent in emerging technologies like the metaverse. The need for creating inclusive, secure platforms that users can trust and enjoy is prioritised.

A crucial part of the forum’s strategy to mitigate these risks involves advocating for cooperation between industry and governmental bodies. Successful implementation of comprehensive metaverse governance laws depends on such collaborative endeavours. Members of the forum have suggested maintaining an open dialogue with governmental bodies from the outset, expecting that early cooperation will help mitigate risks and forge a consistent legislative approach, underpinned by global interoperability.

Regarding the standard-setting landscape, the forum recognises both smaller industry consortia such as the W3C, Open Geospatial Consortium, and Kronos Group, alongside larger organisations including IGF, ITU, IETF, ISO, and IEEE. Interactive dialogue with these entities supports requirements collection and coordination processes, promoting reciprocal knowledge exchange.

Strategically, the forum is defining its role within this broader network of organisations and initiatives. Maintaining active dialogues with entities like ITU, ISO, and IEEE, the forum aims to add value to these larger organisations. Leveraging its inherent agility and industry-linked synergies rather than presenting direct competition, the forum positions itself as a vital appendage within the broader mechanisms of the metaverse. The core principle is to help expedite the creation of an effective, human-centric, trustworthy, and enjoyable metaverse, thereby complementing larger metaverse initiatives.

Souichirou Kozuka

A task force has engaged in rigorous discussions to highlight a range of critical issues related to the burgeoning popularity and development of the metaverse. Such discussions commenced in August of the previous year and have been held nearly monthly since. Significant concerns include the design and authenticity of avatars, the capacity for smooth transfer and functionality among various metaverse platforms, the protection of intellectual property rights when importing real-world objects into the metaverse, and the pivotal importance of managing and safeguarding user personal data. They also stress the need for a user-friendly interface and experience. Additionally, the potential detrimental health effects of protracted time spent within the metaverse, such as mental and physical strain, have been pointed out.

The task force ardently promotes a global, shared understanding and approach to address these outlined issues. It advocates for the formulation of service provider guidelines and industry initiatives to assure a secure and user-centric metaverse. Emphasising that the digital boundaries within the metaverse don’t bear as much relevance as those in the real world.

Japan’s stance and methodology towards the development of the metaverse warrant notable mention. The country champions democratic values, respect for dignity, individual freedom, and fairness. Their objective is to establish concrete guiding principles reflecting their agenda in the second phase of their work, following the culmination of their study group. Japan openly expresses its willingness to disseminate its learning and insights within international forums to assist global metaverse development.

Furthermore, Japan calls for a more solidified strategy to engender digital trust within the metaverse. They propose the development of principles encompassing contribution, transparency, and interoperability, advocating for global dialogues to share and discuss these principles.

Freedom of speech, a cornerstone of democratic societies, is also highlighted. Whilst the task force acknowledges and respects this civil right, it insists that the metaverse shouldn’t be exploited to disseminate disinformation, defamation, or facilitate consumer fraud. Balancing this right with societal norms is advocated, initiating discussions on how these norms could impact freedom of speech.

Concluding the appraisal, the task force recommends cultivating expertise through dialogues with industry experts and users. It specifically notes that effective policy-making should not be solely at high levels and must incorporate insights from individuals with hands-on knowledge and experience in the digital realm.

Camila Leite Contri

The discourse illuminated upon the multifaceted sphere of the metaverse, detailing its intersections with various thematic areas including global cooperation, inclusivity, and innovative strides. It underscored the importance of cooperation from all stakeholders in the design and implementation of a values-based metaverse, in line with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17. Salient points of discussion reiterated the significance of a global perspective and civil society engagement, acknowledging both opportunities and challenges posed by an evolving metaverse.

A recurring theme of inclusivity was exhaustively discussed, citing the necessity of directing technological innovations towards human-centric applications. The discourse acknowledged the needs and rights of vulnerable populations, advocating for the active mitigation of barriers which could perpetuate discriminatory practices. This argument was directly linked to promoting SDG 10, which chiefly focuses on reducing inequality through the prism of technology.

Significant emphasis was placed on the role of open standards and interoperability in guiding the development of the metaverse, a roadmap which arguably aligns with SDG 9. Proponents argued that such a framework would enhance the potential for innovation, offering users a broader range of alternatives and creating a fertile ground for creativity and expansion.

The conversation also exhibited sensitivity towards acknowledging diverse regional contexts and cultural specificities, essential for constructing inclusive and contextually relevant global standards for the metaverse. This perspective closely aligns with SDG 11, which advocates for Sustainable Cities and Communities.

When discussing the fluid landscape of the metaverse, inclusive strategies were advocated to prevent economic power imbalances, discrimination, and provenance discrepancies. A comprehensive approach, aligning with SDGs 5, 8, and 10, was proposed, emphasising gender equality, decent work, economic growth, and reduced inequality, respectively.

Further discussions stressed the necessity for universally shared norms rooted firmly in human rights-based tech innovations. These shared norms, having considered regional contexts and the benefits of interoperability, contribute towards creating an enabling environment for metaverse growth, directly aligning with SDGs 9 and 16.

The discourse underscored the importance of adherence by the metaverse to existing norms, such as data protection legislation and consumer laws. This concept of openness and interoperability aligns with SDGs 16 and 17, and contributes towards fostering a more interconnected digital frontier.

A widespread agreement underscored the significance of a broad, protective, and flexible baseline for addressing the challenges associated with developing the metaverse, given its local, cultural, and regional specificities. Emphasising SDGs 9 and 10, it upheld the notions of Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, and Reduced Inequalities.

Lastly, discourse advocated for enhanced multi-stakeholder debates and broader global participation to mould the future of the metaverse. Engagement from diverse actors — government entities, private sector companies, civil society, and technical sectors — was urged to create an ecosystem that thrives on dialogue, interchange, and collaboration, aligning with SDGs 16 and 17.

In conclusion, the discourse offered a multitude of perspectives on the potential trajectories of the metaverse, outlining a collective responsibility in shaping an interconnected, inclusive, and innovative digital frontier. The dialogue signalled a consensus on the need for partnership, cooperation and shared norms to ensure a responsible, inclusive, and democratised metaverse landscape.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud

The OECD’s Global Forum on Technology, in association with Japan’s Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, is leading in-depth discussions aimed at forging a path towards a metaverse grounded firmly in democratic values. The forum uniquely examines technologies through the lens of sustainable development in resilient societies, responsible values-based, and rights-oriented technologies, in addition to addressing digital and technological divides.

Recognising the long-term opportunities and inherent risks that technology presents, these high-calibre dialogues seek to proactively anticipate potential challenges. This approach underlines the crucial role of strategic foresight and shrewd risk management in the rapidly evolving landscape of technology.

The commitment of the OECD to the advancement of future work for its committees and other pertinent fora was emphasised through inclusive, profound, value-based discussions. These forums feed into and enhance the relevant activities of the OECD committees, currently focusing on the three spheres of immersive technology, quantum technology, and synthetic biology.

There’s been an observable rise in ventures associated with the metaverse, reflecting a surge in confidence in this sector’s growth potential. Investment in metaverse-related start-ups climbed exponentially from a base of $2 billion in 2016, peaking at over $12 billion five years later, thereby indicating venture capitalists’ heightened confidence.

The transformative capacity of immersive technologies, such as virtual, mixed, and augmented reality, is widely acknowledged. With application scenarios spanning sectors like healthcare, retail, manufacturing, education and entertainment, these technologies foster empathy, aid comprehension of global issues, and engender human connections.

However, the challenges accompanying these technologies’ unchecked growth are deserving of attention. Concerns around privacy, security, ethics, along with technical obstacles such as motion sickness and latency in immersive technologies, call for careful consideration. Policymakers are thus urged to devise balanced regulatory frameworks that maximise the benefits while effectively mitigating associated risks.

Key points of consideration for the development and implementation of immersive technologies include sustainability, environmental implications, and inclusivity. It’s emphasised that making the metaverse universally accessible is vital. Inequities in access to technology risk widening the divide, a sentiment echoed by the speakers and participants in the Global Forum on Technology.

Cagatay Pekyorur

Cagatay Pekyorur has highlighted the complexities in creating universally acceptable standards for the metaverse, given the array of region-specific issues to tackle. These challenges span a wide spectrum from connectivity to societal matters such as gender divides, especially pronounced in regions like Africa, the Middle East, and Turkey. Nevertheless, artificial intelligence (AI) was suggested as a potential solution to surmount some of these obstacles, notably in addressing language barriers.

Concurrently, Meta, the rebranded firm leading the development of the metaverse, is committed to upholding principles of economic opportunity, privacy, safety, and inclusion. As part of their masterplan for this new virtual dimension, the company recognises the importance of accessibility. This concept extends beyond mere connectivity, with digital literacy, trust, and safety also deemed crucial elements.

To enhance connectivity, Meta has made calculated investments in infrastructure initiatives. A prime example is the 2Africa project, a broad submarine cable system designed to boost internet access across more than 23 countries. Furthermore, Meta highlighted its contribution to training and capacity-building programmes, which have empowered hundreds of thousands of businesses, civil society organisations, young individuals, and educators within the region.

Moreover, Meta has demonstrated proactivity in initiating regional metaverse academies and skills training schemes, spearheading efforts with the inaugural regional Metaverse academy in Saudi Arabia. Of particular note is the significant proportion of female participant in the Skills Up programmes, signalling strides towards gender equality.

Reaffirming their commitment to corporate responsibility, Meta emphasises the incorporation of human rights into their services, products, and practices. Operating in harmony with UN guiding principles on business and human rights, Meta is conducting human rights due diligence to anticipate and address any potential implications that the metaverse might entail.

Overall, Meta envisions a collaborative model for the development of the metaverse, promoting multi-stakeholder participation. This is evidenced by their partnerships with universities globally, geared towards studying various aspects of the metaverse. Their membership in the XR Advisory Council and the XR Association further underscores this stance. Meta has categorically stated its belief that the fabrication of the metaverse requires collaboration from multiple entities.

Audience

Pablo Galvez, a tech policy advisor with experience serving the Peruvian government, emphasised the necessity of reinforcing capacity building during the digital era, especially for policymakers and government officials. Galvez’s expertise provides a reliable analysis of the interplay between advanced technology and policy-making. His argument cogently headlines the drive towards achieving SDG 16 – Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions and SDG 4 – Quality Education.

Contrastingly, a potentially disconcerting perspective was tendered by Eric Hawkinson, a professor based in Kyoto. His scepticism lies with the feasible success of measures such as inclusivity and interoperability, given the prevailing incentive structures. This queries the optimism encircling improvement in digital literacy, potentially hindered by the latent inequalities within society. It underscores the hurdles involved in attaining SDG 10 – Reduced Inequalities and SDG 16 – Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions.

In a more technical realm, Michael Karanikolas, Executive Director of the UCLA Institute for Technology Law and Policy, highlighted the content and privacy challenges associated with extended reality. This neutral standpoint reveals an understanding of the importance of SDG 16 – Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, particularly when dealing with new technologies that could inadvertently infringe upon personal rights and privacy.

Additionally, a query was posed about the collaboration between the Metaverse standardisation forum and established internet standardising bodies like IETF, World Wide Web Consortium, and ITU-T. This could signify the need to intertwine the Metaverse’s innovative landscape with classic systems, further fostering SDG 9 – Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure.

Finally, the significance of achieving equilibrium between freedom and rules within the Metaverse was highlighted by Steve Park, the head of public policy for Roblox in the APAC region. This positive statement bolsters the Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions Goal (SDG 16), indicating a conscious endeavour to maintain order and encourage creativity in the emerging Metaverse.

In summary, this analysis shows the intricacies of fostering digital advancements, and how they’re woven into the societal and institutional fabric that steers these developments. From capacity building and incentive structures, to technology challenges and the balance within the Metaverse, a complex interaction exists between technology and society. The meticulous examination of these points gives us a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted challenges that lie ahead.

Akimasa Yamashita

The Kyoto Prefecture, in collaboration with the General Incorporated Association, has pioneered the implementation of ethical standards within the arena of metaverse construction. They have devised a set of ten ethical rules to guide behaviour within its virtual dimensions. This commitment to ethics reflects the deep-rooted social sensibilities of the region, wherein local businesses practice a tradition of prioritising social benefits over mere profit accumulation.

Contrary to what one might expect, the adoption of these ethical rules is voluntary. Companies are encouraged to embrace the guide by offering the opportunity to display a symbolic logo of ethical adherence as part of their branding. This quest is to foster a metaverse that epitomises freedom, sustainability, and inclusivity. The establishment of these guidelines exhibits the intent to create an ethical ‘rulebook’, bridging digital and real-world moralities.

Heritage companies in Kyoto exemplify this ethical model, traditionally assigning more significance to social values than to sheer profit. A significant proportion of these firms firmly advocate that adherence to high ethical standards is fundamental to their long-term survival in the commercial world. These principles underline the importance of responsible consumption and production, thereby exemplifying Goal 12 of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Kyoto firms boast a strong history of engaging in such ethical practices, often volunteering to disseminate information and engage in global dialogue via the internet. Through the inclusion and feedback from civil society within these practices, Kyoto furthers the development of a value-based ecosystem – a crucial element to the city’s ethical foundation.

An appeal is issued for increased cooperation among policymakers, stakeholders, and civil societies within this ethical framework. Insight derived from civil society is seen not only as valuable, but also influential, with the potential to shape other societies and serve as a key building block for the metaverse. This call for collaboration underscores the strategic goal of fostering activities at the civil society level to effect broader societal impact.

In summary, the core analysis presents several key observations. These include the vision of a metaverse informed by ethical guidelines, the advocacy for companies prioritising social value above profits, the integral role civil society plays in Kyoto’s value-based ecosystem, and the significance of collaboration towards achieving sustainable and ethical practices. This commitment mirrors several Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goals 9, 12, 11, and 17, supporting industry, innovation, responsible consumption and production, sustainable cities, communities, and partnerships at a global level. This serves as an eloquent testimony to the groundbreaking strides being made in Kyoto in the realm of ethical internet practices.

Audrey Plonk

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) plays a significant role in forming technology cooperation rules that embody democratic principles and human rights. This organisation’s influence is globally evident in privacy regulations originating from its guidelines. The OECD’s AI principles, created with a focus on human rights and democratic values, bear testimony to this commitment. However, the interpretation and deployment of these principles in tech governance vary depending on the specific technological context, necessitating rigorous research and analysis.

Particularly, immersive environments, such as those afforded by Virtual Reality (VR) technologies, warrant attention due to potential implications on mental health. People’s perception of behaviours can differ significantly in these environments compared to the real world. The OECD is currently undertaking thorough studies to better understand these effects across various policy domains, including privacy, security, and safety.

A concern within the technology sector is the ambiguity of terminology, which may lead to misunderstandings and wasteful duplication of efforts. Addressing this need for terminology cleanup and focussed definition, can result in better policy coherence, and seamless identification of gaps in understanding.

The VR headset market is heavily concentrated, with a notable 80-90% of all sales being monopolised by social media companies. Minor players account merely 10% of sales, with the major investments primarily fuelled by the gaming industry. Presently, VR is predominantly utilised for extending social media and gaming, yet it is pressing for diverse sectors to explore sustainable areas of deploying VR technologies beyond its current dominant use.

Concerns are continuously rising around the usage of VR, specifically regarding the collection of personal data. In a 20 minute VR simulation, approximately 2 million unique nonverbal body expressions can be recorded. This form of data, along with other psychological information collected, challenges the traditional principles of privacy and data protection.

Experts have also highlighted the need for an in-depth examination of the exclusive aspects of the technology sector when applying current guidance and principles, especially in the context of immersive worlds such as the metaverse or immersive VR. This approach can help avoid wastage of efforts and identify any gaps in understanding or application.

International cooperation tackling these challenges can be fortified through clear definitions and shared comprehension. Despite differing cultural and societal values, a common approach rooted in shared democratic values should form the foundation of policy recommendations.

In conclusion, while the swiftly evolving technology landscape raises substantial challenges, the OECD, among other international organisations, is actively guiding the development in a way that respects human rights, upholds democratic values, and addresses emerging threats and concerns.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud:
session on pursuing a metaverse based on democratic values. Really pleased to have those of you in the room and online joining us today. Those of you that are in the room and want to take a seat at the table, we invite you to join us. Feel free. This session has been organized by OECD’s Global Forum on Technology and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan. So I would like to start out by thanking very kindly our colleagues from Japan for making session possible and their role hosting the IGF this year. We’re extremely excited to be part of that. The Global Forum on Technology, or DFTAC as we often refer to it, provides the venue for regular in-depth dialogue to foresee and get ahead of long-term opportunities and risks that are presented by technology. It will facilitate inclusive, in-depth, and multi-stakeholder values-based discussions on specific policy topics among OECD members and stakeholders, responding to gaps in existing fora. The discussions at the DFTAC will feed into and advance future work of relevant OECD committees or other fora. Currently, DFTAC is focused on three technologies. Immersive technologies, quantum technologies, and synthetic biology. The DFTAC will look at these technologies through the lens of three cross-cutting themes. Sustainable development in resilient societies, responsible values-based and rights-oriented technologies, bridging digital and technological divides. We’re going to have a chance to hear more about all of that and how this will be pursued during this exchange, but this is a little context for you on why the government of Japan and the OECD GF team have joined forces to bring all of these diverse voices together. and explore this path towards the metaverse based on democratic values. I have now the great pleasure of introducing you to our keynote speaker, Vice Governor Akimasa Yamashita, Vice Governor of Kyoto. Please note that Mr. Yamashita will intervene in Japanese, but his intervention is going to be subtitled here. And for those of you that are in the room, if you don’t already have headsets, please grab one. And you’ll be able to follow the discussion this way. Vice Governor.

Akimasa Yamashita:
Thank you very much. My name is Yamashita. I want to talk about initiatives taken by Kyoto Prefecture. This is my slide, the first slide. In 794, Kyoto was capital of Japan. It has a very long history. In 1968, Kyoto Prefecture celebrated 100th anniversary. At that time, we had a lot of events. One of them was to celebrate the companies with a history of more than 100 years. When we had that event to celebrate old companies, each company introduced their principles and policies, and we compiled a book depicting all those principles of all those companies with all histories. When I look at this book, many companies focus more on social values. It means that they focus. social value. Social value is the first priority and then the actual profit follows eventually. And that is the policy or the priority of most of the companies with long histories. Recently, they focus more on quarterly profit. However, those companies think that it’s very important to fulfill social responsibilities. Otherwise, they won’t be able to survive for a very long time. Especially, managers have to have a very high ethical standard. Learning from that, when we think about metaverse, there is no clear rules established yet. And I think we should bring in the idea of ethical here. Since 1995, I’ve been using internet. There are both upsides and downsides to the internet. And I’m certain that many issues will arise in metaverse world as well. In order to create good metaverse world, we have to ask people, the players in the metaverse, to have certain rules, ethical rules. Together with CIP Council of Kyoto Prefecture, that is the General Incorporated Association, we came up with 10 statements as shown in this slide. It has to be free and open, and it has to be open to various people. Morale is very important, discipline is important, and it has to be sustainable. Here, I think it’s important to make it very free, but at the same time, players have to be well-disciplined. We came up with a standard logo, and then companies and organizations who promised to follow these rules can have this logo. And companies with this logo have to have activities in Meta World based on those ten rules. That’s our initiative in Kyoto. If you go through these ten rules, you can understand it’s very significant and rich in meaning. It might be difficult to read all these in this slide, but I think this can be applied to the global companies in other countries. Based on these ideas, we want to create good and appropriate Meta World. That’s all. Thank you very much.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud:
Thank you very much, Vice Governor, for starting off our session today and for sharing a little bit of that context about the principles in Kyoto and how you’re using them with industry. We’re also very pleased to be in your fair city, so we thank you also for your kind hospitality this week. I’m now going to turn to our panel discussion. Before I jump into that, we’re using a term, metaverse, just to level set what we’re talking about. about, this is the term that was coined by fiction writer Neil Stiffenson, and it’s used to describe this virtual environment where immersive technologies are used so that the physical and digital worlds might converge, so that people might interact with each other and with digital content at the same time. We’re going to hear a lot more elaborated on that, but this does seem to be a very exciting area that’s attracting quite a significant amount of attention, but also funding. There are venture capitalists investing heavily in startups. We’ve seen funding rise from $2 billion in 2016 venture capital funding to over $12 billion five years later. Earlier this year, KPMG’s North America survey reported that the vast majority of investors, about 90%, believe that the metaverse is the next phase of the Internet, and they imagine a future in which it’s utilized for work, meetings, trainings, and learning experiences. 75% of those investors responded that they plan to maintain or increase their metaverse investments over the next five years, so it’s not surprising that there’s a lot to talk about. Earlier this year, at the Global Forum on Technology, we had an inaugural event in Paris in June. There was a deep dive discussion on immersive technologies, where we heard from a panel of speakers, spanning perspectives from Africa, South Asia, Latin America, the United States, and the European Union. They noted that technologies such as virtual, augmented, or mixed reality have this potential to transform industries. They mentioned its capacity to foster empathy, understanding about issues like climate change, to create also deep human connections. At the same time, it described use cases in healthcare, retail, manufacturing, and entertainment. It also cited education as holding particular promise for those in resource-constrained environments. It was raised that these technologies also magnify pre-existing concerns, such as privacy, security, ethics, and disinformation. During the discussion, speakers called for balanced regulatory frameworks to maximize benefits and mitigate risks to incentivize safe, responsible, and trustworthy innovation. Sustainability and environmental implications and inclusion were also identified as critical for immersive technologies must be accessible to all to avoid widening divides. Existing technical challenges, such as motion sickness and latency, were identified as remaining issues for technologists, but speakers also agreed that the biggest challenges in this area will fall to policymakers. So today, we have this opportunity to convene with you in Tokyo and those of you online to take this discussion further and explore how we can pursue a metaverse we want for our societies based on democratic values. To help us do that, I’m incredibly pleased to introduce your speakers. To my right here, we have Audrey Plonk, the head of Digital Economy Policy Division at the OECD. We have to my left, Mr. Shokura Kozuka, professor of law at Gakushin University and chair of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Metaverse Task Force. We also have Mr. Pierce O’Donohue, director of the Directorate General for Communication Networks, Content and Technology. DG Connect at the European Commission. We have Ms. Camila Leite-Contry, who’s a specialist at the Brazilian Consumer Protection Institute. Welcome. And we have Mr. Chate Pecure, Human Rights Policy Manager for the Africa, Middle East and Turkey region, stepping in for your colleague. Thank you so much. We also online, we have Mr. Neil Trevitt, Chairman of the Metaverse Standards Forum and Vice President Developer Ecosystems at NVIDIA, who is hopefully there on the Zoom platform with you. Thank you, Neil. Before turning it over to our speakers, I just want to let you know that we do have a question and answer period planned in this session. So if you have questions, feel free to note them and hold on to them. For those of you in the room, we’ll open the floor and the microphones for questions after the panel. And for those of you online, you’ll be joined by my colleague, Maria Castano, who is serving as your online moderator and who will help facilitate bringing you into this room. So without further ado, I’m going to turn to you, Professor. As Chair of the MIC Task Force on the Metaverse, could you please share with us some of the key issues that have emerged and the impetus

Souichirou Kozuka:
for seeking cooperation and standards for the metaverse? Yes, thank you. And with pleasure, I will talk about the activities of the study group or the task force. In Japan, we tend to use the word study group. Yeah, thank you very much. My slide is shared online. Well, the study group was established in August of last year, and we met almost every month and published a report earlier this year. And we tried to find what is really happening with regard to metaverse. And we identified that several issues that focus more on the activities within metaverse. For example, the issues concerning avatars and Elizabeth now mentioned the disinformation issue and with regard to avatars and as players in the metaverse. So how we can address the fake avatars. This is one of the issues to be discussed under this item. And also very important is the interoperability among platforms. There may be several platforms providing services commercially in parallel. And so from the user side, how to jump from one world or one platform to another platform is very important. And not least to ensure their freedom and ensure their right in the virtual world. And there are also more kind of technical issues when constructing the virtual world in metaverse. And for example, how to clear the rights, intellectual property rights or rights to publicity and when copying or kind of casting the actual buildings or things into the metaverse. And also issues related data acquisition. Of course, that is a very important, I mean, data acquisition of personal data of the users and through that person’s activities in the metaverse. There are other issues that concern the relationship between the metaverse and the real world. And one of them is the user interface and user experience. including the adverse effects that spending long time in the metaverse could have on the health of the user. And finally, but not least important, and we need to watch closely how the technology develops and how the society responds to these developments of the metaverse. And based on these findings, the study group thought that there are a few approaches to be followed or to be pursued. One of them is that it is very important to have kind of a common understanding about how to address these metaverse issues. And this common understanding, it better to be shared globally because in the metaverse, we tend to have less borders or national borders and based on the sovereign states in the real world. And so, and it’s very important. And also with regard to the relationship between the service providers and the users, we need to have some guidelines to show so that the service providers could comply with them and provide a safe and a consumer-oriented services. And the metaverse could be a more kind of the safe place for users to enter. And finally, with regard to the interoperability, we need to facilitate the industry’s initiatives. And we identified already that there are a few initiatives and so we need to kind of back them up, including standardization. So these are the findings and our thoughts at the study group set up by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. And I think it’s. very useful to share among the participants from the world.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud:
Thank you, thank you very much professor. We’ll come back to you for maybe a few more details. Audrey, I wonder if you could please share with us some of the insights that have come from OECD’s experiences facilitating global cooperation on policy and support to support values-based technology development and to think about that cooperation and offer perspective

Audrey Plonk:
on what we can draw from those experiences. Thanks Elizabeth, hi everyone it’s great to be here thanks for making the time to join the session. So as the OECD we have a lot of history in developing multilateral instruments for for cooperation and in the area of technology I think we have also quite a long history of developing instruments that are values-based and that have been fairly influential in terms of how policy and legislation develops over time. A couple examples that that just come to mind the first is the OECD privacy guidelines and I know we have colleagues here from business at OECD that are undertaking a project that looks at the metaverse through the lens of the OECD privacy guidelines so it’s maybe something to look at but those really are the foundation of every major privacy piece of legislation on the planet and most many many many countries have them now that map directly back to the OECD privacy guidelines. They are a baseline in a lot of ways but they’re an important starting point to harmonize some aspects of privacy for example and and so I think there are other we have we have other instruments the AI principles which are probably all familiar with or another example of a more recent instrument the privacy guidelines date back to 1980. So they’ve been around for a long time, and have been relatively stable. They’ve been revised a couple of times. But they’ve been a very stable, again, baseline to embed privacy protections into data protection and privacy legislation. As AI has developed, the AI principles of 2019, when they were being developed starting in 2017, 2018, they really set out to look at the technology through a human rights and values lens. And so many of the topics that you would think of as values, democratic values, are embedded therein. And then the work around a specific technology is to do research and analysis around what it means to apply that particular value in the context that we’re looking at. So in AI, or in immersive technologies, because I think at a relatively high level, we understand human rights and to some degree, their application. But when we start introducing new environments, immersive technologies, we introduce new technological trends, it’s harder to understand necessarily how they apply. And so a lot of the work that goes into developing, at least from the OECD’s perspective, values based, or democratic values based, human rights based approaches to governing technology is about taking things that we know to be values and applying them in those contexts. And so the AI principles certainly do that. We have a series of instruments around cybersecurity that look at things slightly from a more technical level. But in all those instruments, you’ll see elements of democratic and human rights values embedded into those instruments. And so I think there’s lots of different, there’s a spectrum of policy making that goes from sort of technical standards all the way up to hard law and we at the OECD at least sit somewhere in the middle where we tend to do, we do policy standards that are largely voluntary in the sense that they’re not necessarily enforceable by a court of law but they are a commitment at a political and a technical level to follow and so we can usually make progress slightly faster than some hard laws and they can be the basis for future policy and legislation and we’ve done that in a lot of different areas and I think as technology advances I suspect there will be demand to do that in more areas. I think some of the fundamental aspects of how we do it are based in part of why we’re all here at the IGF, multi-stakeholderism, engagement with a wide community of people and expertise across the business community and academia and civil society and the technical world in order to create policy standards that are, that can be implemented on some level and so one of the big challenge with principles, guiding principles or high-level principles is just how to take them from principle to practice and so that’s an important aspect of developing policy guidance is to think about how to take again a high-level democratic value and embed it into something that’s actionable by either, by any actor but certainly in the technology space we think a lot about how it’s implementable and the design and development and the deployment and diffusion of different technologies and so I think the process by which we work makes it, has been you know at least demonstrably successful in various domains and technology in terms of the ability to create the kinds of environments where people can come together and agree. on at whatever level they can agree on how to how to interpret these kind of rights and values in the context of new and emerging technologies and I was very much struck by the the Kyoto cities 1010 values which I think were, which I would actually like to get that slide because I think there’s some some key elements there that I won’t say they’re missing but I you know don’t often see some things characterized certain values characterize the way that Japan has characterized them in this context and so I think it’s very interesting for us to think about the last thing I’ll say just about the immersive space because we have a lot of different work at the OECD in this global forum and otherwise thinking about immersive environments and the implications and you know we have in our in our forthcoming digital economy outlook which will will come out next year one of the pieces that looks at mental health in the digital age looks at immersive and it’s it’s very it’s an interesting look into how things that we may find completely acceptable in the physical world seem very different to people in an immersive environment and so it does require at least it seems to us require a different look at that environment because the context has changed and and and so there while we might all believe in privacy or we might all believe in self-determination or whatever it might it might look very different in in that environment so and they’re different lens so we look at it through a lens of mental health we also look for it from the through a lens of the technology itself what’s happening with the technology how’s it being built who’s building it how accessible is it to all the things that Elizabeth talked about at the beginning and then through the lens of different policy domains with which we have expertise like privacy and security and safety and I think all of those are really important to bring together if we’re going to think about how to govern this kind of space in the future to to reap its benefits which we we’ve touched on a little bit but I think there’s some pretty compelling and exciting use cases which we heard about at our inaugural event back in June around the immersive space. So thank you very much for the opportunity.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud:
Thank you so much, Audrey. We’re going to Pierce now. I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about the EU’s perspective on metaverse development, perhaps sharing some of the insights. I know you’ve had this consultation work going on and so if you could just share a few reflections on that with us. Thanks, Pearce.

Pearse O’Donohue:
Thank you, indeed. Good afternoon and happy to do so because it was just in July that the European Commission issued a policy communication where we outlined our vision and strategy for virtual worlds and for the transition to web 4.0 which we feel that this will be part of. And before we wrote anything down to feed that communication, the Commission worked with stakeholders in Europe, among others, industry and academia, as well as with the specific industry, the European VR and AR coalition to better understand the opportunities but also the challenges that we were facing in Europe with regard to virtual worlds. We also engaged with citizens, in particular in relation to the societal implications and challenges that are stemming from the virtual worlds as we understand it now. And we had a citizens panel on virtual worlds which led to 23 recommendations and those fed into the communication and will help steering our work. So an example of including the multi-stakeholder community at an early stage in what is a very important policy development in this area. And just as we see from the discussions today in the EU, there’s a clear wish to contribute to steering this revolution because that is what we think it is towards the use of values such as the respective human rights, privacy. security, openness, accessibility. And those values underpin the overall EU approach to digital transformation, as you might recognize. And it’s enshrined in the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles. And they’re part also of our international commitment as set out in the Declaration for the Future of the Internet which we actually had another detailed workshop on here at a forum this morning. So why is it urgent to define a strategy? Well, it’s because most of the technologies underpinning this new development or this wave of innovation have been around for decades. But the combined effect of them with some new technologies reaching maturity today make it a sudden shift. And therefore, there’s a lot we have to understand. So we need to understand how can we set the course for virtual worlds that aren’t dominated only by a few big players, but also which do respect human rights and principles and which are, in that term, human-centric. So we’re aiming at the virtual worlds and the web 4.0 to be powered by, obviously, open and highly distributed technologies and standards, which is the question, that enable interoperability and freedom of choice at the same time for users, but also which incorporate other key policy issues such as sustainability, which also must now be at the core of technological developments. So that interoperability, openness, security, as well as key issues like identity, rights, transaction management, they’re all at the top of our agenda for the virtual worlds. And they call for global standards to be developed and agreed. And so just as has been said already, standardization will be key to enabling interoperability between different parts, different platforms, different networks, and will allow, from the user’s perspective, the seamless use of identities, avatars, data, virtual assets, and, of course, doing so in a secure environment and bringing with it the associated rights for the user across platforms and networks. And since we are looking at virtual worlds, we want to look at open virtual worlds and, therefore, open standards, coupled with the support for open source innovation, such as in relation to the use of distributed ledger technology and other technologies needed for the authenticity, management, and security of virtual objects and identities, without imposing one of those that I’ve just referred to. But it must be possible that there are discussions with regard to what is the most appropriate in view of those societal considerations that I referred to just a moment ago. Now, just to conclude, we’re aware of several international initiatives in this respect. And at the same time, I think we’re all aware that we are facing a governance gap with regard to the metaverse, with regard to virtual worlds. Now, I understand that we’re going to come to that later. And we’re having a session specifically on this ourselves. We’re organizing on Wednesday afternoon here in Kyoto. But the governance issue is also one which relates strongly to the standardization issue. Thank you.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud:
Thank you very much, Pierce. Camilla, we’re going to turn to you. You’ve heard now from a few of the governments how they’re looking at the issues, what they see are the important questions and options for working towards global standards and policy approaches. I’d love to hear what your perspective is on this.

Camila Leite Contri:
Sure. Thank you so much for the invitation. I’m very excited to be here. Sure. Thank you so much for the invitation and for the opportunity to bring civil society perspective and also a global self perspective on that. It is with these lenses that I intend to contribute to this panel. But Obviously with attentive years on, on the important perspectives of all stakeholders. Well, we have seen that we have a two sided future with the metaverse. In one side we have an opportunity but in other side we have some challenges, both related to the real world and also to the virtual world. Therefore, it is essential to think about this value based future of the metaverse. And for that, I would highlight that we need a cooperation, both from a global and regional perspective, and also from different stakeholders perspective so it is important to develop this discussion with you all. Since we are already exploring the potentialities of the metaverse, I would focus on some issues that we have to take into account when we are seeking a value based metaverse, that means some issues that we have to be aware when reducing the boundaries between the real world and the virtual world, with the concern of not increasing some already existing issues and bringing other issues. I could talk about several issues related to mental health ethics data protection cybersecurity product safety, also because I work in a consumer organization, but I would like to take this opportunity to to focus on one main issue that we have to consider while building this sharing standards for a value based metaverse, which is inclusion. We were talking about human centric technologies, how we should put people in the center. And we can’t use this technologies to perpetuate exclusion of people. And for that, I would highlight three main topics, economic power, non discrimination, and provenience. First one, economic power. We should get the forces not exclude potentialities, it is therefore important to do. develop open standards interoperability, so we can provide more alternatives for even more innovation in this space and innovation also for consumers in the end. Non-discrimination in terms of understanding the necessities and the specificities of some vulnerable populations in terms of race and ethnicity, age, focusing on children for example which as we have seen Kyoto, the government of Kyoto pays a strict attention on that in terms of accessibility online so we cannot perpetuate discrimination and exclusion of vulnerable people. Inclusion in terms of provenance and this is tricky because we are talking about how to build global standards on these issues but we also have to consider some regional context and some regional and cultural specificities. For example I can talk about my region and my country. We face big challenges related to internet access and notwithstanding the great potentialities of the metaverse for a great part of the population they don’t even have meaningful connectivity at least. So we have also to take a step back and think how can we connect more people so they can enjoy the potentialities not only of the internet but also the potentialities of this new technology. This information we have mentioned that also but in some countries this information is harmful for elections, for democracy, so we cannot use these spaces for these purposes. We have to think on how can we tackle that and how can we consider the countries or regional context related to that. We shouldn’t have second class users. We have to think on how can we include more people. No one should be left behind. So summing up, we have global challenges and as it was already mentioned the borders are fluid in the metaverse and because of that we need a holistic approach and a joint effort of different jurisdictions and different stakeholders. But we have to think about inclusions in terms of people that are included, not perpetuating discrimination and considering regional context. So we have to set global standards but considering these contextual specificities. So how the metaverse, how inclusive is the metaverse and how much is it perpetuating the system of exclusion and how can we advance for the better? Until now I highlighted only the issues but I hope to talk more in a second phase on the potentialities on how can we solve that and how can we advance on a human rights based technology human rights based metaverse to enjoy its full potential and we have to focus on what matters the most, consumers, citizens, data subjects, internet users, in the end people should be in the center.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud:
Thank you so much Camila. I’m going to turn it now to our online speaker, Neil. Good morning, thank you for getting up early for us. I’d like to hear a little bit about the Metaverse Standards Association, the impetus you had for creating this and what contribution you’re expecting to make to this journey we’re pursuing in values based development of the metaverse.

Neil Trevett:
Thank you, it’s an honor to be here and I hope to be there in person next time. So yes, there’s a lot of ongoing debate around the nature of the metaverse as we’ve already heard and I think at its core, something we can all rely on, it’s a combination of multiple disruptive technologies. There’s AI. There’s GPU processing for graphics and compute. There’s XR, there’s Web3, there’s advanced networking, including 5G plus and beyond. So it’s also appropriate, of course, that the metaverse is being discussed here at IGF because the metaverse is going to be the spatial evolution of the web, combining the connectivity of the web with the immersiveness of spatial computing. So given that background, the genesis of the Metaverse Standards Forum was the realization that the industry’s attempting to build an open platform with an unprecedented level of interoperability. And that’s going to take a constellation of open standards from dozens, maybe even hundreds of standards organizations. And as standards organizations often like to work by themselves, we urgently needed a neutral venue for cooperation and coordination between standards organizations and the wider industry. And the forum launched, we’re very young, the forum launched in just June, 2022. And the key thing, it’s not another standards organization. It doesn’t create standards itself. The forum seems to be unique in existing to assist existing standards organizations create effective standards that we need for the metaverse through a close connection to industry and gathering real world use cases and requirements. And there has been significant interest. Now the forum has over 2,500 member organizations, which I think is an indication of the ongoing interest in the metaverse as a topic. The forum takes a very pragmatic approach and it’s not trying to dictate what the metaverse is going to be. We think that will evolve naturally over time but we continually poll the forum members. What are the domains that are most urgently in need of cooperation for standardization? We have created working groups in those domains that work on interoperability projects to create a short-term stream of business opportunities while a larger vision of the metaverse unfolds. We like to say we’re not trying to create a metaverse cathedral, but we are trying to bake the bricks that we’re going to need to build the road to the metaverse. The forum membership has voted to create working groups to many technical domains, including 3D assets, avatars, XR, 3D in the web stack, 5G, 6G networking, digital twins, and more. And many have been mentioned here already in the session. But interestingly, though, the domain group that got most votes from the forum membership by quite a large margin was not for pure technical interoperability, but was for privacy, cybersecurity, and inclusiveness. And so that working group is going to take close cooperation on both technical and legislative initiatives. And the working group has already attracted many experts in the domain. And interestingly, the group is working to establish social norms and other means to ensure an open, equitable, and human-centric foundation for the metaverse. So the forum is very active. We have working group meetings almost daily. And so we hope our contribution can be a pragmatic, industry-connected, and proactive input to the development of a values-based metaverse. And we are honored and excited to be a part of this discussion today at IGF. And we hope to be a constructive contributor to this global discussion. Thank you.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud:
Thank you very much, Neil. Speaking of industry, we have the opportunity to hear from Cagatay. We have, we’d like to hear a little bit about some of the engagement that you’re doing with policy stakeholders. in the metaverse, particularly we’re interested in that regional domain we’ve talked about from Africa, Middle East, and Turkey that you’re working with, and if you could just help us understand how regional and local considerations are being factored in the approaches you’re taking.

Cagatay Pekyorur:
Thank you so much, and also thank you so much for having me here today. Similar to Camila, I will also try to bring a regional view to the discussion for the Africa, Middle East, and Turkey region that I’m also working for, but before starting, I would like to recognize, for us, we recognize that developing and implementing global standards for metaverse is a challenging task because there are different stakeholders involved. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, but beyond that, there are regional challenges that we all need to think about, and for the region that I’m working for, Africa, Middle East, and Turkey, as I mentioned, these challenges range from, similar to Camila’s point, connectivity to gender divides, and also language barrier, and for some of these challenges, we think AI actually propose a solution, may propose a solution, for example, language challenge, but for some others, we think we need to keep building stronger partnerships in the region, and also initiatives for the readiness for the communities in the region. I would like to take one step back before getting into the details of what we are seeing in the region and what we are doing so far, just to try to explain what are we focusing on when we think about the values and priorities that we have at Meta in designing a metaverse. We are actually focusing on five different areas. These are economic opportunity, privacy, safety and integrity of our users, and, sorry, four areas, and equity and inclusion. And as I mentioned, like to end. sure our communities in the region will be able to benefit from this technology, we already started our engagements with our stakeholders, both from civil society and also, of course, government stakeholders. In these active engagements, we do listen and carry the recommendations to our teams, but also we initiated various efforts that focus on increasing local readiness. For us, the key term for our region is access, but it’s not just connectivity, it’s not just having affordable devices or having an internet that is fast enough to reach this technology, but it goes beyond that, and the access is also about digital literacy, trust and safety of our users. For the connectivity part, I’m sure you know, Meta has several investments, infrastructure initiatives, including 2Africa project, which is the largest and longest submarine cable system that will connect more than 23 countries across Europe, Middle East and Africa. But on top of the connectivity efforts, we also started some programmatic efforts to make sure that our communities will be ready for the next iteration of the internet. These efforts do include a range of programs, which we trained over 350,000 small and medium businesses, 5,300 civil society organizations, and 340,000 young people and educators in our region only, Africa, Middle East and Turkey region, on digital literacy, and also to increase their digital capacity and prepare them for developing digital experiences and careers. Some of the examples that I may provide from these readiness projects that we have are, we started our first regional metaverse academy in Saudi Arabia, where we conducted discovery workshops and we brought together more than 3000 people. And there was a significant representation of female attendees in these workshops. We also launched a skill up training in Saudi Arabia as well, where we trained 81 participants. More than half of them were women in this program. And first 50 graduates of this program already created a project, which showcases how the pop artists and cultural heritage in a metaverse museum. We also conducted a similar program in our Pan-Africa Metaverse Summit, where we also launched Africa XR Marathon, yeah, we call it, which was designed to support African XR talent. We do know that like there is still much that we can do, and we will be doing as the business part of this technological development that we are all trying to contribute. And we also think that like it is very important for all of us to have this conversation today. So everyone can benefit from this technology. Thank you.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud:
Thank you very much for that. So we’ve come full circle. I would like to ask you a question, Vice Governor. As you’re pursuing a value-based ecosystem of the Kyoto City, we’ve seen some of your initiatives. We’d like to understand better what your guidance would be for global policy makers and stakeholders that are considering such standards and aligned approaches and how those might assist you with your needs.

Akimasa Yamashita:
Thank you. First of all, in creating this statement, we looked at Kyoto companies which have long histories, and also we had COP3, in this very place we had COP3. At that time, I was still a manager of Kyoto prefecture, and in that conference using internet, volunteer people transmitted the conversation or the meetings to the world, and that information was very useful in discussing various issues around the world, and those volunteers went to Brazil for COP4, so that they can transmit the information through the internet. The reason why we came up with this statement, this is like a beta version, so there are some missing pieces from this statement. We want to incorporate these ideas into metaverse, by propagating those ideas to the society, we can also understand what civil society is thinking, what kind of issues they are seeing, we can get feedback from the civil society, by having this statement. That kind of activities can be done at the civil level, or the community level, so taking this as an opportunity, I think we can trigger those activities at the civil society. I’m very pleased to have an opportunity to… have comments in this place. Several years later, I want to announce what has happened since then. I think that kind of initiatives can be very useful in realizing this kind of metaverse that is appropriate. Thank you for those additional thoughts. Camilla, we’re going to come back to

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud:
you. So you’ve heard a little bit about what that impetus is and different perspectives on how that’s being pursued. What are the component parts? What are the elements that we should put in our thinking?

Camila Leite Contri:
Perfect. So since we’re talking about a human rights-based technology, since we’re talking about that we have to focus on inclusion, we should put people in the center, I agree that we need shared norms. We need shared frameworks and regulations. So we need a common international understanding of that, but as I already highlighted, considering regional context. About the shared norms, I will highlight also three main topics. Openness, rights and legislation, and context. Openness in terms of gathering the potentialities of different and fragmented metaverse in an interconnected innovation development of the metaverse through interoperability, obviously considering data protection rights, and open access, not to have a fragmented metaverse. Beyond openness, it is also important to guarantee people’s access to rights and also to guarantee the compliance of already existing norms. So sometimes when we are developing innovation, we are thinking about how we can build a new standard, some new norms, but we already have some norms that should be applied to them. For example, data protection legislation. issue legislation and consumer law. Context, because I already mentioned our role, we have to lead this discussion globally. We have to consider local and cultural and regional specificities. So we ought to have a baseline that is sufficiently protective, but also sufficiently broad to be flexible to consider these contexts. And I have to say that this is a challenge on how can we develop this. But how can we develop this? The best thing to do is to gather different perspectives, as we are already doing right now. We have to have people from different regions, as we have in here. We have to have multi-stakeholder debates, multi-stakeholder development of these norms. We have to have engagement of companies, as we can see in this panel, cooperation of governments, through qualified international discussions, facilitated by key actors as OECD, and governance and participation. As the vice governor mentioned, we have to cement CSOs, civil society, and technical sector participation on these discussions. And from civil society and the global south, we remain super available to contribute to this innovative and inclusive future for a human rights based metaverse.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud:
Thank you very much, Camilla. I’m hearing some strong convergence on certain things. Pierce, can you share a little bit more with us about what’s next for the commission, and how you’re pursuing this approach to align globally?

Pearse O’Donohue:
Thank you. Well, the strategy set out in the policy communication I mentioned, well, it consists of 10 sets of actions. Don’t worry, I’m not going to go through all of them. But it does have. And it’s articulated around four pillars, which I’ll just mention briefly. It’s better, well good, I won’t repeat myself. Our strategy, four pillars. Empowering people and reinforcing their skills required to develop innovative applications. Developing a web 4.0 industrial ecosystem to scale up European excellence in research, but also to foster innovation and to prevent fragmentation. Supporting societal progress and virtual public services through to new public flagships in the area of smart cities and health respectively, which direct impact the quality of life of citizens. And then the fourth one is governance at EU level and at international level to shape global standards for an open and interoperable virtual worlds. And to promote web 4.0 standards in line with our vision and standards. So let me just elaborate briefly on that last pillar, which I mentioned earlier as well, linked to the governance element. As I mentioned, we need to ensure that virtual worlds are designed as open and interoperable from the outset to ensure true empowerment and diverse participation. And that of course in itself is a win-win situation because it can foster innovation, collaboration and creativity. And so addressing the governance at the EU and global level will be needed to achieve that openness, it won’t come naturally, and interoperability with virtual worlds. And it’ll be key to the future developments and also it’ll be key to uptake, you must remember. In addition, you have to have international engagement on topics related to content and practice, which have proven already to be very difficult in some cases in the internet. We have issues. such as access and creation against disinformation, censorship versus freedom of speech, surveillance against privacy and so on. These are global challenges. From our perspective, there’s a clear commitment to continue to engage with the existing multi-stakeholder internet governance institutions. We don’t think we need to create new ones. In fact, this is now a challenge, but also a positive one to us to prove that the existing institutions, of course, including the IGF, has the ability to adapt and grow along with the technology, and we believe that it can do so, but that’s part of the discussions that will dominate all of this. And also, in the same vein, to develop human whitespace virtual worlds, we should rely on recognized instruments. It’s not because the technology is new that somehow we have to build something new around it. That’s an important lesson. We already have a declaration for the future of the internet with nearly 70 solutions, including, as we saw earlier this morning, the Global South, and that sets out a future for the internet that’s open, free, global, interoperable, reliable and secure, and that builds on multi-stakeholder governance. So, in the same way, we in Europe can add to that with our European Declaration of Digital Rights and Principles, but it’s clearly that the views and the principles are shared widely, and widely, more to the point. There has been a UN resolution in 2019 which affirmed that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online. And, of course, the governance for openness and interoperability can only be accompanied and implemented by the global multi-stakeholder community. A state-led approach will not work. Of course, we have to rely on the… technicians, as well as civil society, IETF, ICANN, and the IGF, as well as the national and regional initiatives for that multi-stakeholder input, including, because I’ve heard it so strongly from Camilla, the ability to adapt and take account of local and regional differences, cultural and otherwise. So as part of our contribution to this work, we are launching an expert group within the European Union to bring our member states together with experts who share a common approach, but also then how does that translate practically into the design of virtual worlds and 4.0. We also support the creation of a technical multi-stakeholder governance process to address essential aspects of virtual worlds. And when I say that, I want to clearly clarify that of course it’s not to create new structures, but to ensure that with the communities, the stakeholders, the groups, civil society, technical and otherwise, who we already bring together, that we will have a process within those fora that goes beyond the existing institutions, but only insofar as whether it’s for standards or in terms of, for example, recruiting a new technical community in relation to new technologies that we would then feel that needs to innovate. And it would look at issues such as interoperability, rights management, and of course the transactions in the virtual world and identity management where we already have quite a lot going on in the European Union. So that is how we see things evolving. We want to do it with our global partners, like a number of states, but of course the global multi-stakeholder community. Thank you.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud:
Thank you very much, Pearse. Professor Kozuka, we’re going to turn to you to get a little bit more perspective on how to think about virtual worlds. I’m going to start with you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Japan might use what you’ve done in your study group to inform and also how Japan might look at being informed by global standards developments in the matter.

Souichirou Kozuka:
Yeah, thank you very much. Well, the first phase of our study group was concluded earlier this year and we are now talking about the second stage. Oh, could, yeah, thank you very much. My slide is now shared. And so, and in that, during that second phase, and we will consider about the more kind of concrete principles that reflect our approaches to the metaverse. And having heard the interventions today and from the industry representative to consumer representative, and of course, from the government and inter-governmental organizations. And I’m now confident that everyone has more or less the same mind. And so, number one, the metaverse should be based on the democratic value, that is pretty obvious. And also, people’s rights and freedom should be protected there. But we also note that that does not mean that kind of unrestrained freedom a freedom without any rules or norms, but rather, it should be a balanced approach a with appropriate and a appropriateness and a to prevent harms on any participants in the metaverse. And also, we need to respect the dignity of individuals and fairness and diversity. All these things have been voiced already from the participants of today’s session. So Japan’s approach will not be much different. from those. And another thing that we heard today is the importance of the international commitment. And so we also think that having dialogues within my country will make up our contribution to the global forum. And we can then exchange our views and inputs, including, of course, this very early attempts of this province of Kyoto. And already they have 10 principles, which is very important. And we can learn a lot from that. And so those will also be examined and brought into the global forum. And these values are very abstract, and no one will dispute the importance of those. But we need to have more kind of concrete and a strategy to build up a rights-based, a value-based metaverse. So there should be more, kind of a more concretized principles to make the metaverse trustworthy. For example, contribution, transparency, and interoperability, all those things we are going to discuss carefully during the second phase of our task force. And then, of course, we are happy to bring them to the global world and have dialogues with various stakeholders from various regions and various parts of the world, and so that we can have a better approach to the metaverse.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud:
Thank you very much, Professor. Cagatay, we’re going to go to you now. If you could talk to us a little bit about how you’re working. to align with the stakeholders and what factors might impede that align?

Cagatay Pekyorur:
Yes, thank you. First of all, I would like to express that like we continuously explore and we need to incorporate human rights into our services and products and practices. This also includes interoperability for Metaverse and also ensuring AI serves communities fairly. And our engagements with stakeholders to make sure that like we can keep these promises. We actually act from certain principles that we have which are grounded in our commitments to our corporate human rights policy and also United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights. And as part of this we actually started conducting the human rights due diligence effort on Metaverse and potential human rights implications of that which we are looking forward to share with the communities when it’s ready to share. And we also follow what is happening in the ecosystem and we are trying to be part of it as much as we can in relation to this. We support the principles set in the Declaration for the Future of the Internet, the Copenhagen Pledge on Tech and Democracy. We support and trying to contribute to ongoing human processes, the OECD and other relevant multiliteral and multi-stakeholder fora including here ITF and Freedom Online Coalition. We also joined the XR Advisory Council alongside policy makers, experts and academics to be able to advise and address key issues facing XR ecosystem. Also we are one of the founding members of the XR Association. which is helping to build responsible XR. We are in addition to being part of these avenues, we are directly partnering with universities around the world to analyze everything from economic opportunity to ethics and responsible design in the metaverse. We have a two year 50 million US dollar global XR programs and research fund to support this critical external research and programs. Which will support students, creators, and small businesses and owners of this technology. We are hoping by being involved into this debate in the most possible extent, we will be able to consider everyone and by understanding better how everyone benefits from metaverse, hopefully we will be able to deliver an experience that different people may enjoy. These avenues that we are trying to be part of, we always want to underline, this is not something that we can achieve by ourselves. And this requires a cooperative effort. Metaverse won’t be a thing that is built by one company. There are many players also in the business side. And we won’t be the ones setting the rules for how it works. But obviously we’re in a position where we can contribute greatly. And we, no need to repeat, but we support the seamless interconnectedness of these virtual spaces, which will require new standards, technical specifications. And of course, these can only be agreed collaboratively. through bodies like Metaverse Tundres Forum or through forums like this one.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud:
Thank you very much for that perspective. We’re going to move online now. Back to you, Neil. We’d like to get a sense as you’re working across industry on this question, you mentioned the size of your membership and working on a broader horizontal effort. From that perspective, can you give us an idea of what important actions governments can take to support these efforts and

Neil Trevett:
alignments? Yes, absolutely. This has been a really interesting discussion, so thank you everyone. I think there are three points I’d like to make. Firstly, we have seen in the Metaverse Tundres Forum that many in industry, of course, are very enthused by the potential benefits of this thing we’re calling the Metaverse, but importantly, they are also very aware of the increased dangers of these powerful technologies that we’re bringing together to issues such as privacy and security, perhaps sensitized by some of the issues created by today’s social media landscape, for example. I think we’ve seen, therefore, the industry is paying close attention to the importance of creating a safe and inclusive Metaverse. After all, no one’s interests are served at all if the Metaverse is not a platform that users both enjoy and can trust. I think this creates the openness in industry to the idea that the relationship between industry and government can and should be cooperative, as only legislation and technology working together is going to create and complete this Metaverse. puzzle. The relationship does not have to be combative. Now ideally legislation can create a necessary safe space where technical innovation can thrive within agreed guide rails and of course therefore a positive way to foster collaboration between industry and legislators is early cooperation and dialogue on the technology, the risks and opportunities to build that mutual understanding. If the forum can help foster that kind of constructive discussion working with the other initiatives that are represented here that’s something we’d very much welcome of course. And lastly in my own personal journey through the forum, interoperability is often a term that has been that is used in the context of technical standards, technical interoperability. But through the discussions in a forum I’ve come to understand that interoperability is not just important in technical standards, that legislative interoperability is important as well because the metaverse is going to be deployed globally. We hopefully can strive for as much consistency as possible across different legislative domains while of course being sensitive to regional needs as has been discussed here.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud:
Thank you, thank you. So Audrey we’re gonna give you the last word on this panel. You’ve heard the different streams of work in the different perspectives on this panel and we were wanting to look a little bit more at what OACD current priority actions might contribute to the pursuit and also we’ve heard about different institutions and not a need for additional institutions. So how can IOs help from that perspective?

Audrey Plonk:
So it strikes me that At a fairly basic level we need some terminology cleanup and some definitional attention, which is something that we actually spend a lot of time doing at the OECD. It tends to be the least glamorous part of our work, but I do think just just listening to all the interventions in our own, you know, the way that we describe this technology I think we’ve got to get a little bit more grounded and in what we’re talking about because without that it’s difficult to see where there are gaps and I think we don’t, there’s lots of consensus about not creating new things that are duplicative of old things because that’s an easy thing to agree to. It’s easy to agree not to duplicate, it’s hard to understand if you’re duplicating or not and so I think without some some policy definitions and which can of course be based on technical definitions but generally in the policy space we need policy understandable definitions as well it seems like there’s, there’s some really important foundational work to be done there and that that can be an important input to policy coherence or interoperability. I just said I think we obviously very much believe in sort of policy interoperability or cohesiveness, but usually that requires some foundational definitional coherence as well and it strikes me that we might be lacking that a bit on this topic, I think. That’s one area of work and then I think the other thing to say is that I do think that a deeper dive whether it’s a taxonomy or benchmarking or a stock taking of something of, of what, what the differences are because, you know, just a proliferation of guidance or principles or interpretation of values relative to a new technology is sounds nice but I think it’s only really useful if we you know, what’s different and what’s unique here and I think that gets a little bit back to the definition and then it gets to, you know, sort of understanding some of the risk areas that are unique and opportunity areas that are unique, and what we already have that applies. I think there’s lots of examples of things and guidance that we have that certainly apply and in the metaverse, or in the immersive world, and the question of what gaps we have, you know, and if I just looked at some of the principles from Kyoto, I would say maybe some of those could be thought about a little, at least from where we sit, there are things we haven’t really thought about, at least in that way. So I think some mapping of how existing things apply to see where there are some gaps and what might be needed, but certainly, just again, the starting point for any kind of international cooperation and coherence is going to be definitions, and I heard a lot of different terms and we even, you know, at the OECD use a lot of different terms so that really stood out to me and perhaps an area where we can, we can help move the collective understanding and the policy space forward, building on what other technical organizations and technical standardization organizations are already doing. Thanks.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud:
All right, so now the speakers are unknown to us, they’re amongst you all who would like to take the floor to ask a question or contribute something, you’ve got a microphone in front of you, I’ll maybe ask you, I see two of you at this table, and two here, great, we’ll go around like that, please.

Audience:
Well, first of all, thank you for all the panelists here and online, it was a really interesting discussion, and I think I would like to, Could I just ask you to introduce, I’m sorry to introduce yourself. Yes, my name is Pablo Galvez, I’m Peruvian, I’m a tech policy advisor, now a candidate for Master of Public Policy at Oxford, but I am a former advisor at the Peruvian government. And actually I wanted to touch upon what I think we discussed, but very, very lightly, which is capacity building of policymakers and people in government. We are navigating a decade of digital, actually the digital era, and I would like to hear from the panellists, any of you that would like to contribute, how inter-organisations are working towards this. We’ve read different documents recently, the guidelines on generative AI that was published by the OECD. It’s hard, for instance, to identify which content has been developed by AI or by humans. It is hard to tackle this information in that sense as well. But if policymakers that are developing these rules do not have the appropriate skills, or really do not know how to navigate this, how can we reach this consensus, this cooperation that we’re looking for? I would love to hear from Mr Cleers, if it’s possible, to hear the European perspective. As a Latin American, our countries are usually looking at what is happening in Europe, because we usually tend to grab human-centred positions, as the European does. So that would be my question. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. I’m going to take a few questions, and then we’ll come back to our panel for that. I see there’s one here, and then I’m going to come over here. Hello there, my name is Eric Hawkinson, I’m actually a local here in Kyoto, immersive learning specialist doing an augmented virtual reality in educational contexts. I live in Kyoto, I am a professor based in Kyoto. This is all great foundational work and conversations we’re under here, but I feel like a lot of the times working as technology last 10-20 years, a lot of the incentive structures are somehow kind of stacked against a lot of the things that we talked about here today, right? So inclusivity, interoperability, and things like that. I would like to try to get the panel to kind of frame the conversation in how likely all of these things are to be successful, and success being kind of comparing it to the wave of social media or other technologies that have come in the past. And also where the low-hanging fruit is, where are we likely to get or see the most opportunities for success around these things, and where exactly do we need to focus most of our efforts to get most of these things to come to actualization. Thanks. Yoroshiku onegaishimasu. Okay, so I do see that we have another question on this side. We’ll go here, and then we’ll come over here if you bear with me. Thank you. Hi. My name is Michael Karanikolas. I’m the Executive Director of the UCLA Institute for Technology Law and Policy. I wanted to pick up where I think Ms. Plonk left off, and wondered if any of the other panelists wanted to drill down more deeply into the specific content or privacy challenges that you might have identified, which are either novel to extended reality, or exacerbated by these new technologies. And I ask because there are a lot of questions that have come in. My research center is going to be starting a project in January on exactly that. So, if you’re working on that if you’ve already figured that out, you’ll save me some time, but wanted to figure out where the state of research is. All right, over to you. My name is retired from the University of our house and I’m a member of CSAC. I have a very short questions to Neil about standards, you know how to metaverse standardization forum is collaborating with the existing traditional internet standardization bodies, like the IETF, the World Wide Web Consortium, and ITU-T. Thank you. I’m going to take one more question and then I’ll give our panelists an opportunity to respond, sir. Great, thank you. My name is Steve Park, I’m the head of public policy for Roblox for the APAC region. It was very great hearing about the work that the Japanese government has done for the metaverse guidelines, and particularly on page two of your slide, Professor Koska, you’re talking about the need to balance between freedom and rules. I think that’s a very important point that was mentioned by other panelists as well, particularly considering that there isn’t necessarily a consensus on even democratic values. Freedom of speech is important for all democracies, but some countries enforce it differently than other countries balance things like personal reputation, or, or other issues such as election laws, for example, so we would love to hear if what the Japanese government has in mind to bring that consensus. Perhaps you would consider something like data free flow of trust for the DFFT like initiative for the metaverse, so we would love to hear that. Thank you.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud:
All right, so who would like to come back on the question of how IOs are working on capacity building? Sure, I think maybe Audrey and Pierce, because I think it was a great question. Yeah, let me, if I can merge an answer to a couple of questions, I’m happy to pass on.

Audrey Plonk:
So yes, so in our research, we see that basically 80% of the headset, if we’re just in the virtual reality space, again, I’m back to my definitional issues, but in VR, VR headsets today are sold by about 80% of them are sold 80, 90% by social media companies, basically. So if you’re looking at what is the trajectory of that piece of the technology, which again, I’m not trying to extrapolate it out to all immersive technology, because there’s a bunch of different categories. And we have done our own research and have our own papers coming forward. But just to say that, you know, if you just look at who’s building the things and who’s buying them, you know, it does sort of lead you down the path of this is a game, or this is a path of, you know, it’s a, it’s an environment in which we’re extending social media and gaming. And some degree, it’s not surprising, because a lot of the investment that came into this came from the gaming industry and VR. So I think that the data that we have now is, you know, that that’s where that’s where it sits. And you know, there’s huge market concentration. We know that with, you know, 10% of the VR headsets are sold by a bunch of different little players. And then, you know, the vast majority is sold by three, one very big one, but just not surprising to anyone here. So that’s pretty clear in terms of the market dynamics. So whether the question of whether we expect to see it taken up at a broader more than democratic, you know, I don’t know, I think the question is maybe more, what are the conditions that would make that possible in sectors in which it’s viable like, where should the technology be used for what purposes and how do you get it there beyond the social media use which is clearly where we’re sitting today, based on what we have so that’s a short answer that I can offer, which is probably all things you already know given where you’re sitting but it would be interesting to hear your reaction to a colleague from the United States over there. So in the privacy space, I mean, we’re doing some work on this as well. I mean, I think there’s a lot of interesting data about just how much new types of personal data are collected in these virtual environments, particularly around body movements around eye movements around, and it’s just so much more and so much more frequently than what we’re used to thinking about in classic data protection. And there’s, you know, we have, you know, some information, you know, some, at least, it’s a couple years old now so but you know 20 minutes in a virtual reality simulation we use just under 2 million unique recordings of body language in 20 minutes so it’s a fantastic scale that we’re not used to coping with, I think, probably from a privacy protecting perspective or even from a legal perspective and certainly from a policy perspective before so there’s also, you know, nonverbal communication, I’ve moved all kinds of psychological and types of data that don’t necessarily come through and in the classic ways that we’ve used technology so I think that’s a big category which people are paying attention to in the privacy space. And we’re certainly paying attention to now we have some research coming out next year based, you know, looking that looks at broadly just focusing on virtual reality that look broadly into pros and cons and then the privacy space, some of the details out some of that I won’t take the time to deeply go into it. here but I suspect for the privacy community. I imagine you’re all thinking about that because there’s some pretty good academic research around it that we’ve looked at and started to sort of dive a little bit into the questions of what does that mean relative to sort of data minimization or data limitation sort of classic principles of privacy and data protection that that this may very well challenge. And so I think, how can I always help I mean I think we do, at least the OECD we do a few things we do research we do we put we try to make complicated things more accessible and understandable to policymakers. We do our own data gathering and empirical work we also make recommendations and policy space so I think, you know, when there’s an area where something connects to where we have competency we can help to bring those things together and bring a policy community to the table to understand and talk about it in a sort of like minded way because our membership at its basis is democratic market economies that tend to at least think about democratic values in a similar way. But obviously this technology affects affects abroad, the broad world and so we also that’s why we have the global forum so we can also work with with broader, a broader stakeholder set which brings me back maybe to the last question around, you know, yeah values or values, but they’re not always shared and I think, you know, there’s, there’s an important distinction between where you can get maybe agreement on a common approach to something or where you can work together to share information and, and, and still, if you don’t have a common approach or if you take different approaches to still find ways to work together and maybe learn from each other. It’s a complicated environment that we live in today to do that, and it’s it’s true that, you know, values are, are can vary across cultures and societies So that’s, I think, why, at least in the OECD context, we try to focus on things that are shared, where countries have a common approach. But I think there’s other work beyond making recommendations and having hard agreements where a broader community can participate.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud:
Thanks, Audrey. So I’m going to ask Pierce to come in on the question that you want. I’m also going to jump to Japan. And we’ve got a few minutes left. So if you can, thank you.

Pearse O’Donohue:
Yes, indeed. I couldn’t possibly answer all of the questions. But in relation to what I could add value and where we were particularly addressed, on capacity building, I could give you very short answers that were nowhere in terms of specifically capacity building in relation to virtual worlds of the metaverse. But I think that’s what you see in our communication. We’re trying to establish that capacity building and understanding. One point that I referred to, which I think is very important, do the communities, including particularly, for example, the technical community, maybe the private sector, but also civil society, do we have everybody in the room? There may be more than we can bring in specifically for virtual worlds. And we are learning. Standardization is the same thing. Do we understand the technology? Are we working with the people who may understand the technology in order to actually have something effective on standards? But all of us will, as I have said, I hope, made it clear, will be against, measured against the human-centric approach, human values, human rights. And then very quickly, and I’ll try and be telegraphic to Michael from UCLA, in our work, but this is not definitive, we have identified issues, particularly, as Audrey was saying, with regard to the privacy space, but the functioning of avatars, for example, with regard to privacy, the safety of data. We have an issue with regard to virtual assets. We’re still trying to keep up with cryptocurrencies, et cetera, and virtual assets will make that much more complex. And then finally. it’s actually the health aspects, and it’s the health aspects of the wearer, particularly the equipment, and that health discussion has to include psychological well-being. So, if, like me, you had teenage children 20 years ago, there was a problem of how many hours they spent video gaming. If you translate that problem to virtual worlds, it could be that the psychological, socializationist problems could be, you know, magnified enormously. So those are three issues. That’s not a definitive list, and of course, we don’t have the definitive answer. Thank you. Thank you, Professor.

Souichirou Kozuka:
Thank you very much, and thank you for your question. Freedom of speech is, of course, the very basis of the democratic society. That is quite obvious, and no one doubts that. And on the other hand, if the metaverse becomes full of disinformation and defamation and consumer fraud, it is also obvious that no one wants that to take place. So, in that sense, it is quite clear that we need to have some norms, social norms, acceptable to the society. The important thing is that we shouldn’t try to find out the answer, the correct balance on the issue. If we close the discussions on how to hit the balance of the norm and the freedom, then that is not democracy. We understand that democracy is after all the continuation of the dialogues among the citizens, and that is a very important thing. Last word about capacity building. You need to come to Kyoto, Kyoto province, and work with the local government and the local expert. And to be more serious, an expertise needs to be built. but within the dialogues with the industry and within the dialogues with the users, it should not be only with the policy at the high level. That is what I thought. Thank you very much.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud:
Thank you. So I think we’re using up a bit of a five minute brief period here. Thank you for your indulgence, but since we got questions, it’s really great that we can just come back on them. Neil, I’m gonna call on you for the question about how you’re collaborating with other technical organizations.

Neil Trevett:
Yes, I’ll make it quick. So the question is a good question. So broadly, the standards landscape, I think you can divide it into two classes of standardization organizations. There’s the industry consortia, like W3C, Open Geospatial Consortium, Kronos Group, and many others. The forum, I think, has a clear relationship to those that many are already members and we’re already busy gathering and coordinating requirements, helping that process and generating visibility for those organizations work relevant to the metaverse. Of course, there are many larger organizations that you mentioned that are working on initiatives too. They’re very valuable, IGF, ITU, IETF, ISO, IEEE. There are a lot of initiatives and it can be confusing how many there are and there are overlaps. And so to be honest, we are still figuring out how the forum can best add value, if we can add value and how we can add value to complement those larger organizations and initiatives. We have had positive collaborative discussions already with ITU, ISO, and IEEE, who are looking how to leverage a kind of mutual industry-connected agile organization that is deliberately very different to those much larger and well-established organizations. We’re not trying to compete with anyone. We’re just here trying to help where we can and we would welcome that discussion if we can be helpful. Now, please, we’d love to talk.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud:
Wonderful. So, thank you very much, everyone, for participating today. We really appreciated the discussion. Thank you to our esteemed panelists and informed panelists for contributing and to the co-organizers of JAPAN. I’m going to spare you a summary and hope that you have all integrated what we’ve learned since we’re running over time. But many thanks, and we’ll look forward to seeing you at other Global Forum occasions and the rest of the week at the IJF.