Day 0 Event #61 Accelerating progress for unified digital cooperation

Summary

This discussion focused on global digital governance, addressing key issues in artificial intelligence (AI), data management, and internet governance. Participants from government, industry, and international organizations shared insights on recent developments and future challenges.

The conversation highlighted the need for interoperable regulatory approaches to AI governance, balancing innovation with risk management. Speakers emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in developing frameworks that are flexible enough to adapt to local contexts while maintaining global consistency.

On data governance, the discussion centered on initiatives promoting data free flow with trust, addressing privacy concerns, and facilitating cross-border data sharing. Participants stressed the need for harmonized approaches to reduce fragmentation and ensure legal clarity for businesses and citizens.

The panel also examined the future of internet governance, particularly in light of the upcoming WSIS+20 review. Speakers advocated for strengthening existing multi-stakeholder processes like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) rather than creating new structures. They emphasized the importance of inclusive participation, especially from developing countries and underrepresented groups.

Key themes throughout the discussion included the urgency of addressing governance challenges posed by rapidly evolving technologies, the need to preserve what works in current systems, and the importance of trust-building among stakeholders. Participants called for more focused, action-oriented approaches to governance that can deliver tangible results while maintaining the benefits of open, multi-stakeholder dialogue.

The discussion concluded with reflections on improving inclusivity, gender representation, and the overall effectiveness of global digital governance processes. Speakers emphasized the need for clear mandates, strategic vision, and practical outcomes in future governance efforts.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The need for interoperable and aligned approaches to AI and data governance across jurisdictions

– The importance of preserving multi-stakeholder approaches in internet governance

– Preparing for the WSIS+20 review and the future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

– Balancing innovation with risk mitigation in emerging technologies like AI

– Improving inclusivity and representation in internet governance processes

The overall purpose of the discussion was to take stock of recent developments in digital policy and governance, particularly around AI and data, and to look ahead to upcoming processes like WSIS+20 and the implementation of the Global Digital Compact. The goal was to identify priorities and approaches for improving global digital cooperation between governments, businesses, and other stakeholders.

The tone of the discussion was largely constructive and forward-looking. Speakers acknowledged challenges but focused on opportunities for progress. There was a sense of urgency about addressing governance gaps, balanced with caution about preserving what works well in the current system. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end, with calls to move beyond talk to concrete outcomes.

Speakers

– Timea Suto: Moderator

– Maria Fernanda Garza: Honorary Chairwoman of ICC (International Chamber of Commerce)

– Thomas Schneider: Ambassador and Director of International Relations at Ofcom Switzerland, Vice Chair of the Council of Europe’s Committee on Artificial Intelligence

– Flavia Alves: Director and Head of International Organizations for Meta

– Yoichi Iida: Assistant Vice Minister for International Affairs of the Ministry of International Affairs and Communications of Japan

– Maarit Palovirta: Deputy Director General at Connect Europe

– Irina Soeffky: Director for National, European, and International Digital Policy at the German Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport

– Larisa Galadza: Director General for Global Affairs Canada and Senior Official for Cyber, Digital and Critical Technology at the Government of Canada

– Amr Hashem: MENA Policy Director for the GSMA

Additional speakers:

– Bertrand de La Chapelle: Audience member

– Jacques Beglinger: Member of the board of EuroDIG and co-chair of the Swiss IGF

– Desiree Milosevic-Evans: Audience member

Global Digital Governance: Navigating AI, Data, and Internet Challenges

This comprehensive discussion on global digital governance brought together key stakeholders from government, industry, and international organisations to address pressing issues in artificial intelligence (AI), data management, and internet governance. The panel explored recent developments, future challenges, and potential solutions for creating a more cohesive and effective global digital governance framework.

AI Governance: Balancing Innovation and Interoperability

A central theme of the discussion was the need for interoperable regulatory approaches to AI governance. Thomas Schneider, Ambassador and Director of International Relations at Ofcom Switzerland, emphasized the importance of the Council of Europe’s AI convention as a potential global standard. He stressed the need for flexible frameworks that can adapt to rapidly evolving AI technologies while ensuring interoperability between different regulatory approaches.

Flavia Alves, Director and Head of International Organizations for Meta, highlighted the potential of open-source AI to drive innovation and create better, safer products accessible on a global scale. She emphasized the importance of open-source approaches in fostering collaboration and improving AI systems.

Yoichi Iida, Assistant Vice Minister for International Affairs of the Ministry of International Affairs and Communications of Japan, discussed the G7 Hiroshima AI process and code of conduct as an example of international cooperation on AI governance. Audience members raised concerns about potential biases in AI datasets and the need for inclusive governance approaches that represent marginalized communities.

Data Governance: Trust, Privacy, and Cross-Border Flows

The discussion on data governance centered on initiatives promoting data free flow with trust, addressing privacy concerns, and facilitating cross-border data sharing. Yoichi Iida introduced the OECD’s work on data free flow with trust, highlighting the importance of balancing data utility with privacy protection. He also addressed the complex issue of government access to data for law enforcement purposes.

Maarit Palovirta, Deputy Director General at Connect Europe, outlined the EU approach to data protection and cross-border data flows, emphasizing the need for harmonized regulations that protect privacy while enabling innovation.

Amr Hashem, MENA Policy Director for the GSMA, highlighted the mobile industry’s crucial role in expanding internet access and connectivity. He stressed the importance of considering infrastructure development alongside governance issues, particularly in developing regions.

Future of Internet Governance: Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Reform

The panel examined the future of internet governance, particularly in light of the upcoming WSIS+20 review. Irina Szovki, Director for National, European, and International Digital Policy at the German Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport, emphasized the continued importance of the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance.

Audience members, including Bertrand de La Chapelle, called for updating the WSIS vision and structures to reflect current technological realities. There was a strong push for improving the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) mandate and structure, with de La Chapelle proposing a dedicated effort to discuss new institutional arrangements.

Speakers advocated for strengthening existing multi-stakeholder processes rather than creating new structures. They emphasized the importance of inclusive participation, especially from developing countries and underrepresented groups. Jacques Beglinger, a member of the board of EuroDIG and co-chair of the Swiss IGF, raised concerns about defining stakeholders too narrowly and excluding grassroots participation.

Global Digital Cooperation: Aligning Priorities and Addressing Challenges

Larisa Galadza, Director General for Global Affairs Canada, discussed the implementation of Global Digital Compact commitments and Canada’s upcoming G7 presidency, which will focus on AI governance. She framed the coming year as “an inflection point” for global digital governance.

Maria Fernanda Garza, Honorary Chairwoman of ICC, highlighted the crisis in multilateralism and the need for greater alignment in digital governance while preserving flexibility to meet diverse local needs. She emphasized the importance of business involvement in shaping effective governance frameworks.

Gender Inclusion and Accessibility

An audience member raised the critical issue of gender inclusion in digital governance processes. Panel members acknowledged the importance of this concern and discussed strategies for improving gender representation and diversity in governance discussions and decision-making bodies.

Unresolved Issues and Future Directions

Several key issues remained unresolved, including how to effectively include developing countries and underrepresented groups in AI and data governance frameworks, addressing biases in AI datasets and algorithms, and determining the appropriate division of work between new AI governance bodies and existing internet governance structures.

The discussion concluded with reflections on improving inclusivity, gender representation, and the overall effectiveness of global digital governance processes. Speakers emphasized the need for clear mandates, strategic vision, and practical outcomes in future governance efforts.

Conclusion

As the global community grapples with rapidly evolving digital technologies, this discussion underscored the critical importance of collaborative, flexible, and inclusive approaches to governance that can adapt to local contexts while maintaining global consistency. The coming year promises to be a pivotal period for shaping the future of global digital governance, with significant implications for innovation, equity, and human rights in the digital age. Key takeaways include the need for improved coordination between stakeholders, greater inclusivity in governance processes, and more action-oriented approaches to addressing global digital challenges.

It’s worth noting that the panel experienced some technical difficulties throughout the discussion, which occasionally impacted the flow of conversation but did not significantly detract from the overall quality of the dialogue.

Timea Suto: Can you hear me? Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. All right. Well, good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to this session. Everything is good with the technology. Everybody can hear. Everybody has a microphone. Channel three. Should be channel three. Can you hear me now? Yes. Perfect. Okay, good. I feel like a rock star with this microphone on. So, hello, everyone. Welcome to this business government roundtable that looks like a panel, but it will be a roundtable. We will talk of what has happened this year on all the various fronts on digital policymaking and a number of issues. And we will try and see how we move forward towards a more common digital cooperation and how we can work better together between the business and the government sectors. I don’t want to take up too much time in doing an introduction, but really just want to share with you how we are envisioning this session to go. We have set up three mini discussions within these two hours that we have together today. First, we were going to talk a little bit about the governance of artificial intelligence, what has happened throughout the year on this topic and where we are hoping to go forward. Then we will take the same stock around the conversations on data governance. So, how are we today with initiatives on data governance? What have we done so far? And where we hope to go under the aegis of digital cooperation. And then we are looking at a couple of processes that we have all been engaged in as part of the IGF community, the global digital compact and the WSIS plus 20 process and trying to look ahead after we have taken stock of these policy developments and try and see where we want to go in the context of these policy fora. We see as necessary as all of us up here, here on the panel, but together with you in the community. So we will have two speakers per topic to start a discussion, and then we’re going to turn to all of you in the room for a dialogue on those topics. So we won’t wait till the end to have the dialogue. We have two speakers and then you, and then again, two speakers and then you. But to set the scene, we will have first a keynote. I want to start by, first of all, thanking all of you, panelists who’ve accepted to be here with us. Just a quick introduction on who we have here in no particular order at the moment, but just the way it appears on my list here. We have Ms. Flavia, National Institutions and Relations at MEDA. We have Mr. Thomas Schneider, Ambassador and Director of International Relations at Ofcom Switzerland. He is also the Vice Chair of the Council of Europe’s Committee on Artificial Intelligence. So there will be my first panel on AI. We also have Mr. Yorichi Iida, Assistant Vice Minister for International Affairs of the Ministry of International Affairs and Communications of Japan. And Dr. Irina Szovki, I hope I’m pronouncing that correct, Director for National, European, and International Digital Policy at the German Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport. So they will be my second panel on data. And then for the third panel it’s for the business conversations. We will have Ms. Larissa Galazza, from the, who’s the Director General for Global Affairs Canada and Senior Official for Cyber, Digital and Critical Technology at the Government of Canada. Ms. Marit Palavirta, Deputy Director General at Connect Europe. And Mr. Amir Hashim, MENA Policy Director for the GSMA. Thank you all for joining us. To kick us off, we also have the Honorary Chairwoman of ICC to give a quick keynotes and a few thoughts on where we are and where we’re hoping to go. So Maria Fernanda, please.

Maria Fernanda Garza: Thank you very much. Do you mind I just nod your head if you can listen to me, please? Thank you. Let me start with a few quick words about the International Chamber of Commerce. For those of you who might not know, also the ICC is institutional representative of more than 45 million. businesses in over 117 countries with a mission to enable peace and prosperity through trade. We deeply believe in a world based in rules, benefits, business and society. And this mission is particularly relevant today. In a rapidly evolving digital world, the stakes have never been higher for us to collaborate effectively to shape policies that are inclusive, sustainable and forward-looking. This year, we have seen meaningful discussions on digital policy across multilateral fora, whether it’s the G7, the G20 or the OECD, including the adoption of the Global Digital Compact and the preparations for the 20-year review of the outcomes of the World Summit of the Information Society. These discussions address a number of pressing issues, from digital divides and cybersecurity to the governance of data, AI and our digital world in general. But these discussions are happening against the backdrop of a crisis in multilateralism. Deepening geopolitical tensions and competing national priorities have made it harder to achieve alignment, and the result is increasing regulatory and policy fragmentation. For business, this fragmentation creates uncertainty, disrupts cross-border digital trade, increases compliance costs and stifles innovation. For governments, it makes it more challenging to establish interoperable frameworks that support economic growth and cross-border collaboration. To address these challenges, we must pursue greater alignment while preserving the flexibility to meet diverse local needs. A single, centralized, global regulatory superstructure is neither feasible nor feasible. Instead, we should build on the strengths of expert organizations and forums, allowing them to contribute within their mandates while fostering collaboration. collaboration across sectors and regions. So looking ahead to 2025, our priorities must include, first, data governance, establishing principles and frameworks that support the free flow of data, while addressing legitimate concerns about privacy, and second, AI governance, and developing banks and companies that can It’s what we agreed. While addressing societal risks and ensuring equitable benefits, especially for under-reserved regions, and third, the internet governance, reinforcing the principles of an open, interoperable, and inclusive internet. So at the heart of this effort must be the multi-stakeholder approach that offers a model that brings together governments, businesses, civil society, academia, and technical experts to develop policies that are pragmatic, inclusive, and effective. The IGF is the embodiment of this approach. It is not a decision-making body, but it is invaluable in its ability to bring together all stakeholders to share knowledge and expertise, ensuring interoperable policy approaches that meet the diverse needs of everyone, everywhere. So looking ahead to the implementation of the Global Digital Compact and the WSIS Plus 20 review, we must follow through on the promise made 20 years ago to make the multi-stakeholder model the rule and not the exception. It is how we address the policy issues around the internet. and the digital technologies more broadly. So to move forward, we need to ensure that the voices of all stakeholders are heard and are valued. Business has a critical role to play, not just in implementing the policies, but in shaping them through expertise and practical experience. Today, I encourage us to have an honest, focused discussion in a true IGF fashion about how we can align our priorities, reduce regulatory fragmentation, and prepare for WSIS 2020 in a way that strengthens the next decade. So thank you all for your engagement and for meeting to these issues. Back to you, Timon. Thank you. Thank you, Maria Fernanda. I hope that everybody could hear you. Just trying to check with the panelists that everybody’s okay with the microphones and everybody’s okay with the headsets.

Timea Suto: Okay, thank you so much, Maria Fernanda, for leading us into this discussion. So on this imperative of talking openly and really in true IGF fashion, into our first panel, as I said, we will be starting with artificial intelligence and try and take a little bit of stock of the current state of play in global AI governance, trying to identify some commonalities on the initiatives that we are all aware of, but also trying to see if there are any barriers that we still need to surmount in the implementation. So to kick us off, I’m going to turn first to Thomas Schneider, and I’m going to ask you to wear two hats in this conversation. First of all, talk a little bit about the opportunities and challenges you see in opportunities. operationalizing AI governance and of the work that you’ve done at the CHI and the Council of Europe.

Thomas Schneider: Yes, thank you and I hope you can hear me. Okay, thank you very much Tymija. Before I go into more detail, one thing that helped me understand or get a vision on the concept of AI governance is to note that AI is not the first disruptive technology that mankind has learned to seize opportunities and minimize risks. And there’s a number of parallels that can be drawn with the way that we actually managed engines, combustion. Engine driven machines in the 19th century started to replace physical human and actually animal labor through putting engines into machines that were either used to move something from A to B or were used to automate production of goods or of food. And there are lots of parallels with the digital revolution of today where we use AI systems to replace not physical labor but cognitive labor. Mainly also in two ways to analyze data and prepare to take decisions. In both cases, the risks and impacts of the technology are very much context based. And if we try to figure out how to govern AI, I think it may be worth to look at how we’ve more or less managed to govern engines in different areas of their use. And if we look at engines, of course we are aware that there’s no single engine convention, no one engine law that regulates all aspects of the use of engine. In fact, there are thousands of technical norms, of legal norms and also different from culture to culture and how to manage risks. And in that case of engines used in different contexts. And there’s areas where we have. quite advanced harmonization internationally. If you take the airline industry, of course, to land an airplane is the same on every airport in the world. But if you take a cars, even in Europe, people drive on different sides of the road and so on and so forth. But there’s some level of interoperability so that the British also able to drive in Switzerland, although we are driving on the other side of the road. And I think the same is already happening in the field of AI. We also have there, we have tuitions in a technical field, ISO, IEC, I2, IEEE, but then also institutions like NIST and US and Senelec in Europe that are working on technical standards. We have a lot of legal instruments, binding and non-binding ones, starting from the UNESCO recommendation, DOECD, and the Council of Europe has already done some work before this binding instrument, and others have contributed to a number of legal instruments. And we will also have differences in how in a particular society you deal with risks or who you trust to actually cope with the risk, whether you task the government in your own hands, these things will probably keep varying. And in this sense, the convention that the Council of Europe has negotiated, and I happen to have been leading these negotiations in the last two years, is one, but not the only instrument that will hopefully help us to cope with AI in the sense that the purpose of this convention is not to create new rights or to raise protection levels or make new restrictions. It is to make sure that the existing safeguards and protection levels of human rights, democracy, and rule of law are also applied to AI like they apply to any other environment or technical development that we’ve seen. It’s important also to note that the instrument is meant to secure these rights and freedoms, but at the same time to… conducive to innovations or not to disadvantage those that are part of this of this structure compared to others that that may not be because we think that there is a mutual interest from the industry from consumers from from the states that we have a certain level of trust and clarity and rule allow us to be innovative but be more or less be able to to uh yeah to assess risks and impacts and deal with them in in a reasonable and appropriate way um if the word council of europe may apply that this is something european it is first of all not uh the same like the european union european union has 27 member states the council of europe has 46 and the council of europe has a system of observers that can also be an ad hoc observer to a process that allows actually to include countries from all uh and become signatories of an instrument which is the case also with this convention we’ve had 11 countries participating in the negotiations from latin america from north america from asia and we’re in touch also with countries from africa to join uh the work now so the idea is to have a global instrument globally in the sense that you would require a minimum level of respect for human rights democracy and rule of law otherwise the whole system would not be credible but every every country that respects a certain level of democracy rule of law and human rights is invited to to join the process the convention is also an instrument unlike a law that is meant to be more future proof therefore in terms of time and development it therefore needs to be a little bit more general a little bit more abstract but in a way translated into a concrete guidance for whatever the latest technology may be so it establishes some general principles about safeguarding existing protection levels of democracy and rule of law and goes into more detail about human rights but remains always at the level that it can be adapted to the concrete legal and institutional setting of a particular country and thus help to not fully harmonize the world because that may not be possible but at least build on the shared fundamental values and legal norms that many countries share and help to allow legal constructs in a way that they can not just be interoperable for the states but also for the industry and for the consumers so there’s a common basis and that is not just the legal text it’s also the and I’ll end with this it’s also a concrete instrument which is a concrete methodology for a human rights democracy and rule of law risk and impact assessment which is fundamental also to build the bridge not just between technical standards and legal standards but also to help operationalize something abstract like a convention into daily life that consumers but also for programmers and for regulators think. Thank you so much Tomasz

Timea Suto: and you’ve raised quite a lot of ideas in your speech so I’m just trying to pull out a couple of those. I’m noting interoperability of regulatory and policy approaches working in hand in hand with the stakeholders making sure that we’re working towards policy frameworks that can be global in nature but can flexible enough to be implemented in local contexts and the importance of providing actual tools to making those happen and I’m just from all of this trying to connect to the rest of the conversation I want to highlight one thing that you said that we need trust and clarity so that those who are implementing and working on implementation sides of these technologies it was the principles that we develop and actually make it part of their work so I think that’s a good segue to Flavia who’s going to speak next, I wanted to ask her about the voluntary commitments that industry is taking in a field of AI. And how do you see that linking up with some of these global conversations in policy, and treaties, and guidelines, and others that are happening around the world? And what is the meta focus in this? And how do you see that?

Flavia Alves: Thanks. Here today, I’m Flavia Alves, Director and Head of International Organizations for Meta. So first, let me tell you, Meta is committed to developing responsible AI. And we work to help ensure that AI at Meta benefits people and society. In addition to our internal processes to develop AI responsibly, we are also active on international level in contributing to development and implementation of AI governance frameworks. International cooperation is key to ensuring people around the world can fully harness the benefits of AI. Global AI governance frameworks promote trust and help to prevent fragmentation and jurisdictions. Given the quickly evolving capabilities of GenAI, we need frameworks that are agile and adaptable. As a company, we participate in industry bodies and international commitments and organizations. Industry bodies, to name a few, the AI Alliance, Partnership on AI, Frontier Model Forum, and there are others. As for voluntary and international commitments, we are signatories to the White House Voluntary AI Commitments, the Bletchley Declaration, Munich Accord on AI and Elections, and so Frontier AI Safety Commitments on the G7 Hiroshima process implementation. We need to avoid fragmentation. Governments should build on their progress to establish consistent international positions that support the development of AI, that benefit society in a responsible way. This was a key underpinning of the UN resolution on AI approved early this year. Similarly, the G7 leaders just commit to step up on efforts to interoperability on AI governance frameworks. This recent government affair, Nick Clegg, was in a stage with the Prime Minister of Japan as they discussed the importance of the G7 Hiroshima process in bringing stakeholders together in order to harness the benefits of AI. We are also very active at the G7 task force that helped develop the survey to apply the code of conduct on the G7 Hiroshima AI process. And in fact, we are looking forward to work with G7 Canada in the next steps of implementation of the Eurasian AI. As a stakeholder forum, we are active participation at the OECD. We are members of the business at the OECD and OECD experts on AI. We are involved in supporting the development of the 2019 AI principles. And we’re also very pleased to see that principles turning into parts of the EU AI Act. So this is exactly what we want to see. These frameworks evolving among themselves and building upon each other instead of fragmented among themselves. Special thanks to my fellow panelist, Mr. Ida Sun, for his leadership at the G7 Digital and Tech Working Group, but also at the OECD Digital Policy Committee. Remote Stakeholder Frameworks, I also said we are part of the UAF AI Governance Outliners. So there is no response one fits to all. We are part of all these different efforts. There is also the global effort from the UN. We participate at the UN Global Digital Compact and are looking forward on the implementation of that. We are also very pleased to see the outcomes of the work of the UN High-Level Advisory Body on AI. The report they issued was excellent, particularly on the government. We are now looking for how to participate on the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI and the Global Forum on AI. Can you hear me? Okay. So now is one part that we are looking to see in all of this framework. It’s the open approach to AI development. Through all of these initiatives, one aspect of governance that is crucial and very important for us is the promotion of open source AI models. Open source AI has real potential to provide access to the world’s most advanced models at a global scale. We favor this approach because in many contexts we believe it is the right thing to do. It drives innovation. It creates better, safer products that everyone can benefit from. We also believe open source will be the key to unlocking the potential of AI across developing nations. Open source has several strategic benefits. It’s good for Meta. We benefit from a developed ecosystem of tools, efficiency, and proven integrations. It’s also good for developers. The open source AI allows developers to train their own models, control their own destiny without being locked into a single closed model. And above all, it’s good for the world. Open source will ensure that more people around the world have access to benefits and opportunities of AI. The power isn’t concentrated in a small number of companies, and then the technology can be deployed more evenly and safely across society. As of today, we have $600 million being used by broad communities of researchers, entrepreneurs, developers, and governments, as well as international government bodies. For example, we created a no-language-left-behind AI model, which UNESCO is using to help support high-level translation, including in low-resource and marginalized languages, such as indigenous languages. As we converge around frameworks, it is critical that they support an open approach to development of AI, that those frameworks are interoperable and non-duplicative, and that they enable AI to deliver on their potential, also advancing progress to the SDGs.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much, Flavia, for that. So with these two introductory statements, both from the government and the industry side, I would like to turn first to the panelists to see if there’s any reaction statements, and then to those of you on the floor, if you might have questions or reaction statements to what we heard. Ides, I’m from the panel. I think we can just… …both in name and also in the work of Japan.

Yoichi Iida: Okay, thank you very much. My name is Yoichi Rikida, Assistant Vice Minister from the Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, and I have been working as Chair, Committee Chair at OECD for digital policymaking, and also last year I worked as Chair of G7 Working Group, as well as the Hiroshima AI Process Working Group. So, having listened to the wonderful, previous two wonderful speakers, I want to pick up three points from the progress and development. over the last two or three years in AI governance. The first thing is, as we frequently mentioned, G7 AI governance very actively. We agreed on Hiroshima process for the conduct last year and this year under Italian presidency, we are discussing the monitoring mechanism and also the brand for the companies and organizations to implement the code of conduct. And we have a lot of support from OECD Secretariat and we are almost agreeing on the monitoring mechanism and the brand, but it takes a little bit time, but I hope we will put the Hiroshima process for local mechanism into actions and invite the private sector players to announce their commitment to those instrument early next year. Of course, this is my personal hope, but I believe G7 could move quickly, continuously quickly to get together. And this year under Brazilian presidency, G20 discussed AI for development. I believe this is a very important element, aspect of AI governance, because we always talk about AI governance to leave no one behind and the developing countries, people in the marginal communities should not be left behind, of course. And AI for development is a very important notion. And one of the efforts to in action is a second element of my presentation, which is Hiroshima Process Friends Group. Hiroshima Process Friends Group is still a kind of Japanese government initiative, but also with a lot of support from other G7 member countries. And this group now covers more than 50 countries, including all EU members. And we cover a lot from Asia up to Africa, and we are still actively increasing the number of the members. And we often hear a lot of voices from those countries that they are… very much welcoming these opportunities because they have less opportunities to listen to the discussions on international AI governance and they have less opportunities to be involved. So we need to provide those such opportunities to countries and communities and the people in marginal communities and we need to realize the multi-stakeholder approach in AI governance discussion too. So this is the second element and the second development through the year and also the third one is the global partnership on AI and OECD AI community, those two communities are integrated into one or the two. The global partnership on AI was launched in June of this year for the U.S. residency of G7 and now it’s in the hands of the G20 and the UNHC. So this is the third element and the third development through the year and also the third one is the global partnership on AI and OECD AI community, those two communities are integrated into one or the two. So this is the third element and the third development through the year and also the third one is the global partnership on AI and OECD AI community, those two communities are integrated into one or the two.

Timea Suto:

Audience: We’ve got a microphone here to the lady, please. A microphone. Yeah, my name is not said I’m a prominent object. I’m talking about AI and that there is a great concern about the data used AI. I don’t think that it is really happening that we are governing AI. That would not leave anybody in mind. And we’re not representing the set of people about them like sets of data sets. This is not what is happening. I’m representing the people in Egypt. They are represented. The platforms are biased. They feel that they have to go around to express their opinions. And this is all is somehow. Yeah, so I have a great concern about that. Thank you.

Timea Suto: Thank you for that question and that reflection. I think it’s going to be a good segue then to our next conversation on data because, and then if we would have another one, it would be have to be on connectivity. And if we had another one, it had to be an electricity. So it starts, I think, very, very deep back the presentation from the very beginning of where those divides are and how we bridge them. But I think the spirit that we hear is that we do want to bridge them. And we need to find the right partnerships on where we start closing those gaps. And how can we make sure that we go as far up now where we are at the end of the development spectrum with gen AI, but who knows tomorrow, and then there comes quantum and other things. But I think this commitment that we see here that I’ve heard also on the panel is the first step there. Would anybody from the panel like to react any further to that? Please, we got a microphone here.

Larisa Galadza: I think it’s a really good comment. And I would say a couple of things at the risk of taking away from my main speaking segment. I think that there is a willingness I’ve seen my last few months in this job, a willingness to a different kind of partnership when it comes to AI, and AI for good and AI for development and all those things. But I’m not algorithms and saying they’re not good enough, or they’re biased, or the data being used is not representative. I think the partnership requires someone to say, hey, we’ve got data sets in our country, can you help us put them together? Can you help us make them? We want to front We would like to support an initiative that uses our local language. And we would like to work with you. So I think that when you hear those of us in country. And, and doing what we can to try to bridge the divide, talking about nobody, you know, nobody left behind wouldn’t be the language that I use but it’s that it’s for the common good, that we’re looking for partners who say yes. We’ve got language, and we’ve got models and we’ve got skills and we’ve got data sets. We need compute, or we need someone to do some translation for us or whatever it is that’s required. That’s the kind of partnership that that’s the Canada, Canada is going to be looking for as we head into our G7, G7 presidency.

Timea Suto: Thank you for that. Any other comments from the floor, or is there anybody online. If not, then I’m just going to give the microphone back for one minute each to Thomas and then to Flavia to close up this segment, and then we move into our data discussion which I hope will be as exciting as this one was.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you. I’ll just also react to the parliamentarian from Egypt, I think it is, it is important that we try to align or make these different initiatives and instruments interoperable, but they also help to provide for solutions for the ones that are not yet part of it. Both. Then it’s stereo. So I think, and I also invite you to come and join the Council of Europe, but this is the normative legal part of it. The Huderia is supposed to trying to help all countries to do risk and impact assessment. And of course the data component. an important one, if there’s no data about your people, then the algorithm is of no use, even if the… So I think there’s several aspects of this and discussions like these are good to raise the awareness of what are the elements, where have we made progress? Where do we need more progress? What is priority? So thanks very much for this.

Flavia Alves: Let’s see if we can hear you with that microphone, Flavio. Yeah, take the one that’s, yeah, that’s the one. Thank you. Yes, yes, yes. So first, I think one thing I wanna make clear is that our project, No Language Left Behind, is about translation. It’s not necessarily about assets and trying to put your language there about… Yeah, I’ll keep talking, I don’t know if anyone can hear me. No. All right. Sorry, guys, I have 30 seconds. With regards to data sets, we agree with you that we also have an open source model that can actually implement. We have partnered with the Gates Foundation and have funding projects in Africa Pacific. I’m not sure what the delegate of Canada said. Let me, your input come to us to see what type of data sets we’re working out there for that. I’ll stop here because it seems that it’s not working. If we can take a two-minute break now and try and see if we can find a microphone that works for the panel. Can we try that one then? Okay, so these two, we can, I think, get back to you. Yeah, times the charm. Hello? Yeah, okay. Yes, it works for now. So yes, please, that’s what we want. We want to work together. That’s why it’s an open source approach with stakeholders, researchers and developers, countries, governments, international governments, that we can help develop AI that is a particularly open source, that is an equalizer. We want to make sure open source AI or AI gets through everyone. And that we don’t get in the same bridge that we had before with connectivity, where people were left. Of course, we need connectivity to get to AI, but at the time we want to advance the bridge, if possible. So, back to you.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much, Flavia. And as I said before, it’s a good segue into our next discussion, which we’re going to talk a little bit about what we have done. They can hear me with this one, I think, so this one is okay. Yeah, okay. So, what we have done as a global community this year to try and advance a little bit the conversations on data governance. And what are the challenges that we faced? Where can we still go, or where we need to work more to expand on this? And what can we do to make sure that our approach to data governance? Yeah, yes. I’m very sorry that we don’t have the- It may not be the best solution, these things that don’t work. Yes, exactly. Maybe there is a new development technology that we can use for this, but we’ll bear through this. Next year at the IGF, we’ll all be transported into virtual headsets. But until then, let’s talk a little bit about data, where we are with our data governance issues. What has happened, hope to go. I’ll turn first to Ida-san again to talk a little bit about his insights on the operationalization of data free flows with trust, and what you have done to find enablers for trusted government access to data, to privacy protection, and the considerations of the transfers and sharing of data across borders. And where do you still see barriers that we need to overcome? Thank you very much. We can’t hear each other.

Yoichi Iida: As well as for this very complicated and difficult questions, and I’m not quite sure I can answer appropriately, but I’d be happy to share what I know. from my experience as a development over the last year. And actually, the Japanese government proposed the concept of a data free flow with a trust, which encourage the relevant stakeholders to make orders as free as possible while ensuring the trust regarding data flow appropriately and aspect of privacy protection or intellectual property protection or probably other human rights protections. And this concept was discussed over the years and this year, early this year, OECD launched a DLFT expert committee, if I remember correctly, in February. And 200 experts getting together to discuss how we can promote data flow across borders while ensuring some legitimate protection of human rights and other freedom or other rights. And this committee is now long discussing three pillars to promote data flow across borders and the financial data flow across borders while of course ensuring the security of data and privacy protection. Second pillar is privacy protection enhancement technology, which is often called PET. And there will be a lot of different types of technological solutions to protect privacy when we flow data across borders. And this group is discussing how we can enhance and also deploy such technologies to promote data flow across borders. And the third element is legal transparency around the data, I’m sorry, data flows. So I think different jurisdictions are taking different approaches on data flow and the data protection. And just like the people discussed with AI, the data policy is also needs a lot of interoperability and this group is discussing how we can promote interoperability across different jurisdictions and how we can ensure the transparency about the data governance framework including the regulations. So this is the development regarding data through the trust and one of the important elements here is the trust for what trusted the government access to the data held by private entities. And this is based on the declaration taken by the member countries of OECD at the end of the year 2022. And this declaration is discussing how the government has to evade or follow some principles when they access the data held by private sector entities. Even when they want to use data for law enforcement or some legal. So different countries have different systems when we need law enforcement bodies and the police and other entities wants to access to the private data. And we discussed what are the kind of consequences elements here and what are the gaps here. So this group is also now discussing what would be the next element. And the one element is this is just the agreement among only 38 member countries of OECD and now they are trying to approach the countries outside OECD and to understand what the OECD members are commonly following and what would be the potential gaps or potential commonalities with the countries outside the group and probably try to find the global commonality and the consistency about the government access to private sector data. And from the similar perspective, OECD also the data sharing and the data access. And this recommendation is also now being discussed to enhance the practical implementation of this recommendation into action. So quite a lot of approaches are taken now and the main point is again the interoperability. in different jurisdictions while we protect the common universal, kind of universal, I’m not quite sure we can say universal, but commonly held principles across different countries and different communities, different cultures around the world. So there is a kind of presumption that data should be used and to produce as much benefit as possible and for the people, for the common good. So I think, again, we always talk about, you know, no one leave behind, no one left behind, and it is always very difficult to achieve, but the continuous endless effort is very important and we never forget about this concept, no one left behind. So that is what I can share at this moment and look forward to further discussion. Thank you very much.

Timea Suto: Thank you. And so two things that I pick up from your input to what we’ve heard in the AI conversation is that need for interoperability of approaches to policy and to regulations and the need to avoid fragmented approaches in the spirit of wanting to make sure that, first of all, we create an environment where all stakeholders and businesses have the certainty and the reliability of where we’re going forward, but also to make sure that everybody is well represented and is part not just of the services themselves, but also of the governance conversations around it. So I’m going to turn to Marit. and now from Europe preface a little bit of, I think what you are going to bring in because I hope you will tell us a little bit about how the European approach is to this but also how industry in Europe sees the conversation on planetary governance and developing. Floor is yours.

Maarit Palovirta: Super, thank you very much. Thank you very much Tamea. I hope you can hear me loud and clear. So just for those of you who don’t know Connect Europe, we are a trade association based in Brussels and our members are the leading operators. And just to give you an idea, so our members today serve about 270 million Europeans with different types of connectivity services. And now you might be asking yourself, well, what is this lady doing here in the data session? She should be in the connectivity session. But of course there is a very close link between connectivity and content. So the data travels in the networks that our members are running. And also the provision of connectivity services and network services of European operators rely on cross-border cooperation with various different third parties. So whether it be vendors or partners or other types of service providers. And to make things even more complex, cloud and cloud computing has certainly brought another aspect into the data governance in that data in between the networks, of course then is stored and processed in the cloud. And yeah, if you look at the ecosystem, not the specialized cloud service providers, but also the operators increasingly involved in the cloud business, in edge cloud, et cetera. So there’s a kind of interdependence between the different players. And of course, it’s very important that we have a data governance model and hopefully some level of interoperability to make sure that costs, especially costs for the operators and different parties are kept intact, et cetera. Now, I’ll talk a little bit about the approach in Europe quite briefly. I think that Europe has been leading in the data protection in many ways because data privacy and protection is something that both our policymakers but also citizens hold very dear. And we have a, I think we have a, and also a policy framework within Europe. And then now more recently, we also start to have a data framework that goes beyond Europe. So looking at the third party relations, but just to look at within Europe first. So we of course have our GDPR, the General Data Protection Regulation for Personal Data. And I believe that this is quite well known also globally. And we consider this as really being the baseline and the basic rules for data in Europe. And while the GDPR is not perfect, I mean, we do consider it as a, let’s say, good example globally speaking. Then rules and maybe not so well known internationally, but something that we called the Privacy Directive, which was a kind of historical legacy piece of regulation and which imposes some sector specific, very restrictive rules regarding data management and especially on telecom operators. And we believe that today, this type of sector specific rules have become a kind of out of touch with the data economy today. And here we really come to the question that we need to, at the same time, while we protect, we need to start also promoting innovation. And this, I don’t think it’s such a good example coming from Europe, if you like. And then really putting it into today’s context, we believe that when we look at rules on privacy, that all digital players should be subjected to the same horizontal rules of privacy, as they often process the same kind of data, for example, localization data. And we can think of many digital services players or even car manufacturers that today plan. And so we believe that really a horizontal solution would be the most effective one. And hopefully this would also, if you like, level a little bit or reduce the fragmentation in terms of data governance frameworks. And then we have more recently, we have some new rules on cross-border data. And especially when it comes to cross-border government access to data in the shape of the Data Act that was… adopted earlier this year, and then we have some for example require cloud and other data processing services to prevent third country governmental access and transfer of industrial data held in the EU, if such a transfer access is illegal under the EU or the member states law. And this of course, well it complements the GDPR in many ways, and we have welcomed it as European Selecom operators, as it provides some level of legal certainty to our members. On an enabling side, the EU has concluded various free data flow agreements. I think also with the US, which is a major one. And from the industry side, I mean we believe that these agreements are very welcome, and they bring more data and legal clarity, and also safeguards for businesses and citizens. I think that, you know, as a final point from Europe, it is also very important to note that it’s not only about policy frameworks or regulation, it is also about technical solutions and interoperability. And we, for example, in a slightly kind of, let’s say marginal context, but there’s also ongoing work in the EU to work on some common cybersecurity certification schemes, which can be seen as, you know, helping to limit foreign government access to EU data and help us securing EU data. Now going to your question about risks of fragmentation, Tamir, I think that our common global and open and interoperable internet, and especially also at the technical standards and protocols level. And maybe just, I would like to mention here, I mean, there are many risks, as we have already heard, but I’ll mention two examples that certainly have come up in some ways in the EU context lately. One is the evolving global connectivity infrastructure and the connectivity ecosystem that carry our data traffic and store our data. And I already mentioned the cloud, but for example, today we talked a lot about submarine cables and satellite becoming really part of the connectivity ecosystem. And I think that’s, you know, and our members are also involved in these activities, but we need to then also consider interoperability, but also the legal certainty of carrying our data through the new and the evolved connectivity value chain. And also, of course, it’s a question of resilience. Now, we’re not here asking for regulation on this, we’re just hoping that when we look at this data governance framework, that we have a kind of holistic look on these things. The second thing, if I may, it is on data sovereignty. And this is a text, you know, kind of an example that has come up quite a lot. And we see this also in the EU context. So, of course, different parts of the world, they have the legitimacy to try and protect their own businesses and citizens with different kinds of data governance regimes, if you like. But then there is, can be a kind of protectionist or commercial also incentive to create these data areas that’s, you know, then when they go too much too far, it becomes still businesses, and this includes businesses from that region. So, of course, if everybody starts looking at things too much from the whole perspective, then businesses will face increased costs and also legal complexity. So here we would be, you know, pulling from balancing act, while of course, you know, in the European context, we privacy and data protection is a very important, important thing. So, very briefly, to conclude the way forward. So we believe that innovation, of course, and global digital commerce are important, and they need also to be protected. And but, you know, it needs to be very clearly in balance with the rights and values and European context, especially data protection. And we believe from the operator side that this is best achieved through a horizontal, so not sector specific policy framework, that are also flexible, future proof, ideally, although this is a challenge for all policymakers, and we are not, of course, jealous of their role, and also technologically neutral. So I would maybe stop my initial remarks there, thank you.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much, Marit. And then, so the conversation that we’ve had on AI and highlighting the need for interoperability, I think we can add to that a little bit more, if you’d be remarks and Edith’s remarks, the needs for a more holistic approach, so that we look at the various sectors and see, not just the sectors of the economy, but also the sectors of regulation that we have, sometimes regulation in one area might impact the regulation in other, and we’re not realizing those impacts. And then, of course, the needs to harmonize across regions. And as Maria said, she had to leave, unfortunately, for another speaking engagement, but she was emphasizing her opening remarks, is to try and reinstate the trust in global cooperation and multilateral cooperation as well. Otherwise, we will get into too much of an inward-looking situation where it’s not going to be good. So what we want to achieve, that we were talking just earlier about, including everyone in the data conversation. So with that, are there any comments or questions from the floor regarding the data segment of our panel? Anybody would like to say anything? Can we please get a microphone to the lady? Thank you.

Audience: Thank you, Shredda. I will try to be quick. It’s just about the data. I think that’s why we are fighting to get legislation, the EFD, you know, data and information inside, not just Egypt. I think in several countries in Asia and other places, so it’s very high, but thank you.

Timea Suto: I heard your concern. I will share this concerns. I think that the question of the question, the concern of the. She was. Yes. And I agree.

Yoichi Iida: It’s about not complete data. And our capacity to give it up. I think that’s the question. I think that’s the question. I think that’s the question. I agree. The answer is there. And I. I comment. It’s a very important issue that. We all have to think. Oh. And. Now. The question. Is. It’s. It’s. It’s. It’s. It’s. It’s. It’s. It’s. It’s. It’s. It’s. It’s. It’s. It’s. It’s. It’s. I can agree with you. Now. It’s. It’s. It’s. It’s. It’s taken to the. Technically. But yes. Here’s. We are sharing. If I take an example, for instance. Particular application, which is. Federated learning. Transfer data. Send the model to somebody. To train the model. And then you bring back the weight. And you can not transfer data. I think it’s important. To think about. Look at. It’s. It’s. It’s. It’s.

Audience: Thank you. prevention and solutions. Just this time, I came along with a big problem of access to electronic evidence to environmental solutions. And I’m really surprised that in this whole series of discussions about free flow data, you mentioned the question of access to information and law enforcement. But it’s very interesting to mention the question of stimulation. Stimulation is extremely important to the world. How that can be realized? And in the same country, especially in the profession of health, we need to think about human participation. I think as long as we don’t address this question straightly, stimulating people in situ, organizations that have answers, I screamed how it is accessible.

Timea Suto: Seeing no more questions, I’ve also spoken on this to address we’ve had a question about making sure that we process data and then we talk about governance, we have a question around whether we are talking about data transfer or access transfer and how do we deal with trying to get into the sphere of that. I’m sure you can answer those questions. Thank you for volunteering. And thank you to all of our presenters for being such level of discussion. But when we want to put such a notion into practice, we recognize there will be a lot of difference and gaps to be addressed across jurisdictions. And yes, government access is a very difficult question and also we have a cyber security convention or something like that. Cybercrime convention.

Yoichi Iida: Cybercrime convention, yes. So it is very sensitive and very difficult questions across the This is something we have to address and there is no single answer coming overnight, but relevant people, actually, when we started the discussion on government access to data, we were very much surprised to see, you know, different people are gathering, people from, we are the digital economy policy people, but actually we had a group of intelligence people, police and law enforcement people, or even some lawyers and people from the court. We always have a widespread aspect of data regulation and governance, and this is something we have to tackle all together, and the answer is not always very easy, but when we talk about the bias of data for AI, we have also struggling, the gap, and probably, you know, Japan is also struggling with the development of AI ecosystem, and most of the technologies are based on English, and Japanese is a very small language, so now we are trying to develop multi-language models using different kind of marginal, some small-scale languages together, and we are working with different partners from Asia and other regions to develop our own language models to reflect different differences, but also in cultures, which is very important when we talk about developing language models. So, we share a lot of difficulties and challenges together, and we hope, you know, we need to tackle, we hope we tackle these challenges all together, not only by the government, but across different communities. Thank you very much.

Maarit Palovirta: If I may maybe address a little bit the question of Bertrand, the evidence, or let’s say a more obligations, the regulatory obligations that, for example, operators have. vis-a-vis law enforcement. I mean, it’s a very tricky topic. If we’re looking at it kind of purely from a data economy perspective without any societal responsibility, of course it is a cost to operators. It complicates things. I mean, recently we discussed the law, the legal intercept obligations within Europe, and an operator from one of the bigger European countries said that it costs them 15 million a year just to comply with the legal intercept obligation. So it is not nothing. It is a big responsibility and obligation. But at the same time, for the society to work well and to put the criminals into jail, of course this then is maybe necessary. But from the data governance and how do you fit it into the framework, of course that’s not an easy task. And from our side, I mean, we wouldn’t want to go, of course, judging the rightfulness or the wrongfulness of it for the moment. It is the way it is.

Timea Suto: Thank you. Thank you for that. I see that we have no comments online, and I don’t see any hands up in the room. So I think we can move on from the data conversation. I think we’ve thrown up quite a few highballs in these first two rounds, and these are the topics that we see not just individual governments or stakeholders struggling with, but when we look at the global level, when we look at the United Nations or various regional fora, we see quite a lot of struggle on how we actually make sense of the governance of all of this. How do we take all these issues and try and connect those who are working on the various policy try to make them more aware of one another and then what are some of the other structures that might or might not be necessary to help with not only the practical implementation but the global governance discussions around all of this. So we had quite a significant process this year where Germany was holding one of the pan holders for the Pact for the Future, a huge feat I think in multilateralism on many issues but we’ll focus on digital today, complemented with the Global Digital Compact. And then we have a number of multilateral fora, we’ve mentioned the G7 so many times and Canada now is taking up the baton moving forward so how do we deal with all of this in that context and also talked about taking the work of G7 and making it broader in other fora so how do we move towards that idea and then of course where does the private sector come in in all of this so that’s what we’re trying to figure out in the remaining 40 minutes or so that we have on this panel, also keeping in mind that we are at the IGF which is the product of society that is coming up to a very significant milestone next year so in this context I’m just going to ask first Irina to take a little bit of stock of what has happened this year with the Pact for the Future and the Global Digital Compact and how do we move into moving all these discussions ahead both in the GDC context but also looking ahead to the OSCIS plus 20. Over to you Irina.

Irina Soeffky: Thank you very much, indeed internet governance is very important to us and maybe it’s not much to sense the basis of everything that we’ve been discussing so far so we are really digging to the core now and Yeah, it’s important decisions have been taken, others are still about to be taken, and I think a lot is at stake. I mean the, the internet as we know it is working incredibly well also through the pandemic on a technical level at the same time there are already very challenging developments that are taking place on the internet. That’s like deep fakes, misinformation, lots of phenomena that are deeply troubling, probably to all of us and really go to the root of our democratic societies. And, well, all this makes clear that we need internet governance also in the future and maybe it’s not only internet governance but digital governance but I know that an entire academic debate could turn around this question so maybe I leave that out for the moment, but indeed it’s very important and what I have to say is that for us at the core of internet governance really is multi stakeholder for stakeholder collaboration and the IGF is really the prime example to show how this is done, as we can experience here during the day already and in the coming days still. And this is also well, this is really the, the key for us, and really the basis that everything else is turning around and we really think that we need on one hand to protect it because I think it’s not, it’s not given that internet governance in a multi stakeholder way is going forward. And on the other hand, I think it’s also necessary to develop it further because it would be, yeah, nobody would believe me if I said, it’s already perfect in every single way and we can’t fix anything and we can’t develop it further in any regard. And this has also been well, so to speak, the guidelines for the processes that have already taken place. And we’re also very important for us. and the processes that are coming. Very much involved in the pact of the future, a little less in the global digital compact, but that such a document, such a compact exists is really a major achievement that countries at UN level managed to agree on a document. And we are happy with what we have as a product now. It’s not yet implemented and this process will, or these processes rather, will also be very important. But to have such a document, I think, is really of very big importance. Obviously, probably if we had a vote now, not every single country, not every single person or stakeholder is happy with every single bit of the global digital compact, but I think this is also something that is probably not doable at all. So we are happy with what came out, that something came out and it wasn’t really clear from the start or also along the way that we would succeed. And there are some elements in there that are particularly important to us. And again, they go to the, well, to the core, as I stated, multi-stakeholder model is mentioned. The IGF was an important form of multi-stakeholder discussion and involvement is mentioned in there. We have something really new, which is that internet shutdowns are not acceptable. So there’s a lot of important things that we agreed to on a very broad basis. Well, as I said, implementation will be important now. And I think was, as is probably the rule on such a high level and with so many partners involved that not everything is clear yet, but we need really to work hard to figure out how is all this working and how can all this fit together? And this is maybe the major challenge that we see that it would not be helpful to have a bunch. of new institutions, different fora, discussing the same topics with different players, because I think they’re more difficult and not easier. And in particular, if we want stakeholders really to participate, it would be possible. I mean, it’s hard already for governments to cover everything. Yuichi already hinted at it when he was talking about AI governance, which is really a complex picture by now, but it’s even more difficult for, especially for stakeholders, civil society, for example, to really cover all those different fora. So we really need focus. And as I said already, we really do think that the IGF should not only be one important forum for internet governance, but the important and the premier forum for that. And we try to work on that, work hard in that. And we have been having lots of discussions with different partners, different stakeholders on what it would need, how we could develop it further. It could be IGF or maybe even DGF, Digital Global Forum, could look like. And this is really a process that we want to work hard on. And well, as you said already, this is one milestone, a major milestone, I would say. Implementation remains to be done and is a fragile thing and things can go well and not so well, maybe in this regard. And then there is another process coming up, the WSIS Plus 20 review. And this is also very important because there indeed, we have to decide how we will go on with the IGF, how it will look like in the future. And therefore, well, we as a government try to be as involved, as engaged as possible. So we became or we will be becoming next year, which is quite around the corner, a member of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development has quite an important role to play in this process. So we try to be involved there. we also find important and I think there is probably still room for manoeuvre or for improvement if we look back to the GDC process, it’s really important to involve. If we talk about multi-stakeholder collaboration and how this can be done in a meaningful way in the future, we certainly cannot do it without involving all those players. So this is something we really hope to do, not alone, definitely not alone, together with partners. And well, I think as much conversations that we can have in this regard, also on how to convince really people and governments, but also outside governments, that this is really an important moment in time and it’s really right or wrong now, not just for us or for something we find important, but for something that is so basic for everybody in the world, I think this is really important. And we’re really looking forward to, well, to do our part of the job, but also to work together with partners, with stakeholders, to find a good solution there. And yeah, for that, obviously it’s also important, I mean, to have these conversations and as many for us as we can, to really get a sense of what is important and what is maybe why we are very much looking forward to the Canadian presidency of the G7, because I think this is one of the fora we can really talk and also strategize of how we can get that right. With that, I think it’s best if I just

Larisa Galadza: give you the microphone. Thanks. It’s really good to be here. It’s really good to be learning from multi-stakeholderism is really great for an education about what happens in all the different parts of society and business and government and for all people in managing this resource that we share collectively in the internet and digital space. To hear about it all, and I’m not going to rip repeat all the progress that has been made because you’ve heard about it all here from people who have been part of the process or even leading the process. The contribution I’d like to make to this is from the perspective of where I sit. So I am Canada’s senior official on cyber, critical tech, and I also have a responsibility for democratic resilience in the government of Canada. And I sit in the international security branch of the foreign ministry. I’m not a digit or anything. I’m in the international security branch of our foreign ministry and I work for our political director. And so my perspective on progress and the year ahead is from that seat and also in being in Canada, I guess, from the seat of the next president of the G7. I’d like to call our attention to sort of the context for the work over the next year. I think we’re in a context where actually it ain’t broke. The internet I think is working a heck of a lot better than the technology in this room today. And it wasn’t until I started this job that I realized just how much complexity there is to making it work. So there’s many, we have many sayings about this problem that we’re studying right now in English. It’s, you know, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Leave well enough alone. It’s not to say, as my colleagues have said, that there isn’t room for improvement, but we are in a context where we know who lives in Kiev. I work out with him three times a week. The Zoom works, the encrypted texting works, and I can send him money once a month. And when I tried to send him money at an address that was of a bank that was in a part of Ukraine that is occupied, I wasn’t allowed to send money. So there we see every day in our lives that there are really. that the internet works. That’s my first point. The second thing that has struck me is the extent to which geopolitical strategic competition is playing out at the most strategic levels, and it’s playing out at the most practical levels. What I’m very heartened to hear is actually when it comes to the practical, it works. This is an area where there is still trust. This is an area where countries that have very different ideas about how this universe should work still managed to cooperate, because it’s at that very practical level that we see what the benefit of the current system that we have is to all of us. We feel the benefits. The third bit of context is that there’s real urgency to this work. There’s serious urgency to it. Why? Because the technology isn’t waiting for us to figure it out. It’s not waiting for our policy frameworks or for our legislative frameworks or for us to figure out how we’re going to do things together. The technology is actually dual-use technology. As Thomas said, we’ve done this before, but never, I don’t think, have we had the speed of the evolution of a dual-use technology. It is imperative for us to deal with technology like AI. Thirdly, as the opening speaker said, we are living a crisis of the multilateral system. Over the next year, the multilateral system needs to figure out some of these questions. Whether that system breaks or survives will be borne out in these discussions. The last thing is that there’s a real, even in something as hard-edged as the international security world, there’s a real recognition of the importance of the multilateral system. that what we’re talking about is a global public good that must be shared, that our security, the stability of the world is not unless we share the benefits of the technology and the benefits of connectivity, the benefits of the internet. And so ensuring participation of the global majority at all governance tables is really important. And certainly doing development differently with the tools, the new tools we have is the only option that we have. So the year ahead has lots of opportunities. Yes, Canada will continue to focus on AI in particular. And we really thank the Japanese and the Italians for making significant progress and working urgent way that the subject matter demands. WIS is plus 20. You all know it better than I do. What’s at stake there? There’s another IGF. Then there’s the definition of how we’re going to implement the GDC commitments on AI, the scientific panel and the global dialogue. How those are defined, form will define function. And so this is a real opportunity. And in all of that, Canada will be active because of the urgency of the situation. We will uphold fervently multi-stakeholderism. We will look to do things that advance the SDGs. We will advocate for transparency in all of these processes and we will do it because we recognize that trust is absolutely critical. Trust between every. aspect of the puzzle that sits on this stage, trust with our citizens, trust between different parts of the world. And I would just conclude by saying this the next year is really an inflection point. There is an awful lot going on. It’s going to test our resolve. It’ll make or break some of the governance that we have that has done very well. And I think it’s going to be a year where that geopolitical strategic competition continues to play itself out. And managing that, managing the pace of change, managing the urgency, the demands and the commitments will continue to be exhausting. But we’ve done it before. We’ll just keep doing it again.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much, Larissa, for that. I’m going to ask you to please pass the microphone to the end of the row. Thank you so much.

Amr Hashem: Thank you. And I know that I’m the last speaker, so I will not take much of time, especially that I’m an engineer. So as an engineer, we usually don’t manage to get so many words to speak about, but we like to talk in numbers. So just to share with you some kind of numbers about the mobile industry that I am representing in this gathering, that currently 96% of the world population is mobile coverage and mobile broadband coverage. Actually, 4.6 billion people, almost 57% of the global population access the internet primary through mobile broadband. And I believe that this percentage of 57% will go even higher when we are talking about developing countries where mobile coverage is much wider and much more reachable and affordable. to people compared to fiber connectivity and other means for internet access. Yet, we are facing a challenge, the original WSIS document reflects the time that it was written in the early days of the information society. So it doesn’t really recognize the key role that mobile has to come to play in the community and businesses around the world. When we are talking about SDGs, again, using some numbers to describe the impact that the mobile industry is contributing to the SDGs, the figures that we have showed that the mobile industry achieved almost 58% of its potential contribution to SDGs. We are trying to measure what direction or what dimension that we were most impactful and we found that the SDG 9 related to industry innovation and infrastructure is where we were most impactful, mainly driven by the reach of the mobile. By end of 2023, the share of the mobile population without internet broadband coverage is less than 4%, 350 million people, while 57% of the world population are actually using the mobile broadband as we mentioned before. So the use of mobile is not only limited to connectivity or accessing the internet as you have mentioned. financial services are actually a major area where mobile industry has made a impactful contribution. With almost 3 billion people, more than 50% of the mobile subscribers are actually using mobile money and mobile banking services by 2023. Yet we hope that throughout the process there will be a real multi-stakeholder approach when it comes to the way forward in order to connect the rest of the people. Whereas we, the mobile operators and the mobile industry are projected to spend about 1.5 trillion dollars over the period from now till the end of 2023. There remains a gap between the projected investment and that needed to realize the government’s digital policy objectives. Especially when we are taking into consideration the growing need for broadband. I mean when we are talking about broadband now it is completely different experience than the broadband that we will need to experience in 2030 when the metaverse will be realized and when we are talking about this new technology. So in order to realize these technologies we have or we need to think about new means for financing this connectivity and for creating an environment that will enable that. And we hope that the review of the Waze plus 20 will recognize this and will encourage governments and other stakeholders to contribute to this investment gap that we are witnessing and we are trying to bridge in order to really leave nobody behind. Thank you.

Timea Suto: Thank you, Amer. So we’ve had three speakers talk about taking stock of the actual governance conversations that happened this year and looking ahead for WSIS plus 20. So what I’ve noted here as you were talking of how we look ahead and what is it that we would like to see done. So of course, you’ve all talked about more cooperation, less new structures, but better coordination of what is already out there. You have talked about the importance of informed policymaking and the need to have stakeholders contribute to that. You’ve talked about making sure that we don’t throw babies out with bathwaters and we actually make sure that we preserve the core of what is actually working, the technology, and adjust and make sure that our policy and regulatory frameworks enable the technology to continue on working and not pose extra barriers to that. And then you’ve all mentioned multistakeholderism, multistakeholderism and input to policymaking, multistakeholderism and the multistakeholder approach to policy conversations, but also the multistakeholder approach to implementation, whether that comes in forging partnerships, whether that comes in making the investments that are necessary, or in making sure that the policy frameworks that we come up with actually enable the technology to work, enable those who don’t have a voice to have a conversation, and also enable the innovation that we need to balance out with the potential areas where we want to address risks. So a lot of rich ideas coming out from the panel, but we have about 15 minutes to hear a little bit from the audience on how you see the road going. Are these the right elements that we should take away from this panel discussion to move into the WSIS++20 process at the GDC implementation? Do you have other ideas? Do you have any remaining questions to our speakers? So I would like to turn it over to the audience. And with that, I hope that our technician colleagues are ready to also share the microphone with you all so that you can speak. Are there any questions or comments from the floor? Raise your hand, we’ve got your microphone. Yeah, there’s a question for Jorge and then for Desiree. There, a microphone please, there. Thank you. There in the back. Yes, I think we’ll share the one up here.

Audience: I hope you hear me okay. So I just wanted to break the ice, but I saw that Desiree also raised her hand. So I’ll be very brief. I think it would be really great, well, Jorge Gánzio Swiss government to pass a very clear message coming from this IGF. And I think we’ve been hearing it in your panel. The first one is that we are still very deeply committed to a vision that was laid out in WSIS of a human-centric information society, a digital society that we want to work towards that goal. That we have to update, of course, the substance of what we agreed 20 years ago, what we reviewed 10 years ago, looking into connectivity, what it means today, the human rights implications of our digital world on data governance, on AI governance, and you cannot have… one without the other, and that we are eager to update also the structures we have to govern this, that we have a very good basis with WSIS, that there’s a good impulse with the new chapter written by the GDC, but it’s just a new chapter in a book we’ve been writing for 20 years, that we are ready to be innovative in how we update the multi-stakeholder approach of doing things. We have good ideas coming, for instance, from the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines that were agreed in Sao Paulo earlier this year, and that it’s very important to commit to a non-proliferation of processes, because more processes, more governance kills inclusivity, and you wouldn’t have two spoons and a Swiss army knife. So let’s be functional, let’s respect the forms, and let’s avoid duplications that are unnecessary. Thank you. Thank you Jorge.

Timea Suto: We have the question there from Desiree first, and then Bertrand.

Audience: Thank you, my name is Desiree Milosevic-Evans. I listened to the takeaways of what’s been discussed, and I think much of what you’ve suggested seems like a common concept, but also looking forward in terms of reviewing the WSIS action lines, bearing in mind that a lot of good things are already in the document laid out in the Tunis agenda and the Geneva plan of action. What does the panel think about gender as an issue? Was it there in 2003 and 2005? Because we’re talking about inclusivity and digital inclusion. I wonder whether that’s something that the panel thinks should also be an issue to be discussed. The WSIS lines are good, and we’ll see how much the progress is done, but I think I single out that particular issue. Thank you. Thank you, Desiree. Bertrand, just behind you. Hi, Bertrand de La Chapelle again, there’s a lot of issues that are going to be addressed in 2025 in the context of the WSIS plus 20 other aspects. I like very much the comment about it’s going to be an inflection point, and I hope it will be an inflection point. We’re taking stock of 20 years, and some of us have been here for those 20 years. Even here I have the bag of the first IGF of 2006, which is a testimony of the sustainability approach that they adopted, by the way. Kudos to Marcus Coulomb. That’s a private joke for those of you who were there. But more seriously, among all those issues, there is one topic that I think of particular importance, which is what is going to be the future of the IGF, not only just the continuation, but how do we improve it, restructure it? Isn’t it time to have a serious discussion, maybe a little bit like the Working Group on Internet Governance back in 2004, to have a dedicated effort, not just a series of reports, some of which were very good, but let’s be honest, most of them have been filed the moment they were assigned, having a group that could, after the WSIS Plus 20 review, discuss seriously what is the new structure, what is the institutional arrangement that will be set in place. We know, and I finish with this, that there will be no agreement from the start by all governments, and therefore I think that there is a particular role for the governments who have hosted the IGF, who have made the effort to host the IGF. and that includes Japan, that includes Germany, that includes Switzerland, and to the countries who will be in presidency of different groups, and that includes Canada for their weight, behind an effort that could take place at the IGF in Norway, in the middle of the year, to send a clear message to the drafters of the resolution in the UN General Assembly, that there needs to be a paragraph that says, it is time to have a serious discussion on the new mandate. We will have 2026 to really discuss this in a multi-stakeholder manner, and not just a discussion in New York among the governments. Important element in the agenda, it doesn’t exclude all the different other topics, but I’m just taking the opportunity of having a few key governments here on the panel to raise the idea.

Timea Suto: Thank you, Bertrand. Jacques, please, and then we’ll go back to the panel.

Audience: My name is Jacques Beglinger, and I’m speaking here with my hat as a member of the board of EuroDIG, and co-chair of the Swiss IGF, and I would like to emphasize my question on the definition of stakeholder. I thought it pretty demanding to follow what all has been said, now in the past two hours, and explaining this to stakeholders might be quite difficult. Now, what do we see as a stakeholder? Are stakeholders just saying, well, they are just different groups represented by the top most possible understanding bodies, or is in the future of the IGF, still the little citizen, the corporate citizen, the editorial citizen? C of the multi-stakeholder process.

Timea Suto: Thank you, Jacques. So I’m going to turn back to the panel and we’ve had four types of intervention, four questions that I think all move in the same way, like how Bertrand put it, future doesn’t have to equal only continuation. Future needs to mean some sort of progress or improvement. So how do we take that, and this is going to be my final question to the panel, and you can pick and choose which question you want to elaborate more on this, but what do we take from our discussions as a hope for improvement as we look into the future? How do we improve the existing WSIS action lines? How do we improve the inclusion of various stakeholders or our governance models? How do we improve the IGF’s mandate? And how do we improve inclusion, especially gender inclusion? So what are your one-sentence takeaways, or I know now the the x limit is longer, so I got 140 characters, but what are your short takeaways with views to improvement as we move to WSIS plus 20? So I’m going to start, Flavia, you volunteered, so with you.

Flavia Alves: Yes, sure. So I want to start with the questions in the interoperability or getting all governments from groups together at IGF. This is a great idea. In fact, from what we understand is that Norway is planning to do that, similar to last time, to put the group together to have some documents to discuss at the IGF. As I spoke today, there are several international frameworks around AI, but it’s not only on AI, there are several other international frameworks on several other issues. So it would be crucial for these groups to get together to see how a real interoperability can exist of even the working methodologies, because for us, we don’t have enough time for people to engage substantially in all various issues. In addition to that, I think you’ll be… important for us to really give a voice for all stakeholders. Sometimes having frameworks that you invite only stakeholders to speak and provide like a session is not necessarily inclusive. We need to give time to our stakeholders to provide comments to what is being proposed and actually have feedback and then getting out together. A good example of this is NetMundial, of course, a document that has existed and has been developed again early this year in Brazil. But how can we actually make that, then implement that? And so giving a real voice to stakeholders, getting groups, head of hosts of G7, G20, the OECD, and the IGF, what is it that we can do at the IGF together to address that?

Timea Suto: Thank you, Flavia. Any volunteers? If I’m not, I’m just going to ask you to pass the microphone. Yeah, Larissa.

Larisa Galadza: I think on the question of commit to nonproliferation of processes, I think it’s really incumbent upon every process to be clear about what its comparative advantage is to all the other processes. Because the decisions about what process survives and doesn’t isn’t going to be made by people who have participated in all of these. Because we’re all stakeholders in our own understanding. And if the comparative advantage of a given process isn’t clear, then it won’t survive, and perhaps it shouldn’t survive. So I think that’s incumbent upon, in this case, the IGF to make sure that that is clear. And I think that IGF should be as open as possible. So not just the topmost bodies, but whoever wants to come. There’s just, it’s kind of a low stakes environment. Come and participate. It doesn’t crowd the space. There’s lots of room here. And in terms of the future of the IDF, I really like the idea that we talk about what is the new mandate, because it puts the default at it is continuing, should it continue? It is continuing and how do we make sure that it’s fit for purpose? So however that goes forward is important. As for gender, I mean gender at this point should be mainstreamed through everything and that’s actually what we should be aiming for. That’s how to future-proof the issue of gender. In Canada we have a model that does that analysis of everything through a gender lens without putting up a lightning rod that says gender.

Irina Soeffky: Yeah, thank you. I can go on. Well, I have a lot of sympathy for many of the suggestions that I heard and really have a deep discussion of where we want to go, who are going to be relevant actors, how we can also achieve this in practice. And I do also agree that probably it’s a hard thing to do next year, basically, or even less than a year. And this is maybe the note of Realpolitik that I want to finish with. I think our minimum goal should be that there is an IGF with an unlimited term, full stop. But looking back at the GDC discussions, we have seen that there are very different ideas and they’re strong and it’s all about alliance building. So I would say we should have reasons and probably we can’t convince others without having at least a glimpse of it. But I also think we shouldn’t overburden the discussion that we have ahead of us. So I think we should really focus on the core, as I said already, of what we want to achieve. And if the trick is by really having an ongoing process afterwards and really digging into the details, that would be wonderful. But I really think, well, especially having followed New York discussions quite closely, I’m indeed a bit worried that things could also turn in. Indeed we want to avoid that and coming to that or coming to the conclusion it’s maybe we also well we have to be visionary but we also have to be tactic and how best to move ahead to build alliances to convince to convince partners and I think I’m not not decided on that yet but I think we really have to think hard to multi stakeholder world that we do have

Thomas Schneider: Thank you first first to start with a reply to to to Jacques I think yeah but we we thought 20 years ago that the world was complicated and the Internet was something complicated looking looking back now it seems that things then were quite quite simple so I’m what I’m trying to say is we have to basically do the margin walk between trying to be inclusive, trying to be specific. But at the same time trying to be understandable to an average person although this is a little bit of an illusion if you’re honest because we don’t have 5 billion average persons sitting here. We have to serve different levels of interest and knowledge to patrons question I think something that actually struck me again came to my mind this morning. I think it’s paragraph 72 point G or whatever of the Tunis agenda. The one of the key things of the IJF, and no matter what the latest emerging technologies what we should not change is the IJF mandate to look into emerging issues on Internet or whatever you call it governance, because if the latest thing today is AI tomorrow there will be something else and I think this is one of the deliverables that the IJF has. It’s always the first platform to get. new issues on the agenda, set it on the agenda of others. So this is, I think, in my view, one of the core deliverables. Inclusivity, of course, is another thing. Although the question is, how do we get those at the table that do not want to be at the table? Not those that cannot. We can fund them and support them. Those that do not want to be at the table is another thing. They may not want to be at the table because others are at the table, which I will not go into too much detail. But I think a good question is also on the new stuff that is being built around AI. If it now is, what do you do with the rest? Do we just subordinate everything else under the new stuff that is created on AI? And with everything else, I mean everything else. Or what is the division of work between those new things that will be created on AI? And the more legacy things like the IGF and the WSIS process, but also even more legacy stuff that is looking into issues per se, whether it’s health or climate or whatever. And I think, well, maybe not everything is yet fully thought through with the…

Timea Suto: Great, thank you. Thank you, Tomasz. All right, Ida-san? Okay, so just quickly, the gender. I think gender equality is very important.

Yoichi Iida: But now, look at the panel. The male is minority now. So I’m not saying that gender balance is not important, but probably we need to address some of the asymmetry points. Because digital space, women, girls face different types of risk and challenges, rather than males. So we need to address those challenges and risks. And then we may… achieve a kind of very equally enabling space for both men and women. That is probably the central issue in the future discussion on gender equality. And comment by Bertrand really struck me. Yeah, we often talk about the bottom line to keep, protect, and promote IGF and the stakeholder approach. But we believe that will be the bottom line, a minimum level, as Irina said. And of course, we want to achieve more, because the condition and situation is very different in digital economy. We have AI. We have mobile. We have very, very many different factors compared to 2005. So we have to look and we have to see, because GDC negotiation was really difficult. And we saw a lot of gaps and differences and diversity from different, not only different governments, but also from different communities. So probably opening more open and enabling discussion space for different stakeholders would be very important. And then we need to think about our own strategy, probably to IGF itself, but maybe reform and strengthen this framework for the future internet space, which I believe cover AI and other new technologies as enabling factors. So I think that’s all. I can’t say now, but thank you very much for the very productive questions.

Timea Suto: Thank you. We have two more panelists left who haven’t had their last words. Who wants to go first? Yeah.

Maarit Palovirta: Yes, I mean, I can only but agree, just maybe to Jacques’s question, I mean, how to involve everybody and who are the stakeholders and, you know, how can we make sure that everybody has a say, who wants to have a say indeed. I mean, I think it’s all about preparation and I think it’s also important that although we’re talking about the global internet governance, that we, you know, at the same time, it comes bottom up. So, for example, in Europe, we have the regional initiatives on internet governance and when we now look at the WSIS plus 20, for example, the European Commission, who is just was the European voice in there together with the member states, they have now put out open public consultations on internet governance, so that European citizens can comment, etc. And of course, you can argue that, you know, you still need to be in the know and maybe, you know, it’s not available for everybody. But I think that, you know, at least in that way, you also open a little bit the discussion at the national and regional level and, you know, for people who want to have a say. Thank you.

Amr Hashem: And Amir, for the last word. Okay, having the challenge of saying something new after all what was said. My idea is that sometimes you turn this nice governance forum into a platform for actually taking some actions that would result in impactful action. I mean, the discussion and the open discussion and having everybody saying things are great and it is nice to talk and maintaining this multi-stakeholder approach is always welcome. But actually, you might like to start thinking about supporting reforms, supporting people, recognizing the effort, something like that. I hope when you are thinking about the process for the plus 20, to think about it more from a private sector perspective rather than from a government perspective. In the private sector, we don’t like to talk. We like to work and to achieve our objectives. So our KPIs are not that we went and we talked, no, our KPIs should be a result that we have improved our situation. We have changed this. So we hope that the forum will be more for private sector driven, more private sector inclusion and all the best of luck.

Timea Suto: Thank you, Amir. That all leaves me with thanking our panelists. We are already beyond time, so I will not share my takeaways. But I do want to thank you all for bearing with us, with bearing with the technology issues. It’s day zero. We always have kinks to work out. It will get better from here, I’m sure. But I do want to thank for all the rich contributions of industry and what we discussed here and actually contributed to the process that we worked to. So thank you all and a big round of applause to all of you. Thank you. Thank you. I hope I did not exhaust you.

Agreement Points

Need for interoperable regulatory approaches

speakers

Thomas Schneider

Flavia Alves

Yoichi Iida

Maarit Palovirta

Maria Fernanda Garza

arguments

Need for interoperable regulatory approaches

Importance of voluntary industry commitments

G7 Hiroshima AI process and code of conduct

EU approach to data protection and cross-border data flows

Aligning priorities and reducing regulatory fragmentation

summary

Multiple speakers emphasized the importance of creating interoperable regulatory frameworks for AI and data governance to reduce fragmentation and ensure consistency across jurisdictions.

Importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration

speakers

Irina Soeffky

Flavia Alves

Larisa Galadza

arguments

Importance of multi-stakeholder model

Importance of voluntary industry commitments

Implementing Global Digital Compact commitments

summary

Speakers agreed on the critical role of multi-stakeholder collaboration in internet governance and the implementation of global digital initiatives.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the need for flexible and adaptable governance frameworks that can accommodate rapidly evolving AI technologies while ensuring responsible development.

speakers

Thomas Schneider

Flavia Alves

arguments

Need for interoperable regulatory approaches

Importance of voluntary industry commitments

Both speakers discussed approaches to balancing free flow of data with necessary protections for privacy and other rights, highlighting the need for trust in cross-border data transfers.

speakers

Yoichi Iida

Maarit Palovirta

arguments

Data free flow with trust concept

EU approach to data protection and cross-border data flows

Unexpected Consensus

Recognizing the effectiveness of current internet infrastructure

speakers

Larisa Galadza

Amr Hashem

arguments

Mobile industry’s role in expanding internet access

explanation

Despite coming from different sectors (government and industry), both speakers acknowledged the current effectiveness of internet infrastructure, particularly in mobile connectivity, which was unexpected given the focus on challenges and improvements in most discussions.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around the need for interoperable regulatory approaches, the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the balance between innovation and risk mitigation in AI and data governance.

Consensus level

There was a moderate level of consensus among speakers on key issues, particularly on the need for collaborative and flexible governance frameworks. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the challenges in digital governance and a common direction for addressing them. However, there were also divergent views on specific implementation strategies and the role of different stakeholders, indicating that while there is agreement on broad principles, the details of implementation remain contentious.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to AI governance

speakers

Thomas Schneider

Flavia Alves

arguments

Need for interoperable regulatory approaches

Importance of voluntary industry commitments

summary

Schneider emphasizes the need for interoperable regulatory frameworks, while Alves focuses on voluntary industry commitments and agile, adaptable frameworks.

Focus of internet governance discussions

speakers

Irina Soeffky

Amr Hashem

arguments

Importance of multi-stakeholder model

Private sector perspective on achieving concrete outcomes

summary

Soeffky emphasizes the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, while Hashem argues for a more results-oriented approach focused on measurable improvements.

Unexpected Differences

Gender representation in digital governance

speakers

Yoichi Iida

Audience

arguments

Data free flow with trust concept

Concerns about biased data and representation

explanation

While discussing data governance, Iida unexpectedly brought up the issue of gender representation on the panel itself, suggesting that men were now a minority. This contrasts with the audience’s concern about underrepresentation of diverse populations in AI datasets, highlighting a potential disconnect in understanding representation issues.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the approach to AI and data governance, the focus of internet governance discussions, and the understanding of representation and inclusivity in digital spaces.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is moderate. While there is general consensus on the importance of addressing AI and data governance issues, speakers differ significantly on the specific approaches and priorities. These differences could potentially impact the development of cohesive global digital cooperation strategies, particularly in balancing regulatory frameworks with industry-led initiatives and in ensuring true inclusivity in governance processes.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for some form of AI governance, but differ on the specific approach. Schneider advocates for interoperable regulatory frameworks, Alves emphasizes voluntary industry commitments, and Iida focuses on international processes like the G7 Hiroshima AI process.

speakers

Thomas Schneider

Flavia Alves

Yoichi Iida

arguments

Need for interoperable regulatory approaches

Importance of voluntary industry commitments

G7 Hiroshima AI process and code of conduct

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the need for flexible and adaptable governance frameworks that can accommodate rapidly evolving AI technologies while ensuring responsible development.

speakers

Thomas Schneider

Flavia Alves

arguments

Need for interoperable regulatory approaches

Importance of voluntary industry commitments

Both speakers discussed approaches to balancing free flow of data with necessary protections for privacy and other rights, highlighting the need for trust in cross-border data transfers.

speakers

Yoichi Iida

Maarit Palovirta

arguments

Data free flow with trust concept

EU approach to data protection and cross-border data flows

Key Takeaways

There is a need for interoperable and flexible AI governance frameworks that can be implemented globally while adapting to local contexts

Data governance approaches should balance free flow of data with privacy protection and security concerns

The multi-stakeholder model remains crucial for internet governance, but needs to be updated and strengthened

There is an urgency to address governance of emerging technologies like AI due to their rapid development and potential impacts

Future internet governance structures should avoid fragmentation and proliferation of processes, while improving inclusivity and stakeholder participation

Resolutions and Action Items

Work towards implementing the Global Digital Compact commitments on AI, including establishing the scientific panel and global dialogue

Develop a monitoring mechanism and branding for companies to implement the G7 Hiroshima AI Process code of conduct

Use the upcoming WSIS+20 review to update the vision and structures for internet governance

Discuss potential improvements to the IGF mandate and structure at the next IGF in Norway

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively include developing countries and underrepresented groups in AI and data governance frameworks

Balancing innovation with risk mitigation for emerging technologies

Addressing biases in AI datasets and algorithms

Determining the appropriate division of work between new AI governance bodies and existing internet governance structures

How to engage stakeholders who are unwilling to participate in multi-stakeholder processes

Suggested Compromises

Focus on protecting and developing the core multi-stakeholder model, while allowing flexibility for implementation in different contexts

Balance the need for global frameworks with preserving national sovereignty on certain governance issues

Mainstream gender considerations throughout governance frameworks rather than treating it as a separate issue

Combine visionary goals for internet governance reform with tactical, achievable steps in the near-term

AI is not the first disruptive technology that mankind has learned to seize opportunities and minimize risks. And there’s a number of parallels that can be drawn with the way that we actually managed engines, combustion.

speaker

Thomas Schneider

reason

This comment provides a valuable historical perspective, framing AI governance within the broader context of how society has dealt with disruptive technologies in the past. It’s insightful because it suggests that while AI presents unique challenges, we can learn from previous experiences in technology governance.

impact

This comment shifted the discussion towards considering historical precedents and lessons learned, encouraging participants to think about AI governance in a broader context. It led to further discussion on the need for flexible, context-based approaches to AI governance.

Open source AI has real potential to provide access to the world’s most advanced models at a global scale. We favor this approach because in many contexts we believe it is the right thing to do. It drives innovation. It creates better, safer products that everyone can benefit from.

speaker

Flavia Alves

reason

This comment introduces the important concept of open source AI as a potential solution to issues of access and innovation. It’s thought-provoking because it challenges the notion that AI development should be proprietary and suggests a more collaborative, global approach.

impact

This comment sparked discussion about the role of open source in AI development and its potential to address issues of global access and equity. It led to further consideration of how open source approaches could be incorporated into AI governance frameworks.

To address these challenges, we must pursue greater alignment while preserving the flexibility to meet diverse local needs. A single, centralized, global regulatory superstructure is neither feasible nor feasible.

speaker

Maria Fernanda Garza

reason

This comment highlights the tension between global alignment and local flexibility in digital governance. It’s insightful because it acknowledges the complexity of creating a governance framework that can be both globally coherent and locally relevant.

impact

This comment set the tone for much of the subsequent discussion, encouraging participants to consider how to balance global and local needs in their approaches to digital governance. It led to further exploration of multi-stakeholder approaches and the role of different forums in governance.

The next year is really an inflection point. There is an awful lot going on. It’s going to test our resolve. It’ll make or break some of the governance that we have that has done very well.

speaker

Larisa Galadza

reason

This comment emphasizes the critical nature of the upcoming year for digital governance. It’s thought-provoking because it frames the current moment as a pivotal point that will significantly impact the future of digital governance.

impact

This comment heightened the sense of urgency in the discussion and encouraged participants to think concretely about the immediate future of digital governance. It led to more focused discussion on specific upcoming events and processes, such as the WSIS+20 review.

Isn’t it time to have a serious discussion, maybe a little bit like the Working Group on Internet Governance back in 2004, to have a dedicated effort, not just a series of reports, some of which were very good, but let’s be honest, most of them have been filed the moment they were assigned, having a group that could, after the WSIS Plus 20 review, discuss seriously what is the new structure, what is the institutional arrangement that will be set in place.

speaker

Bertrand de La Chapelle

reason

This comment proposes a concrete step forward in improving internet governance structures. It’s insightful because it suggests a specific mechanism for addressing the challenges discussed throughout the panel.

impact

This comment shifted the discussion towards more concrete, action-oriented proposals for the future of internet governance. It sparked discussion about the potential for a new working group and the need for substantive reform of governance structures.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening the historical and theoretical context of digital governance, highlighting the tension between global and local needs, emphasizing the urgency of current governance challenges, and proposing concrete steps for future action. They moved the conversation from abstract principles to more specific considerations of governance structures and processes, while also encouraging participants to think creatively about solutions to global digital challenges. The discussion evolved from a general overview of current issues to a more focused consideration of immediate next steps and long-term structural changes in internet governance.

How can we ensure that AI development and governance includes and represents marginalized communities and developing countries?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

The speaker expressed concern that current AI governance efforts are not truly inclusive and may be biased against certain populations.

How can we improve access to electronic evidence for environmental solutions while balancing privacy and security concerns?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

This was raised as an important issue that needs to be addressed in data governance discussions.

How can we update and improve the WSIS action lines to reflect current technological realities, particularly around AI and data governance?

speaker

Jorge Cancio

explanation

Updating the WSIS framework was identified as necessary to address new technological developments since its creation.

How can gender issues be better incorporated into future internet governance frameworks and processes?

speaker

Desiree Milosevic-Evans

explanation

The speaker highlighted gender as an important issue that may need more explicit focus in governance discussions.

What should be the new mandate and structure for the IGF to make it more effective and relevant?

speaker

Bertrand de La Chapelle

explanation

Reimagining the IGF’s role and structure was proposed as a key area to explore for improving internet governance.

How can we ensure true multi-stakeholder participation that includes individual citizens, not just high-level representatives?

speaker

Jacques Beglinger

explanation

The speaker raised concerns about defining stakeholders too narrowly and excluding grassroots participation.

How can we make internet governance processes and frameworks more understandable and accessible to the average person?

speaker

Thomas Schneider

explanation

This was identified as an ongoing challenge for ensuring broad participation in governance.

How can we address the specific risks and challenges faced by women and girls in digital spaces?

speaker

Yoichi Iida

explanation

The speaker highlighted this as an important aspect of gender equality in internet governance.

How can we make internet governance forums more action-oriented and focused on achieving measurable results?

speaker

Amr Hashem

explanation

The speaker suggested shifting from discussion to more concrete outcomes and private sector involvement.