Open Forum #40 Governing the Future Internet: The 2025 Web 4.0 Conference

Summary

This open forum session focused on governing the future internet, particularly Web 4.0 and virtual worlds. The discussion explored why governance of these emerging technologies is important, what principles should guide it, and how a multi-stakeholder approach can address governance needs.

Participants emphasized the need to anticipate challenges posed by increasingly immersive and data-intensive virtual environments. Key concerns included data privacy, user rights, cybersecurity, and protecting vulnerable groups like minors. The importance of transparency, inclusiveness, and accountability in governance frameworks was stressed.

Several speakers highlighted the need for a human-centric approach that gives users more control over their data and experiences in virtual spaces. The potential for new business models centered around data agency for individuals was discussed as a way to create a fairer data economy.

There was agreement on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, including governments, industry, civil society, and academia. Participants noted the need to involve youth and consider perspectives from different global regions. The value of building on existing internet governance structures rather than creating entirely new frameworks was emphasized.

The discussion touched on the role of emerging technologies like AI, blockchain, and quantum computing in shaping Web 4.0. Speakers stressed the importance of assessing how these developments impact core internet properties and existing governance mechanisms.

Overall, the session highlighted the complex challenges of governing rapidly evolving virtual world technologies while preserving an open, secure, and inclusive internet. Participants agreed on the need for continued dialogue and research to develop appropriate governance approaches for Web 4.0 and virtual worlds.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of a multi-stakeholder, inclusive approach to governing Web 4.0 and virtual worlds

– The need to protect user rights, privacy, and data in increasingly immersive digital environments

– Balancing innovation with ethical considerations and societal impacts as technologies advance

– Ensuring the existing internet architecture can evolve to accommodate Web 4.0 without disruption

– Involving youth and diverse global perspectives in shaping the future of the internet

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore governance approaches and key considerations for the evolution towards Web 4.0 and more immersive virtual environments. The panel aimed to kickstart a broader conversation on how to ensure this development happens in an inclusive, ethical way while preserving the open nature of the internet.

The tone of the discussion was largely collaborative and forward-looking. Panelists emphasized the importance of working together across sectors and regions to address emerging challenges. There was a sense of cautious optimism about the potential of new technologies balanced with concerns about protecting users and society. The tone became slightly more urgent towards the end as speakers highlighted the need for continued dialogue and concrete action on these issues.

Speakers

– Pearse O’Donohue: Director for Future Networks at DG Connect, European Commission

– Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Research manager at BPMI, supporting European Commission’s work on Web 4.0 and virtual worlds governance initiative

– Rafał Kownacki: Director of the International Cooperation Department at the Ministry of Digital Affairs of Poland

– Israel Rosas: Director of Partnerships and Internet Development at the Internet Society

– Sarah Nicole: Senior Policy and Research Associate at Project Liberty

– Toshio Obi: Professor Emeritus and Advisor for CEDAW University, Advisor of IT Secretary General for Academia, Chair for CEDAW Project on Silver Innovation

Additional speakers:

– Sandra Hoferichter: Representative from EuroDIG

– Abdulla Al Hamed: Representative from Intermid

– Audience member (unnamed): Member of the technical community

Expanded Summary of Discussion on Governing Web 4.0 and Virtual Worlds

Introduction

This open forum session focused on the governance of future internet technologies, particularly Web 4.0 and virtual worlds. The discussion explored the importance of governing these emerging technologies, the principles that should guide such governance, and how a multi-stakeholder approach can address the complex needs arising from these advancements.

Key Themes and Discussion Points

1. The Need for Governance in Web 4.0 and Virtual Worlds

Speakers agreed on the necessity of governance for Web 4.0 and virtual worlds, citing several reasons:

a) New Challenges to Privacy and User Rights: Rafał Kownacki highlighted that immersive technologies present unprecedented challenges for privacy and user rights. The invasive nature of these technologies, as noted by Pearse O’Donohue, requires stronger user protections.

b) Potential Threats and Opportunities: Kownacki emphasized that Web 4.0 technologies bring both potential threats and opportunities that need to be addressed through governance.

c) User-Centric Approach: Sarah Nicole stressed the importance of a user-centric approach and data agency for individuals in these new digital environments.

2. Principles and Approaches for Web 4.0 Governance

The discussion highlighted several key principles and approaches for effective governance:

a) Multi-stakeholder Model: Rafał Kownacki advocated for a multi-stakeholder, transparent, and participatory model. This sentiment was echoed by Israel Rosas, who emphasized bottom-up processes with collaboration from all stakeholders.

b) Transparency and Accountability: Kownacki underscored the importance of transparency, inclusiveness, and accountability in governance frameworks.

c) Open Source and Alternatives to Self-Regulation: Sarah Nicole emphasized the need for open source protocols and alternatives to self-regulation by large tech companies.

d) Data Security and Privacy: Kownacki stressed the critical importance of ensuring data security and privacy in Web 4.0 environments.

3. Global Cooperation and Inclusivity

Speakers stressed the importance of global cooperation and inclusivity in governance efforts:

a) Global Solution: Pearse O’Donohue emphasized the need for a global solution to address the challenges of Web 4.0 and virtual worlds.

b) Addressing Digital Divides: Toshio Obi emphasized the importance of capacity building and addressing digital divides globally.

c) Youth Involvement: Sandra Hoferichter stressed the crucial role of youth involvement for fresh perspectives in the governance process.

d) Private Sector Innovation: Abdulla Al Hamed suggested that private sector innovation should inform governance approaches.

4. Balancing Innovation and Protection

A recurring theme was the need to balance technological innovation with societal impacts:

a) Assessing Impacts: Israel Rosas emphasized the importance of assessing how new developments impact core internet properties and existing governance mechanisms.

b) User Rights and Data Protection: Multiple speakers, including Sarah Nicole and Pearse O’Donohue, stressed the need to protect user rights, privacy, and data in increasingly immersive digital environments.

c) Cybersecurity: Rafał Kownacki highlighted the importance of robust cybersecurity measures in Web 4.0 and virtual world environments.

d) Protecting Minors: Kownacki also emphasized the need for special protections for minors in virtual environments.

5. Evolution of Internet Architecture

Speakers discussed how the existing internet architecture might need to evolve to accommodate Web 4.0:

a) Assessing Impacts on Critical Properties: Israel Rosas stressed the importance of assessing how new developments impact critical properties of the internet.

b) Avoiding Disruption: An audience member raised concerns about clarifying the scope of Web 4.0 governance and avoiding disruption to existing internet architecture.

c) Building on Existing Structures: Pearse O’Donohue noted that the aim is not to create entirely new structures but to build on existing internet governance frameworks.

Additional Points of Discussion

1. Citizen Panel: Sarah Nicole mentioned the importance of a citizen panel on virtual worlds to gather diverse perspectives.

2. Societal Impacts: Kownacki discussed potential societal impacts of virtual worlds, including addiction and social exclusion.

3. Risk Assessment: Israel Rosas emphasized the need to assess whether new technologies present risks or threats before addressing them.

4. New Business Model: Sarah Nicole proposed a new business model centered around data agency for individuals.

5. Capacity Building: Toshio Obi stressed the importance of capacity building and human resource development in the context of Web 4.0 governance.

Conclusion and Next Steps

The discussion highlighted the complex challenges of governing rapidly evolving virtual world technologies while preserving an open, secure, and inclusive internet. Participants agreed on the need for continued dialogue and research to develop appropriate governance approaches for Web 4.0 and virtual worlds.

Pearse O’Donohue mentioned the European Commission’s upcoming communication on virtual worlds, which will address governance issues. The Commission also announced plans to host a conference on March 31-April 1 in Brussels to further discuss Web 4.0 governance issues. Additionally, outcomes from this discussion will be fed into the next IGF meeting in Norway.

The session concluded with a call for ongoing collaboration and research to address the unresolved issues and develop effective governance frameworks for the future internet.

Pearse O’Donohue: Okay, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much for being here. Thank you to those who are online. This is an open forum session number 40 on governing the future internet focusing on web 4.0 and virtual worlds. Even though anyone in the room may also need to wear headsets, in order to hear us over the background noise. And if any of you wonder what’s going on online, it’s just that it’s a relatively open room. My name is Pierce O’Donoghue. I work for the European Commission and DG Connect. And we’re very happy to sponsor this open forum on issues which I will just speak about briefly. And then we have a great panel, which our moderator will see us through. Over a year and a half ago, at the beginning of last year, the European Commission adopted a communication on virtual worlds. Some of you know that as the metaverse. We didn’t want to get into branding issues early on. So for us, it’s virtual worlds. But it’s very much some of the components which will make up web 4.0, moving from the on-screen or on-headphone immersion to full immersion, to virtual presence, to extended and virtual reality, and to 3D surround sensory experiences. And which are not just for entertainment purposes. It’s not just people playing video games with 3D masks on. It’s, of course, a massive number of applications in the industrial, social, health, and other areas. The Commission is very interested in the challenges which these technologies will have, of course, on society, on the services delivered over the internet. But we also have to look at the impact on the internet technology. into a functioning self. And that’s really why we wanted today to focus on one thing which we in the European Commission said we must look at. It is the governance of Web 4.0, the impact particularly of virtual worlds. And what I want to stress from the start is that we want to do so in a multi-stakeholder process. We are not in the business of building new fora. We are not in the business of creating new structures. Rather, we could have picked other technologies to have the same discussion, whether it’s blockchain, obviously artificial intelligence, while we’ll all be talking about quantum. How does that impact on the current multi-stakeholder process? And what lessons can we draw from the multi-stakeholder community as to how we need to adapt the current process, including particularly the IGF itself? What will be the impact on ICANN? Although they will of course be leading as well in those technical discussions. And what else, particularly what new stakeholders do we need to bring into the discussion? And that’s very much why we are here launching this discussion here at the IGF. We hope to have good input into the next IGF in Norway, and not as a sidebar, but as part of this consideration and why we really appreciate everybody’s input to this discussion. That’s… Noah’s back. As you all know, we have the WSIS plus 20 process at the end of next year. And we believe that that process should be looking not necessarily at architectures, because we believe that the current architecture is the right one, but actually looking forward. What are the new challenges that the multi-stakeholder process needs to address? What does that mean in terms of stakeholders? What configurations do we need? How does the IGF and others, other for that need to adapt? Starting from the technical layer, we have representative from the IETF in the room, all the way up to the service layer, the applications layer, and then the governance principles as such with regard to protection of the individual and society and other securities. So these are issues which we wish to hear from you. This will help us in our thinking, but also we feel should help to give a good input collectively to the WSIS process and build then the basis for work beyond next year in these fora for actually working it out. And here we rely on your input. We, of course, maintain the same values that have driven collectively our work in the past on internet governance. Maybe I could say digital governance, but that in itself is a political discussion which we won’t get into today. But it is really to ensure that as these new technologies come on, that those principles of open, secure, inclusive, and accessible… internet technologies remains the basis for all the work that we do and that we actually are able to anticipate challenges there will be, not least the fact that new technologies are moving so fast and we have to keep up with that. Others may otherwise step in. In the past we’ve had various bogeymen in the internet governance world. At first it was the bogeymen of the huge global company controlling everything and everybody. More recently it’s been the bogeymen of governments and states who want to control the internet and control their citizens on the internet. Whatever about those rather stereotypical extreme cases, what we do know is that the technology is itself presenting us with challenges and we need to talk about it. We need not be afraid of discussing it so that we are actually ahead of the curve. With that therefore I am very happy to to hand over to our moderator for this session. Thank you for being with us. That’s Barbara Kudzmanaiti who will now present herself and the panel. Thank you so much.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you so much Piers for the opening remarks and thank you for initiating the session. Hello everyone, thank you for everyone joining us in the room and those connecting online. I hope you can hear us and be with us throughout the discussion. With the increasing maturity of technologies enabling virtual worlds and the evolution of the internet towards web 4.0, it is important to kick-start this conversation about how we can ensure that this development takes place in an inclusive ethical way while also preserving very much the global and open nature of the internet as Piers just reiterated. I cannot wait to deep dive with my panel members to discuss these questions around approaching web 4.0, what challenges that raises and what opportunities that raises and what also this means for how we approach the governance of the next generation. of the internet and virtual worlds. So to kickstart, maybe a bit of who’s who in the room here today and with us online. I am Barbara Kuzmanita, I’m a research manager at BPMI and we are supporting European Commission’s work on this Web 4.0 and virtual worlds governance initiative. And if you wanna chat more about what we’re doing to support the European Commission, I will be very happy to talk to you also after the session and happy to answer any questions in that regard. And today I’m joined by a fantastic panel of panelists from across the world. So to start with us here in the room, we have Professor Toshio Obi, who is Professor Emeritus and Advisor for CEDAW University, also Advisor of IT Secretary General for Academia and Chair for CEDAW Project on Silver Innovation. So several titles and thank you so much for being us here today. Online joining us, we have Ms. Sarah Nicole, who is a Senior Policy and Research Associate at Project Liberty, where she focuses on technical and academic governance frameworks. And next to me, I have sitting Mr. Israel Rosas, who’s a Director of Partnerships and Internet Development at the Internet Society. Across myself, I have Mr. Rafal Kornacki, who’s a Director of the International Cooperation Department of the Minister of Digital Affairs of Poland. So thank you for being with us here today. And online, let me check if we have joining us, we should have Mr. Raymond Selormamata, who is a Founder and President of e-Governance and Internet Governance Foundation for Africa. So I will just look a little bit at the screen to cross-check that Mr. Mamata managed to connect and is able to be with us here today. I see some shaking, so in case Mr. Mamata manages to come back, we will welcome him into the panel as well. And finally, we have Mr. Pierce O’Donohue, Director for the Future Networks, Director of DigiConnect European. and commission. So as a researcher, I have a lot of questions that I cannot wait to unpack together with you going forward. Maybe just a quick format on format, we’ll have roughly three, four minutes per remarks, and we have some time at the end for questions for anyone in the room to have a chance to speak up. So please reflect as we discussed on any questions you might have. So to start, I would like to explore a little bit the why of the governance equation, why in the first place, it’s important to talk about the governance of Thought4.0 and virtual worlds, and how will emerging technologies that are also already quite maturing, like AI blockchain, virtual and extended reality, but also quantum computing, as Piers was mentioning, might reshape or influence the evolution of Thought4.0 governance. So to start, Rafał Kownacki, please, the floor is yours.

Rafał Kownacki: Thank you very much. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you, the host, for having me in here. It’s such a pleasure and honour to be the part of the panel with so many people all around the globe who are really experts in the field. So very concrete to the point. From the point of view of the government, I believe any democratic government, internet governance nowadays is a kind of a stable, but still evolving environment with already well-established global institutions, and which is quite important, multi-stakeholder model, kind of strong one. That’s why we are all here. And this is IGF is just the proof that we are already in the very democratic environment. So of course, it’s nothing new, like to try for the very new occasion to manage or plan to manage the requirements for the new era of internet. However, of course, the advent of 4.0 internet, web 4.0, it presents both and of course, the threats, the opportunities. And of course, we have a long list of questions, whether the current system of existing Internet governance is ready for this new, maybe not revolution, but evolution to the next generation of Internet. When we consider the previous Internet revolutions we already observed, Web 4.0 can significantly impact I would believe that most of the aspects of our lives, lives in terms of daily routine lives, domestic lives, but also in international sphere. So discussing and the urgence to discuss the governance is crucial. It’s quite crucial just to steer technological development towards transparency, which is the first, inclusiveness, which is the second, and accountability. I believe those three are the pillars. So by anticipating technological changes, we should ensure that this evolution of the Internet is guided in a way that it prevents Internet, but of course most of all the users of Internet from being divided into different categories of virtual users, of different words managed by rules, imposed by some entities, not guaranteeing the equity and not guaranteeing the equality of all the users and all the governments, all the stakeholders from all around the globe. So of course when we think about opportunities, what Web 4.0 can bring to the world, of course first of all I think about education. So remote learning, even more developed one, training, medicine, entertainment. infrastructure development and of course which is quite important nowadays so natural resource management, it should bring the positive. Of course one of the very most positive opportunities is the creation of virtual twins of real world objects and it can of course improve operational efficiency, safety and skill and development across various sectors with medicine as the priority I would say but also there are many factors which are quite maybe not pessimistic but they’re post threats. So first of all we should try to make an efficient way to exclude the chance or the risk for any social exclusion and of course any disparity in access to information and education. It should be the priority for all the governments. We should try to establish new set of rules fighting against crime in virtual spaces with regards to all the new aspects of web 4.0. Also the use of or misuse rather of biometric data, mental health issues also should be kind of important for all the governments and all the stakeholders. When we think about addressing those issues, those threats, we need to have in mind, bear in mind that it requires a multi-sided approach. So it should include ensuring data security and privacy, it should enhance cyber security, it should be based on a deep analysis of societal impacts and of course which we can’t forget. are quite important to protect miners, so underage users. The evolution of Web 4.0, it will be likely influenced by emerging technologies. It’s quite obvious, such as AI, blockchain, virtual and extended reality, quantum computing, which was already mentioned. So the governance of Web 4.0, it will need to evolve into even more transparent and participatory model than nowadays we do have. The example I can give is the integration of AI and quantum computing, which will raise ethical questions about surveillance, data use and privacy. So governance framework, it will need to establish clear policies for protecting user rights, to ensure transparency, especially of AI systems and to handle ethical dilemmas around automation. The governance of this new kind of internet will need to ensure that these technologies can interoperate seamlessly while maintaining user control over the data. Summarizing, because I wouldn’t just to use over my time of three minutes. So Web 4.0 governance will need to be flexible, adaptive and transparent. It should incorporate input from a wide range of stakeholders and for sure it must balance the potential benefits, benefits of emerging technologies. The one I mentioned, AI, blockchain, XR, quantum computing, we’ve the need, which is the most important, we’ve the need to protect individual rights. privacy, security in this very complex new digital ecosystem. So I would say that’s all for now. Thank you.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you very much for sharing your views. And indeed, we see with Web 4.0, it is indeed all about creating this really immersive real time through the environments. And already these days, we’re talking a lot about in the forum as well about children’s safety online. So of course, all of these issues extend to these very much immersive environments. You already alluded to some of the things of the what and the how. We will be coming back to those as well as we proceed with our panel. I will just do a last check whether Mr. Ramon Mamatai is with us, just to cross check if we have him online. In that case, I will turn to my colleague next to me, Israel Rosas, from the Internet Society to still take a look at the why question a little bit further, maybe from also this technical perspective, why we need to talk about governance of Web 4.0. So looking at the evolution towards Web 4.0. Hi. Hello? Unfortunately, it seems it’s difficult to have Mr. Mamatai with us. So then back to Israel Rosas. Looking at the evolution towards Web 4.0, does the existing core internet architecture provide a sufficient foundation to accommodate the needs and complexities of Web 4.0?

Israel Rosas: Well, thank you very much. First of all, I want to thank for the invitation. I think this is the right way of discussing new topics in which we have the opportunity to have a voice in the conversation. At the Internet Society, we are following up with a lot of attention these developments. We understand the general idea behind what it is mentioned as Web 4.0, but we would like to know more details. details on the specific, like what kind of applications would be deployed. We’ve seen that in general, the internet has been developed since the early beginning as a technology neutral, a general purpose network is this collection of networks, more than 70,000 networks interconnected, exchanging information. That core infrastructure has been flexible enough to accommodate needs all over the decades. We’ve seen the different applications, different services being deployed. And that’s why we are interested in these debates because as of now, it is really difficult to understand, for instance, what are going to be the border cases in which some of these developments, we will need to be tackled from a different point of view in technical debates. In general, what we are seeing is that the internet has a group of critical properties that permit that the internet exists and thrives. And that’s the key issue at play. Any new development, either technological, political, social, business should be assessed to identify whether it impacts these critical properties of the internet, because in some cases, we’ve seen that there are some unintended consequences when some new proposals are being put out there. So I think this is the right configuration to have opportunity for all stakeholders to participate. We’ve seen that there are diverse mechanisms within the technical community to address new challenges. For instance, the ITF has open bottom-up processes where all people can participate, can propose new solutions, can test new solutions, receive feedback on the feasibility of these developments. So in general terms, we are interested in how these conversations are progressing. and just to keep understanding better what are going to be the concrete implications for the internet. So it’s difficult to have like a concrete answer right now, but we are willing to keep engaged in the conversation, keep informed other stakeholders, but also hearing from other stakeholders.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you very much. So just to summarize in short, it’s important to assess any new developments and their impacts on the internet going forward. I will turn now to what I understand, and we have Mr. Mamata with us online. So I will also ask again this why question, but maybe more from the global community as well. Looking globally, why is it important to talk about the governance of the evolution towards Web 4.0? Mamata, looking forward to hear your perspectives. Unfortunately, it still seems there is an internet connection issue. So I will then move on to the what, so talk a little bit about the foundational principles that we can have in mind as we look to the future of the increasing immersion and real-life experiences. And we heard a little bit on why we need to talk about this. So I would like to turn to Sarah Nicole. So what we just heard of some of these challenges and opportunities you must keep in mind, and also the importance of doing this impact as assessing the impacts on the internet. What do you see as some of the foundational values and principles that should underpin the governance of Web 4.0 and this evolution towards increasingly immersive virtual environments?

Sarah Nicole: Thank you for the invitation. I hope you can hear me well. There’s never a discussion over the internet. that do not encounter technical problems. So this is just the normal state of things. I generally agree with everything that’s been said. So let me give you my two cents and push this a little bit further. So while we have hundreds of national, regional, international frameworks, foundational value that are fit for the digital age, or that are even prior to the digital age, like the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, we have always struggled to apply them effectively. And I believe we will certainly do so when we’re 4.0 and virtual worlds. Every time there’s a new technology breakthrough, we always ask the same question, how we should preserve privacy, transparency, accessibility, and so on. And this might be because the main issue lies primarily in the business model of the digital platform, allowing us to interact online and the lack of alternative business model as well. So I think that adding more values and more principle is not the exact solution and would not be constructive to this discussion. I’d rather think that there needs to be a shift and rethink of how we’re conceiving the place of individuals in the digital world by giving them rights and control over their data. And at Project Liberty, we believe in three things mostly. We believe that we should give people voice in the governance of the spaces they log into every day, over their individual experience online, expended opportunity to manage also their data. And the third is a stake in the value created by their own data. And this might be the first step towards a fair data economy that is characterized by competition, innovation, instead of a few monopolies that are capturing people’s data. In virtual world, in a web 4.0, the data generation will be even more important than in our current two-dimensional digital services as interaction will need to be seamless, we’ve said it, and there needs to be actual immersiveness. So this is therefore crucial to have this rethinking before we get into this very moment of even more extensive data collection. And for effective governance, we will need to have a new business model centered around data agency for individual. We need to think of governance and business model as going hand in hand. And this is the effort that we are leading at Project Liberty Institute by focusing both on governance and especially the governance of a protocol that we steward, an open source and decentralized protocol that is called the DSNP, the Decentralized Social Networking Protocol. It’s a protocol that allows users to have more control over their data. We have over a million users on it now. And by focusing also on building a fair data economy, and we did that through a research effort with key leaders, including the latest economy Nobel Prize, Darren Oshimoglu, where we focused on four main areas of action, digital infrastructure solution, new business model, strategy, capital allocation, and policy framework. So for Web 4.0 and virtual world to truly thrive, they must embrace the shift towards user centricity, supported by innovative business model that enabled multi-stakeholder, bottom-up and transparent governance framework. But one last thing about this bottom-up and multi-stakeholder approach, I wanted to always highlight the European citizen panel on virtual world that took place, I think two years ago. I was invited as an expert for a full day and talking to over 150 randomly selected EU citizen that were asked to design the approach to virtual world. It led to recommendation among which I believe there was eight fundamental principle for ethical development of virtual world. And I believe these principles should be kept as they were brought by. all of us, they were brought by citizens that represent us. And I believe also that this concept of the citizen panel is key in the process of making policy and bringing ethics to digital innovation. Thank you.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you, Sarah, for these very timely remarks. Indeed, one note is on the competition in virtual worlds. And maybe if I can summarize a bit that we should also really focus on end users as users rather than consumers in these environments. And also mention of the citizen panel. Indeed, we have end users, users. And they should also drive the principles that shape these environments going forward. I would also now turn to Professor Toshio Obi to further maybe elaborate a little bit on these principles that can guide this user human-centric virtual environment. In these environments, we heard a lot of mentions of data, the importance of privacy. Could you share also a little bit more from your perspective and research how might privacy involve in these more immersive environments? And how can we further protect the rights of the users of these spaces?

Toshio Obi: Hello? Who’s speaking on? Thank you very much for a very interesting talk. And frankly speaking, I’m not European. I’m Japanese. And I thank you for attending KOTO Japan IGF last year. Whatever we are talking about the next generation of the internet, I think we are really concerned with the multistakeholders. My issue is very, very clear. Multistakeholder has two different aspects. One is the more so-called the… government, business, civil society, academia issues, and another one is the more global issues like Europe and Asia and Africa and some other continent and I’m talking about the later one because Asia is a very very vast territories starting from South Pacific to Saudi Arabia is Asia so what we should do is Asia we call the in terms of the GDP it’s almost a half of the world GDP belong to Asia also population is all China, India, Indonesia, Japan, we have Pakistan they have a huge populations so what we should cooperate with European Unions I think the Asia group need a platform to work with European Unions and you did in the Kyoto meetings last year and this year we have a very interesting talk so-called wave 4.0 it’s quite an important transition to so-called the metaverse in the future so in other sessions so just I listen to AI issues and some other sessions talking about children’s human rights on so one stakeholder is really a big one. So this issue might be so-called European Union, EU-oriented programs. And I think Japan can, or Asia as a whole, might be very interested in working with you, the European Union. That’s one thing which I should say. And the second one is I’m the policy professor of the Japanese universities and policy advisor to NTT, which somebody told about. So between academia and business, we need more collaborations. Somebody said PPP. That’s very good. And the third one is the sustainabilities. And this project or program called Wave 4.0 might continue as sustainabilities for another five, six years to complete our missions. So please consider the Asia is a part of these programs and how we can work together. No, that is my comment first. Okay.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you very much, Professor Obi. I think this is actually a very timely transition, more to the question of how, how we can work together on approaching this next evolution of the web and how we can work together to guide and govern these, approach the governance of these immersive environments. So I would turn back to maybe Piers O’Donohue to reflect a little bit on how can we work together in this multi-stakeholder approach to best address the governance needs of that 4.0. Thank you very much.

Pearse O’Donohue: Well, first of all, it’s by listening to informed speakers, such as we have today. No, genuinely, this is the process that we have to go through. So I was actually very attracted to the brief model that Israel said that, first of all, we have to, with those who are informed, but with different perspectives, analyze whether a given technology or a given advance is a risk or presents a threat, in other words, it’s a challenge to then best assess how we go about addressing it. And in that context, then listening very carefully to what Sarah had to say, taking the user very much into account and introducing, I know that these terms have been fought over, but what we would consider to be a human centric approach. It seems a given that when we are talking about technologies, which will be to the point of being invasive, they will surround the individual or have the potential to do so and will not be a two dimensional interface, but a 3D, 360 degree interface, where because of the nature of some of the technologies, it might not be possible to put on mute. If you wish to have a private conversation and where the sensors are not tracking you, there will be devices which look at biorhythms and other bodily measurements, as well as being able to hear your environment. So the nature of that technological advance, while we’ve talked about protection of data, personal data for a long time, it’s a whole new thing. And therefore, the human centricity, the focus on the user, giving control to the user, which I also heard from Sarah, is very important. And then it’s a question, as I’ve said, of saying, right, these are the challenges. these are the strong, the principles which we have to either introduce or in this case with the human centricity strengthen and as I’ve said not then design something totally new but with those challenges look at how we need to develop and advance with regard to the internet governance processes that we have. Are they appropriate? Are they fit for purpose? Do they bring the right people to the table? Do they put the right focus? And also are we not talking about theoretical problems if for example it turns out that the technology is not a problem or let’s not forget maybe we already have the solution. Maybe the technical community has provided a solution and we just need to know about it and it needs to be properly implemented or properly mandated. It might be voluntary codes which with the evolution of technology have to become something that are more mandatory in order to protect the individual or protect society and so on. So it’s that ability to look around what we have and what we need and I just go back my conclusion to that point is again once more to stress that this involves talking with one another. Professor Obi this is not a European centric analysis. We are doing a work because we feel it’s very important in Europe but we feel that every region is challenged. We will need to work together to address it. If we believe in a global internet we have to have a global solution and we hope to learn from what others have done. But I was nevertheless flattered that Sarah referred to the citizen dialogue that we have. That is again how we felt from the outset before we even issued a policy statement as to how we were to address virtual worlds going forward. We entered into negotiation with stakeholders and citizens and we will continue to do so and we hope that everyone will engage in that process as well. Thank you.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you very much for these remarks. I will start now a little bit jumping around to kind of explore further this question of how we can work together and how we can harness of us all being here today to reflect on this multi-stakeholder approach and how we can position this discussion within that. Sorry, Nicole, I saw you nodding quite actively. So I will, I will jump on that if maybe you have something further to reflect on and add to what Pierce, I don’t know who was saying.

Sarah Nicole: Yeah, I fully agree with one part of your comment, which is about sometimes the technology already exists. It’s already available. The problem, and especially when we talk about virtual world and social media spaces, basically is the problem of network effect. The big players will keep on having the users because they just have everything already in place. And so whatever is the new digital innovation, and we’ve seen this with AI, these big players will keep on, on, on gathering the users, despite having some technology that is more privacy enhancing, and that could be better for users. And I think this is where policy gets into place. This is where framework gets into place of recommending, for instance, that future digital infrastructure should be based on open source protocols, that it cannot be proprietary. And I feel like, as a general community, we’ve given too much importance to self-regulation by those big tech. And there was, I think, in 2023, the White House voluntary AI commitment. And this is essentially letting this company write the exam by which it will be evaluated. And the result is that today, most of AI system and large language model are still very opaque. There’s still black boxes, and there’s no transparency in the audit is very complicated. And so it’s the same for virtual world, right? There was back in 2021, this video by Meta to advertise for their for their metaverse where it was the vice president of the division that was featured in this video and he said if you were to be harassed in the metaverse, well we could give you superpower, like you could create a bubble so you cannot be harassed anymore. And I think this is the kind of comment that we precisely need to focus on and find alternative trust and safety framework for effective regulation because we cannot let those private company with mostly for-profit motives be in power for what they define as a public square.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you for sharing. I think indeed the list of things we need to explore, we need to research is growing increasingly long as well. I will turn to also Mr. Rafal Kovnatsky to maybe also reflect a little bit on this. How can we work together? How can we learn from each other? Also not just in Europe but also globally. How can we harness this multicultural approach to discuss virtual

Rafał Kownacki: worlds and 4.0? Thank you once again for the question. So I would like to thank Professor Obi just mentioning that we are not only EU oriented in here in this room. So what I say, it goes beyond the European Union. I’m proud to represent one of the member states of the EU but what I really believe can answer your question should be also covering all the possibilities all around the globe from the governmental point of view. So I believe that this governance framework we need to establish, it should be based on clear rules. So I would once again emphasize how important is transparency? How important is protection of user rights? How important are both of them with regard to artificial intelligence? So we would like to by law but also by practice and by collaborative cooperation between all the stakeholders answered to the need to face some moral ethical dilemmas. Of course, at the moment we have been already facing those issues not only in the EU but in many states all around the globe. Luckily, in European Union we already established some legislation, just say a few like to some extent DMA, of course DSA, AI Act, so we already have got some regulation of online platforms, how to moderate their practices and of course with regard to moderation it is really important to emphasize how crucial it is to ensure the user that with regard to artificial intelligence they are not based, their situation is not based on the decision of AI itself but they have got the rights to appeal to the human being. So of course this is quite important, I believe we should have the same protocol all around the globe that AI is never the last resort, so there is always this right to appeal to the human being. I wouldn’t mention because we have no time but only say a word that already we have trialed in many countries not only in EU but also in states of the of the United States some procedures within judicial system, so we have the countries where you can just sue anybody and go to the court and the court wouldn’t hear you but AI would hear you on behalf of the court but still in all those soils you you have the right to appeal to the human being. So I believe that this protocol is quite crucial. The other issue quite important is the integration of artificial intelligence and quantum computing. And in case of governance frameworks, of course, it will raise several issues like devices which enable access to visual words, they possess a huge threat as a new attack, potential attack vector. So we need to bear in mind that with virtual twins, digital replicas of real world objects, they are quite obviously new potential targets. So high level of cybersecurity based on private public cooperation, private public sectors cooperation is quite important. It’s really essential, especially for the meta versus viability. There is a lack of comprehensive analysis, I would say, unfortunately, on the societal impact of virtual words, I would say real life societal impact, but it’s really important to continue the works and research to investigate the addictive potential, which is the first. Threats and specifically among vulnerable groups. Minors are, I would say the target group number one, which is also important to virtual words must be supervised from the outset to protect all the minors for all the kinds of usage. Some studies we’ve already faced with the results of them indicate that existing, already existing platforms contain numerous inappropriate contents for users under 18. with inadequate access restrictions and moderation. Of course, in EU, we have more strict rules, but in many, many places all around the globe, it wasn’t still applies. In case of data, okay, so summing up, summing up of web 4.0 governance, we will need to have, we will need to evolve towards a more transparent and participatory model because of the technologies and the nature of them itself, and building on principles that address this risk and challenges of virtual worlds in web 4.0 requires a multi-faceted approach. So let me summarize with once again, prioritizing data security, privacy, enhancing cybersecurity, analyzing societal impacts, protecting underage users as crucial steps we need to go and establish all around the globe. Thank you.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you very much. I will also turn back again to Mr. Israel Rosas. You mentioned this important point about internet impact assessments. Hearing what we just, discussing what we just heard on the importance of this transparent and participatory approach, how can then the multi-stakeholder internet governance approach best address the governance of web 4.0?

Israel Rosas: Well, thank you. I, and I was pleased in hearing that this openness to go and discuss these topics with different parts of the community, because in some cases, I believe that when we see some tensions and some opportunities, the trend is to jump directly into the solution mindset and come and try to gather all the stakeholders to discuss how to solve a problem and going ahead. But the multi-stakeholder approach. also includes gathering the stakeholders to determine if effectively there’s a problem or not, if effectively there’s something broken or not, because in many cases, as you mentioned, there are already working solutions. And then it’s easier to go, for instance, to the ATF and to see what are those building blocks that are working, why those voluntarily adopted protocols and technologies are voluntarily adopted, and to have that conversation. That’s important, because at the end of the day, we are defending these technical, critical properties of the Internet, because they are the ones that are enabling that the Internet is a force for good, that is available to adapt, to evolve, to accommodate new applications, technologies, services, no matter the name, they are grouped. So in general terms, we are advocating for bottom-up processes with collaboration, with transparency, with accountability, with full inclusion of all stakeholders, because all of the stakeholders have a specific set of knowledge and expertise that is needed to inform these decisions. The technical community has a concrete set of expertise, but it’s the same with the other stakeholders. And that’s why it’s important that these kind of collaborative, open conversations are still happening to assess the best way forward.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you. Maybe to borrow from what Rafal was saying, let’s not jump to a revolution when maybe it’s an evolution of things, and we can work with the stakeholders to discuss and identify approaches together. I will call back to Professor Obie as well, maybe to share a little bit, lessons if any, on existing approaches and how we can work again to better govern emerging technologies in Web 4.0 and virtual worlds.

Toshio Obi: Yes, thank you very much. And since we have very limited time, seven minutes, I can say as a professor of the universities, we need more attention to so-called the capacity building, human resource development for this issue. Because Japan, China, India, Indonesia, ASEAN and the Middle East, we call the Asia. Quite number of the population is behind, left behind already. So European Union group, is your so-called the, what do you call, the horizontal societies, very close to a level of the humanities. And we, Asia, from Japan, Singapore, Korea, you see a quite high level of the well-beings, but we have more than 10, so-called the less developed countries. I should not mention the name, but, so how we can, so-called the, what do you call, transformation to a metaverse, or on the way, the Wave 4.0. But we are confusing the concept of Wave 4.0, simply because you had Wave 3.0, and you have Industrial 4.0, and how they can link to each others for the future internet societies. That’s Asian people is wonderings, and… I think Pierre might answer very quickly about it. And also, I really enjoy listening to, how do you pronounce, Rafa, Rafa, okay, yeah, about the future of the European Union itself, because Poland is the next presidency of the EU, and Norway will be next IGF. So it’s really good time for European Union to consolidate or more attention to wave 4.0. So just I can say from a Japanese perspective, this is the best stage right now, the Saudi to Norway of the IGF. That’s my final comment.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you very much. We are running shortly out of time, so I would also like to turn to the audience if there are any questions in the room, looking at WAP 4.0. All right, we have two questions.

Sandra Hoferichter: Hello, my name is Sandra Hoferichter from Eurodig, which is the European IGF. Not a question, but a comment. When you talk about stakeholder inclusion, although I’m not anymore, I strongly suggest to involve youth in a meaningful manner. We just had today a very good session about youth participation where it was mentioned that you really involve them by involving also drafting policy. And I know that it’s sometimes hard because they are changing so quickly from one place to another, but I think it’s worth the effort. because not because only if it’s that it’s their future they might have a totally fresh look on all this and give a really good input on on all these things and might even come up with creative

Abdulla Al Hamed: solutions that others might not think of. Hi good afternoon this is Abdulla Al Hamed from Intermid. I believe while we are discussing so many areas in web 4.0 in terms of regulations or policies or strategies I believe the private sector have already moved super forward in so many areas including academia and research. So what we need to do is to pay more attention towards what’s going on in the industry capture those things and then see how can we treat them similar to some other industries like the fintech and others. So web 4.0 should be driven by innovation and youth and we should capture those things and then see how can we really enhance the experience for every user. Thank you. So the importance of innovation and youth involvement

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: maybe any reactions and we have a final question as well. All right go ahead and then we can maybe respond together. Yeah so I just had a couple of comments. First I’m very heartened by what I heard

Audience: in the panel which is this human-centered focus on internet connectivity but I’ll say as a member of the technical community I have a number of questions and I think that I really very much appreciate the multi-stakeholder consultation that’s that’s happening here. Do we really need to unpack some of the scopes here about what is the focus of what we’re talking about? I’ll just observe from the technical community the word web and the internet are not interchangeable and they mean very different things and it’s you know it leaves me wondering are other internet applications in scope here or are they not and then because we’re borrowing words from the technical community about versioning the web which is which is a little bit challenges that typically involves breaking changes and I hope what we’re not talking about is we have an internet today and tomorrow we have a different internet because typically when we involve the internet architecture it’s an evolution because we certainly wouldn’t want to risk disconnecting the five billion users already on the internet. We want to incrementally give them more capability and kind of more

Pearse O’Donohue: protections. Thank you very much. Pearse perhaps you can start. Yeah those are very good very good points. First of all, yes, when I talked about multi-stakeholder consultation we wanted to be inclusive, so including groups. The weakness that we’ve identified is particularly the barriers to representation of stakeholder groups from the Global South and from developing countries, which we really must work on. But also then the point was made about industry innovation. It’s the same thing as if there’s a solution there already, maybe a solution which can be quickly adapted to a new challenge, then we should look at that and not reinvent the wheel. And finally, I will apologise. As I said at the start, we started talking about virtual worlds because it was a very large company which had part of the word metaverse in its name and we didn’t want to confuse people too much. We have played very fast and loose with Web 4.0, partly because we wanted to differentiate from Web 3.0 the things that are going to happen, which maybe you, the technicians, will help us to understand will be absorbed into that architecture. There shouldn’t be a break, and certainly we’re not trying to break. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It’s one of the new challenges. So it’s just to get understanding, maybe to grab attention as well, that we have spoken in these terms. But we have had serious discussions already over a number of years about, even though we thought it was part of 3.0, what hasn’t been delivered under Web 3.0? But that’s another conversation. So I’m very happy that we’ve got your attention, because we really need your participation. Thank you.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: The organizers of the panel will not send very angry stares at me. I have a final question I’d like to ask from the chat. That was raised by Mokabedi from Iranian academic community, and it’s a bit long so I will try to read it in full. The existing internet governance system is not sufficient to respond to the policy issues related to data, domain name, safety, health, common infrastructure content, and requires the adoption of a comprehensive approach and a new architecture. So can the smart combination of a multilateral governance model plus multi-stakeholder consultation model be appropriate here? Can the model of the International Aviation Organization, for example, be a good example to ensure this legality, health and safety of cyberspace in the new generation of the web? Any takers on this reflection? Maybe Israel, I’m looking at you.

Israel Rosas: Yeah. Just quickly. I don’t know the framework that this person is referring to, but I think that we will need like an additional session to discuss whether the framework is working or not. Because in general, governments are part of the multi-stakeholder approach. So I think it’s like a longer conversation.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: It’s a longer conversation. I think a lot of which we’re hearing around this week at IGF as well. So thank you very much for your responses. I see we have out of time. So maybe I’ll just hand over to Piers and on a final future looking remark on the road ahead.

Pearse O’Donohue: Well, thank you, Barbara. And thank you to all the speakers. Part of a process of consultation and one which we hope to continue. So we look to your forward participation. And on that piece of unabashed publicity, but taking this part, do you see as, no, you’re not hearing me. Okay. How’s that now? Is that working? I’ll. National food. Conference. Time. It’s the conference on the 31st of March and the 1st of April in Brussels, which is on this exact theme. And we would really like to have as much participation as possible. We’ll be examining the possibility for offsite participation as well, but it is really to continue and dig deeper on some of these issues. One hour is not enough time. Some big questions have been asked. So we really need to have a full discussion, which we then hope to feed back into the IGF in Norway. This is part of the multi-stakeholder process. This is not building new paths. This is to feed back in, as I said, intersessional work. So with that, just to say that we’ve put the issues on the table, but we need to listen to what others think as to whether they are the right issues and what are the possible solutions to them as this technology rolls out. Thank you to everyone. Thank you to the speakers. And thank you, Barbara, for your time. And I hope that everyone has a great IGF. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.

Agreement Points

Need for multi-stakeholder, transparent and participatory governance model

Rafal Kownacki

Israel Rosas

Pearse O’Donohue

Multi-stakeholder, transparent and participatory model needed

Bottom-up processes with collaboration of all stakeholders

We are not in the business of building new fora. We are not in the business of creating new structures.

Speakers agree on the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach that is transparent, participatory, and involves bottom-up processes for Web 4.0 governance.

Importance of user-centric approach and data protection

Sarah Nicole

Pearse O’Donohue

Rafal Kownacki

Importance of user-centric approach and data agency for individuals

Invasive nature of immersive technologies requires stronger user protections

Focus on transparency, inclusiveness and accountability

Speakers emphasize the need for a user-centric approach in Web 4.0 governance, focusing on data protection, user rights, and privacy in immersive environments.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of assessing the impact of new technologies on the existing internet infrastructure and the need for global cooperation in addressing these challenges.

Israel Rosas

Pearse O’Donohue

Need to assess impacts of new developments on core internet properties

We are doing a work because we feel it’s very important in Europe but we feel that every region is challenged. We will need to work together to address it.

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of youth involvement in governance

Sandra Hoferichter

Abdulla Al Hamed

Youth involvement crucial for fresh perspectives

Private sector innovation should inform governance

While coming from different perspectives (civil society and private sector), both speakers unexpectedly agree on the importance of involving youth and fresh perspectives in Web 4.0 governance.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the need for a multi-stakeholder, transparent, and participatory governance model, the importance of a user-centric approach with strong data protection, and the necessity of assessing the impact of new technologies on existing internet infrastructure.

Consensus level

There is a moderate level of consensus among the speakers on the fundamental principles of Web 4.0 governance. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the challenges and potential approaches, which could facilitate the development of coherent governance frameworks. However, there are still varying perspectives on specific implementation details and regional considerations, indicating the need for further dialogue and collaboration.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to governance of Web 4.0

Rafal Kownacki

Israel Rosas

Multi-stakeholder, transparent and participatory model needed

Existing internet governance may not be sufficient for Web 4.0 complexities

While Kownacki advocates for a multi-stakeholder, transparent and participatory model for Web 4.0 governance, Rosas suggests that the existing internet governance system may not be sufficient to address the complexities of Web 4.0, implying a need for a potentially different approach.

Unexpected Differences

Scope of Web 4.0 governance discussions

Pearse O’Donohue

Audience

Invasive nature of immersive technologies requires stronger user protections

Clarify scope and avoid disrupting existing internet architecture

While O’Donohue focuses on the need for stronger protections due to the invasive nature of Web 4.0 technologies, an audience member unexpectedly raises concerns about the scope of the discussion and the potential disruption to existing internet architecture. This highlights a tension between addressing new challenges and maintaining the stability of current systems.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the approach to Web 4.0 governance, the balance between user protection and innovation, and the scope of governance discussions.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is moderate. While there is general consensus on the need for governance of Web 4.0 and virtual worlds, speakers differ on the specific approaches and priorities. These differences highlight the complexity of the issue and the need for further dialogue to develop a comprehensive governance framework that addresses various stakeholder concerns.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for stronger user protections in Web 4.0 environments, but they differ in their proposed solutions. Nicole emphasizes giving users control over their data and a stake in its value, while O’Donohue focuses on the need for stronger protections due to the invasive nature of the technologies.

Sarah Nicole

Pearse O’Donohue

Importance of user-centric approach and data agency for individuals

Invasive nature of immersive technologies requires stronger user protections

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of assessing the impact of new technologies on the existing internet infrastructure and the need for global cooperation in addressing these challenges.

Israel Rosas

Pearse O’Donohue

Need to assess impacts of new developments on core internet properties

We are doing a work because we feel it’s very important in Europe but we feel that every region is challenged. We will need to work together to address it.

Key Takeaways

There is a need for governance of Web 4.0 and virtual worlds due to new challenges around privacy, user rights, and data protection in immersive environments

A multi-stakeholder, transparent and participatory approach is crucial for developing Web 4.0 governance

Governance should focus on user-centric principles, data agency for individuals, and open protocols rather than self-regulation by big tech companies

Global cooperation, especially between regions like EU and Asia, is important for addressing Web 4.0 governance challenges

Existing internet architecture and governance models may need to evolve to accommodate Web 4.0, but should build on current foundations rather than creating entirely new systems

Resolutions and Action Items

European Commission to host a conference on March 31-April 1 in Brussels to further discuss Web 4.0 governance issues

Outcomes from this discussion to be fed into the next IGF meeting in Norway

Unresolved Issues

Specific technical details of how Web 4.0 will impact internet architecture

How to effectively include stakeholders from the Global South in governance discussions

Balancing innovation from private sector with need for regulation

Clarifying the scope of ‘Web 4.0’ vs internet more broadly in governance discussions

Suggested Compromises

Using existing technical solutions and protocols where possible rather than creating entirely new systems

Combining multilateral governance models with multi-stakeholder consultation approaches

Web 4.0 governance will need to be flexible, adaptive and transparent. It should incorporate input from a wide range of stakeholders and for sure it must balance the potential benefits of emerging technologies with the need to protect individual rights, privacy, security in this very complex new digital ecosystem.

speaker

Rafal Kownacki

reason

This comment succinctly captures the key challenges and requirements for governing Web 4.0, emphasizing the need for balance between innovation and protection.

impact

It set the tone for much of the subsequent discussion around multi-stakeholder approaches and the need to protect individual rights in virtual environments.

Any new development, either technological, political, social, business should be assessed to identify whether it impacts these critical properties of the internet, because in some cases, we’ve seen that there are some unintended consequences when some new proposals are being put out there.

speaker

Israel Rosas

reason

This comment highlights the importance of carefully evaluating new developments in terms of their impact on the internet’s core properties, introducing a cautious and analytical approach.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards a more measured approach to innovation, emphasizing the need to preserve the internet’s fundamental characteristics.

I’d rather think that there needs to be a shift and rethink of how we’re conceiving the place of individuals in the digital world by giving them rights and control over their data.

speaker

Sarah Nicole

reason

This comment introduces a paradigm shift in thinking about user rights and data control in the digital world, moving beyond just adding more principles.

impact

It sparked discussion about user-centric approaches and the need for new business models centered around data agency for individuals.

If we believe in a global internet we have to have a global solution and we hope to learn from what others have done.

speaker

Pearse O’Donohue

reason

This comment emphasizes the need for global collaboration in addressing internet governance challenges, moving beyond regional perspectives.

impact

It broadened the scope of the discussion to include global perspectives and collaboration, particularly in response to Professor Obi’s comments about including Asian perspectives.

The multi-stakeholder approach also includes gathering the stakeholders to determine if effectively there’s a problem or not, if effectively there’s something broken or not, because in many cases, as you mentioned, there are already working solutions.

speaker

Israel Rosas

reason

This comment provides a nuanced view of the multi-stakeholder approach, emphasizing the importance of problem identification before solution-seeking.

impact

It led to a more critical examination of whether new governance structures are needed or if existing solutions can be adapted.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by emphasizing the need for a flexible, transparent, and globally inclusive approach to Web 4.0 governance. They highlighted the importance of balancing innovation with user rights protection, careful assessment of new developments, and the need for a paradigm shift in how we conceive individual rights in the digital world. The discussion evolved from initial broad concepts to more nuanced considerations of existing solutions, global collaboration, and the critical role of multi-stakeholder approaches in both problem identification and solution development.

How can we ensure that the evolution towards Web 4.0 takes place in an inclusive and ethical way while preserving the global and open nature of the internet?

speaker

Barbora Kudzmanaite

explanation

This is a fundamental question that underpins the entire discussion on Web 4.0 governance and requires further exploration to ensure responsible development.

What new stakeholders do we need to bring into the discussion on Web 4.0 governance?

speaker

Pearse O’Donohue

explanation

Identifying and including new relevant stakeholders is crucial for comprehensive and effective governance of emerging technologies.

How does the current multi-stakeholder process need to adapt to address the challenges of Web 4.0?

speaker

Pearse O’Donohue

explanation

Understanding necessary adaptations to existing governance structures is important for effectively managing new technological developments.

What will be the impact of Web 4.0 on ICANN and other internet governance bodies?

speaker

Pearse O’Donohue

explanation

Assessing the potential effects on existing governance bodies is crucial for maintaining effective oversight of the evolving internet.

How can we prevent social exclusion and disparity in access to information and education in Web 4.0?

speaker

Rafal Kownacki

explanation

Addressing potential inequalities is essential for ensuring that Web 4.0 benefits all members of society.

How can we establish new rules to fight against crime in virtual spaces?

speaker

Rafał Kownacki

explanation

Developing effective measures to combat criminal activities in new virtual environments is crucial for user safety and trust.

How can we address the potential misuse of biometric data in Web 4.0 environments?

speaker

Rafal Kownacki

explanation

Protecting sensitive personal data is increasingly important as technologies become more immersive and data-intensive.

What are the specific applications that will be deployed in Web 4.0?

speaker

Israel Rosas

explanation

Understanding the concrete applications will help in assessing their potential impacts and governance needs.

How can we shift towards user-centricity in Web 4.0, supported by innovative business models?

speaker

Sarah Nicole

explanation

Developing user-centric approaches is crucial for ensuring that Web 4.0 serves the interests of individuals rather than just commercial entities.

How can we implement more effective trust and safety frameworks for Web 4.0 environments?

speaker

Sarah Nicole

explanation

Developing robust safety measures is essential for protecting users in increasingly immersive digital spaces.

How can we address the potential addictive nature of virtual worlds, especially among vulnerable groups like minors?

speaker

Rafal Kownacki

explanation

Understanding and mitigating potential negative psychological impacts is crucial for responsible development of immersive technologies.

How can we better involve youth in the governance and policy-making processes for Web 4.0?

speaker

Sandra Hoferichter (audience member)

explanation

Incorporating perspectives from younger generations is important for developing forward-looking policies.

How can we better capture and incorporate innovations from the private sector and academia in Web 4.0 governance?

speaker

Abdulla Al Hamed (audience member)

explanation

Ensuring governance keeps pace with rapid technological developments in industry and research is crucial for effective oversight.