#205 L&A Launch of the Global CyberPeace index

Summary

This discussion centered on the launch of the Cyber Peace Index, a new global initiative introduced at the 20th Internet Governance Forum in Oslo. The index represents a comprehensive framework designed to measure digital peace, security, and trust across nations, moving beyond traditional cybersecurity metrics to focus on citizen-centric outcomes and real-world harm reduction. Vineet Kumar, founder of CyberPeace, presented the index as a multi-stakeholder tool built on ten key pillars including cybersecurity readiness, digital peace diplomacy, user trust and safety, misinformation management, and responsible AI governance.

Dr. Subi Chaturvedi emphasized the urgency of this initiative, noting that cybercrime costs have reached $10.5 trillion globally, with over 15 cyber attacks occurring per second worldwide. She highlighted how cyber warfare has evolved from experimental incidents like the 1988 Morris worm to sophisticated attacks targeting critical infrastructure and democratic institutions. The discussion revealed that 45% of all breaches now involve AI-generated phishing and social engineering, demonstrating the escalating complexity of digital threats.

Multiple speakers stressed the importance of the index’s open-source approach and multi-stakeholder methodology. Nicolas Caballero from ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee praised the initiative as “a manifesto for collective action” rather than merely a static metric. Anna Stynik from St. Petersburg State University emphasized the bottom-up, citizen-centered approach as revolutionary, though she noted challenges in quantifying concepts like psychological resilience across diverse national contexts.

The panelists collectively agreed that the Cyber Peace Index addresses critical gaps in existing frameworks by prioritizing digital resilience over retaliation, incorporating multilingual considerations, and balancing personal digital sovereignty with national security interests. This initiative represents a significant step toward creating measurable standards for global digital peace and cooperation.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Launch of the Cyber Peace Index**: A new global framework designed to measure digital peace, trust, and resilience across nations, going beyond traditional cybersecurity metrics to focus on citizen-centric outcomes and real-world harm reduction rather than just compliance measures.

– **Escalating Cyber Threats and Economic Impact**: Discussion of the massive scale of cyber warfare and cybercrime, with costs reaching $10.5 trillion globally by 2025, AI-generated attacks comprising 45% of breaches, and the evolution from experimental incidents like the 1988 Morris worm to sophisticated state and non-state actor threats.

– **Multi-stakeholder Approach and Global Inclusivity**: Emphasis on involving governments, civil society, academia, private sector, and citizens in developing the index, with particular attention to addressing digital divides, ensuring representation from the Global South, and avoiding reinforcement of existing power asymmetries.

– **AI Governance and Digital Sovereignty**: Extensive discussion of how AI development concentrates power in the Global North, the need for multilingual and culturally-informed AI systems, and balancing personal digital rights with national sovereignty while promoting community-led alternatives to monopolistic AI providers.

– **Open Source Framework and Transparency**: Strong advocacy for making the index open source to enable collective scrutiny, adaptation, and improvement, embodying collaborative principles and serving as a global public good free from proprietary or geopolitical constraints.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to launch and gather expert feedback on the Cyber Peace Index, a new measurement framework designed to assess digital peace and security from a citizen-centric perspective. The goal was to present this initiative as a tool for informing policy, guiding investments, and fostering international cooperation in creating safer, more inclusive digital ecosystems.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently optimistic and collaborative tone throughout. Speakers expressed genuine enthusiasm and congratulations for the initiative, viewing it as historic and groundbreaking. The tone was professional yet passionate, with participants offering constructive suggestions and expressing eagerness to contribute to the index’s development. There was a shared sense of urgency about addressing cyber threats while maintaining hope that collective action could achieve meaningful progress toward digital peace.

Speakers

– **Vineet Kumar** – Founder of CyberPeace, session moderator

– **Nicolas Caballero** – Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee for ICANN, data scientist

– **Edmon Chung** – CEO of DotAsia Organization

– **Anna Stynik** – Associate Professor at St. Petersburg State University, Russia; CEO of ANO Collaboratria

– **Suresh Yadav** – Senior Director of AI for Trade, Oceans, and Natural Resources; Lead on AI digital transformation at the Commonwealth Secretariat

– **Dr. Subi Chaturvedi** – Global SVP and Chief Corporate Affairs and Public Policy Officer at InMobi, session co-moderator

– **Marlena Wisniak** – Senior Legal Manager at the European Center for Nonprofit Law (ECNL)

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Comprehensive Report: Launch of the Cyber Peace Index at the 20th Internet Governance Forum

## Executive Summary

The 20th Internet Governance Forum in Oslo, “the city of Nobel Peace Prize,” witnessed the historic launch of the Cyber Peace Index, a groundbreaking global initiative designed to measure digital peace, security, and trust across nations. This comprehensive discussion, moderated by Vineet Kumar (Founder of CyberPeace) and Dr. Subi Chaturvedi (Global SVP at InMobi), brought together leading experts from government advisory bodies, academic institutions, civil society organisations, and international bodies to examine this revolutionary framework for assessing digital governance.

The Cyber Peace Index represents a fundamental paradigm shift from traditional cybersecurity metrics focused on compliance and state power towards a citizen-centric approach that prioritises digital peace as societal wellbeing. Built upon ten key pillars and incorporating insights from existing indices, the framework aims to serve as both a measurement tool and a catalyst for collective action towards global digital peace.

## Current Cyber Threat Landscape and Economic Impact

Dr. Subi Chaturvedi opened the discussion by painting a stark picture of the contemporary cyber threat environment, emphasising that cyber warfare has evolved from experimental incidents like the 1988 Morris worm—which infected approximately 6,000 computers, representing 10% of the internet at the time—to sophisticated attacks targeting critical infrastructure and democratic institutions. The scale of current threats is unprecedented, with over 15 cyber attacks per second targeting critical infrastructure worldwide.

The economic implications are staggering. Cybercrime costs have reached $10.5 trillion globally, making cybercrime equivalent to the third largest economy after the United States and China. Dr. Chaturvedi highlighted that 45% of all breaches now involve AI-generated phishing and social engineering attacks, driven by deepfakes and generative content, demonstrating how artificial intelligence is being weaponised to amplify existing threats.

Unlike nuclear or chemical weapons, there exists no universally accepted cyber arms treaty, creating a governance vacuum that the Cyber Peace Index aims to address through new frameworks for digital governance.

## The Cyber Peace Index Framework

Vineet Kumar presented the Cyber Peace Index as a comprehensive framework designed to move beyond traditional cybersecurity metrics towards measuring digital trust, resilience, and peace. The index builds upon analysis of ten existing indices, including the NSA Cyber Index and Oxford Cybercrime Index, to create a new assessment framework with ten fundamental pillars.

The index employs a multi-stakeholder approach involving governments, technology platforms, civil society organisations, and citizens to create a comprehensive assessment framework. Kumar demonstrated a sample dashboard featuring country-to-country comparisons, radar charts, and real-time capability with an AI trust layer. The initiative includes mechanisms for community engagement, including a QR code allowing participants to join the Global Advisory Council.

Kumar emphasised that the index aligns with global compacts such as WSIS+20, the Global Digital Compact, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. He positioned cyber peace not as an optional aspiration but as an essential requirement for sustainable development, referencing Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s opening statement about “digital self belonging to you.”

## Multi-Stakeholder Perspectives and Global Inclusivity

The discussion revealed strong consensus among speakers regarding the importance of inclusive, multi-stakeholder approaches to digital governance. Nicolas Caballero, representing ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee, praised the initiative as “not just a metric, it’s a manifesto for collective action.” He emphasised the transformative potential of turning “data into dialogue and dialogue into lasting cyber peace.”

Caballero highlighted significant global digital inequalities that the index must address, noting that Africa faces a 38% internet connectivity gap and that there exists a global gender divide leaving 189 million more men online than women.

Anna Stynik from St. Petersburg State University provided a particularly insightful perspective on the index’s philosophical foundations. She described the initiative as revolutionary because it brings “a new lens, digital peace as societal wellbeing” rather than following traditional hard power logic. However, Stynik also raised important methodological concerns about quantifying abstract concepts like psychological resilience and ensuring comparability across nations with varying levels of data transparency.

## AI Governance and Digital Sovereignty Challenges

Marlena Wisniak from the European Center for Nonprofit Law (ECNL) provided a critical perspective on AI governance, arguing that algorithmic-driven systems amplify existing human rights risks through their scale and speed. She highlighted the concentration of AI development in the Global North, with disproportionate data centres, computing power, and resources creating significant power imbalances.

Wisniak noted that most AI models are trained on data rooted in colonial dynamics, leading to discriminatory outcomes for marginalised communities, and that language inequities persist with poor performance for underrepresented languages. She advocated for community-led initiatives in the global majority developing alternative approaches to large language models.

Edmund Chung, CEO of DotAsia Organization, contributed three specific suggestions: reframing digital security as digital resilience, addressing geopolitics and digital sovereignty balance, and moving the internet from an English-first mentality to a multilingual-by-design approach. He argued that digital sovereignty must balance “personal digital rights and personal digital sovereignty with national digital sovereignty.”

## Economic Opportunities and Investment Perspectives

Suresh Yadav from the Commonwealth Secretariat, speaking from Manila, provided a unique economic perspective on cyber peace initiatives. He noted that the world economy of $110 trillion is growing to $130 trillion by 2030, with AI contributing $15 trillion from 2023-2030. Yadav reframed cybersecurity from a cost centre to an investment opportunity, noting that if cybercrime costs reach $10.5 trillion, there exists “definitely a counter economy if not more of the similar size which offers a new opportunity for investors.”

He positioned the Cyber Peace Index as creating “cyber diagnostic investment opportunities” that could attract private sector engagement in digital peace initiatives, adding a practical business dimension to cyber peace discussions.

## Technical Implementation and Open Source Approach

A significant area of consensus emerged around the importance of open source development for the Cyber Peace Index. Nicolas Caballero emphasised that “the choice to develop the index using open source software embodies collaboration and allows for community scrutiny and improvement.” This approach ensures transparency and prevents the index from being controlled by any single organisation or nation.

The open source methodology aligns with the broader philosophical commitment to multi-stakeholder governance and democratic participation in digital peace initiatives. However, speakers acknowledged significant technical challenges in data source reliability and creating meaningful comparisons across nations with vastly different digital infrastructure levels.

## Areas of Consensus and Future Directions

The discussion revealed remarkable consensus across diverse stakeholder groups on several fundamental principles: the necessity of citizen-centred approaches over state-power focused frameworks, multi-stakeholder collaboration, recognition of digital inequalities, urgency of current threats, and the importance of open source principles for digital governance.

The initiative’s emphasis on open source development, multi-stakeholder participation, and citizen-centred outcomes positions it as a potentially transformative tool for global digital governance. The economic framing suggests that cyber peace initiatives could attract substantial private sector investment, potentially ensuring their sustainability and scalability.

Kumar mentioned that India will host an “AI Impact Summit in February 2026,” indicating continued momentum for these initiatives. The positioning of the index as a manifesto for collective action rather than merely a measurement tool reflects the collaborative spirit demonstrated throughout the discussion.

## Conclusion

The launch of the Cyber Peace Index represents a significant milestone in global digital governance, offering a comprehensive framework that moves beyond traditional cybersecurity approaches toward measuring and promoting digital peace. The strong consensus among diverse stakeholders suggests broad recognition that new frameworks prioritising peace, inclusion, and citizen welfare are necessary.

The initiative’s success will depend on addressing the methodological challenges identified whilst maintaining the inclusive, collaborative approach that has generated broad initial support. The Cyber Peace Index emerges as both a practical tool for measuring digital peace and a catalyst for broader transformation in how the international community approaches cybersecurity, digital rights, and global digital governance.

Vineet Kumar: Good morning, distinguished delegates, panelists, and global citizens. It’s an honor to welcome you to this defining moment here in Lellistrom and Oslo, the city of Nobel Peace Prize, where the world has long gathered to reflect on what it means to secure peace for humanity. Today we extend that reflection into cyberspace. We are profound and it’s also a proud privilege to announce the Cyber Peace Index, a global initiative born out of the need to not only measure security in the digital world, but also to inspire cyber peace, a vision of a digital future built on trust, resilience, rights, and responsibility. This is more than an index. It’s an evolving dynamic framework designed to keep pace with accelerating transformation of technology from AI to quantum, from misinformation to cyber warfare. And just as peace cannot be imposed by one actor alone, the index is built through a multi-stakeholder approach involving government and regulators, technology platform, civil society, and digital right advocates, academia, the technical community, and most importantly, the people whose lives are shared by these systems. The Cyber Peace Index does not aim to merely rank. It aims to inform, empower, and activate. It supports national strategies. It challenges platforms to build better guardrails. It equips communities to demand digital dignity. And it helps us all navigate towards a safe, inclusive, and trustworthy digital ecosystem. The index aligns with global compact like WSIS plus 20, the GDC, the Global Digital Compact, and the UN SDGs. But more than that, it aims to set a new normative direction. But cyber peace is not optional. It is essential. So from the city and the country that celebrates peace, we begin a new journey, a journey where cyber trust becomes a global public good. Thank you for being part of this historic moment. And with this, in fact, we would like to introduce the panel of speakers who are present here. We have been joined by Mr. Suresh Yadav, the Senior Director of AI for Trade, Oceans, and Natural Resources. And he’s a lead on AI digital transformation at the Commonwealth Secretariat. Mr. Edmund Chung, he’s the CEO for DotAsia Organization. Nicholas, who’s the Chair for the Governmental Advisory Committee for ICANN. Anna, who’s Associate Professor from St. Petersburg University and CEO of ANO Collaboratria. And Malina, Senior Legal Manager for the European Center for Nonprofit Law. The session will be moderated by me, Vineet Kumar. I’m the founder of CyberPeace. And Dr. Subi Chaturvedi, who’s a Global SVP and Chief Corporate Affairs and Public Policy Officer of the Inmobi. With this, I’d like to invite Subi first to set the context, and then we’ll take the session forward. Subi, over to you.

Dr. Subi Chaturvedi: Thank you so much, Vineet. And I think a huge congratulations are in order. It’s a very, very big day and a historic milestone. I’m really, really happy that we’re celebrating the launch of the CyberPeace Index. Cyber is a word that comes first to all of us who are now digital natives, and peace is something that we’ve all been working towards. So I think a huge round of applause is in order. For months and months of hard work and the night oil that we’ve all been burning, making sure that multi-stakeholder inputs are sought. And we’re able to create something that we want to take forward for all our future generations, and something that we all cherish, which is the internet. I’m really happy that we have a room which is truly representative of diversity, and it is truly inclusive. It’s so good to see friends like Edwin on the panel today. And also, for me, IGF will always be my home. I’ve served as a member of the United Nations Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Committee. Those were very, very good times and moments that we’ve cherished. So just to set the context first, why is it that this is so important? I think it’s critical to remember that the first malicious cyber attack came in 1988, and with the Morris worm, and it was designed by a university graduate. And it was intended only as an experiment to measure the size of the internet. But inadvertently, it caused significant disruption. It infected approximately 6,000 computers. Back then, it was 10% of the internet at the time, which meant systems slowed down or systems crashed. Now, today, as we have this panel at the very, very amazing host country, cyber peace is at a crossroad. We are hoping to secure our digital future in 2025. That is the theme that this panel is exploring. And when we look at 2025, cyber warfare is no longer an emerging threat. So that is why locating this in the context of the launch of the index is very, very important. It is today a global reality. I lead the global charter for India’s first unicorn in Mobi. And we’ve created devices, we’ve ensured that we are enabling even the last mile for connectivity and we are bridging digital divide, ensuring that the internet is not just something that you come and experience, but you also create that as a safe space. So when global realities are shifting in the current geopolitical scenario, both aspects of geopolitics, development, as well as human security become paramount. And global governments are facing this question. So therefore, very, very important becomes the role of the technical community, academia, think tanks like cyber peace, which are very ably championed by our friend, Vineet, with over 15 cyber attacks per second. Now they’re targeting critical infrastructure worldwide and the cost of cyber crime has surpassed over $10.5 trillion. So the need for securing cyberspace as a domain, for holding institutions accountable and for also constantly building capacity to make sure that regulators, as well as policymakers are playing catch up. This has never been more urgent, it couldn’t have been more timely. So therefore, as digital technologies continue to expand into every facet of life, from air powered public services to quantum communication, the intentional and ethical design of these systems is very, very critical. So that we can foster trust, we can foster inclusivity and stability instead of ensuring that we’re all dealing with conflict. So this year, we will spotlight the deepening intersections between technological innovation, cyber conflict and the global quest for a secure and resilient digital common. Therefore, in this session, we aim to provide a roadmap for action by government platforms, the private sector and civil society alike. So the numbers we’ve talked about, one more figure that sort of needs to be highlighted is 45% of all breaches now involve AI generated phishing and social engineering. And there is a sharp rise that’s driven by deep fakes and generative content. And therefore, to make sure that the internet, I want to pay a tribute to one of the fathers of the internet, Vint Cerf has been a mentor, and he’s someone I really look up to the fact that we have to insist on upholding the core values of the internet, which are interoperability, upholding of human rights, ensuring that permissionless innovation can thrive, and therefore, belief and trust, which is at the heart of everything that we hold dear, is very, very critical. So human error still remains one of the weakest links. And so is a little bit of ignorance or ensuring that we’re able to build the digital divide. And therefore, digital literacy and cyber capacity building have to be key paramount pillars of the cyber indices that we’re talking about. The new conflicts are increasingly talking about cyber attacks, which are being used as precursors or amplifiers of kinetic warfare. They’re raising pressing questions about international humanitarian law in cyberspace, and therefore, spotlighting national security and sovereignty is very, very critical. They’re part of modern warfare. They’re being used to disable critical infrastructure like power grids, hospitals, and defense networks In a world of asymmetric threats, even non-state actors can now launch attacks. which are disrupting national functionality. So, in a war where you will always make sure that national sovereignty and security will take precedence, we have to ensure all of us come together and all of us work together to be able to create a multi-stakeholder environment where freedom of speech and expression are still held dear and we are able to balance citizen rights along with national security. So, maintaining cyber peace becomes even more essential and therefore to preserve sovereignty, ensure preparedness for hybrid warfare in, you know, dealing with questions like information warfare and influence operations, disinformation campaigns, deepfakes and bot-driven propaganda which are eroding trust in democratic institutions. Cyber peace is, I think, clearly the answer. We need what we are all doing together in this very historic moment is ever more critical. So, securing information ecosystems which can prevent manipulation during elections, protests and global negotiations are very, very important. The other pillar is critical infrastructure vulnerability. So, transportation, banking, healthcare, water systems and nuclear facilities, all of them are digitally interconnected today. They’re highly exposed. So, that is also something that the index deals with as well as global independence and economic stability. I think enough and more needs to be said about protection of civilian and human rights. So, conflicts related to cyber attacks, they’re often targeting civilians, they’re disrupting access to healthcare, education and communication and also one of the areas that we want to highlight today as we take the discussion further is the, still there is a gap, a lot of scattered attempts have been made to create global norms. So, I don’t want to talk enough and more about treaties, but we need some more guidelines. We also need 40,000 feet above the ground voluntary principles. So, unlike nuclear or chemical weapons, there is no universally accepted cyber arms treaty. So, in the absence of clear rules, peace building mechanisms like cyber diplomacy and multilateral cooperation are going to be ever more critical. And therefore, we see this as an enabler for peace building and dialogue. So, technology can also be used to monitor ceasefires, enable humanitarian aid and facilitate cross-border dialogue, ensuring peaceful cyberspace that allows digital tools, that allows amazing minds like that of Edmund to flourish and create a very resilient ecosystem. So, they serve as instruments of peace and not as instruments of terror. And just to end, I think it’s important to highlight India’s role in cyber peace as a growing digital power and member of forums like the G20 Quad and UN. India has also been championing responsible cyber behavior. We are going to be the hosts in February 2026 of the AI Impact Summit. Our leader and champion, Sri Abhishek Singh, should be in the room and he’s been doing incredible work at India’s AI mission. I think this is where technology for good and India’s initiatives and leadership in cyber diplomacy, digital public infrastructure, capacity building, as well as a moral ecosystem that’s built on frugal innovation can be lessons that we can all cherish and celebrate. And many congratulations, I think, to all of us again for being part of this very historic milestone. Over to you, Vineet, and I’d love to hear from the other colleagues

Vineet Kumar: and stakeholders. Thank you. Thank you, Subi. Thanks for setting the context. And we have an eminent panel of speakers today. And before I move to our first speaker, Mr. Suresh Yadav, who is the Senior Director for Trade, Ocean, and Natural Resources and also lead on AI and Digital Transformation at Commonwealth Secretariat. And with Suresh, I’ve closely worked with him. In fact, I’ve been part of the Commonwealth AI Consortium, and he has been one of the key person on leading the entire consortium and a couple of very key activities, in fact, not couple, many key activities that Commonwealth Secretariat had taken. So before I head to you, sir, I’ll quickly request the team to showcase the presentation, because I want to show to everyone the metrics that we have factored in for the index. We have compared around 10 index that are currently there, that are available, like the NSA Cyber Index, the Oxford Cybercrime Index, and the Cyber Peace Index is slightly different with the thing, first of all, is the rising digital threats. The digital world faces increasing threats, like Subi already highlighted the issue of AI-generated misinformation, defects, sophisticated defect attack that are targeting nations and also individuals. There are limitations of the existing indexes, like most current indices emphasize compliance as cyber power or policy adherence, overlooking real-time user safety, harm reduction, and ethical consideration like trust and safety of the end users are something that we find missing. And there is a need for a new framework, a peace-centric, inclusive, ethics-driven index, which is essential to measure digital trust, harm, and resilience dynamically, prioritizing user protection and platform accountability. So keeping that in mind, this is how the Cyber Peace Index has come into play, which is citizen-centric, which focuses on the issues that I just highlighted, is peace-first focus, and we are aiming to achieve real-time capability and AI trust layer. I’m also into this. These are the 10 pillars, or you can call the 10 major verticals of the index, which starts with cybersecurity readiness, digital peace, diplomacy, user trust and safety, misinformation and defects, cyber literacy and inclusion, the response mechanism to cyber crimes, and also the responsible AI governance, psychological resilience, PPP, and finally the cybersecurity score. I have laid out, and these are some of the samples, like we are trying to build this dashboard, and this is a sample dashboard. It’s not the actual data, but this is how the index would appear. We’ll have a country-to-country comparison with a score that will get highlighted, the radar chart, and all these features are getting incorporated. We have done a detailed study on the indexes, whether the other indices, and maybe because we have a shortage of time, I’ll leave it for later. We’ll put it on our website for everybody to see, and also maybe at the end, we’ll leave a QR code where people can also be a part, join the link. There’s a Google form. They can be a part of the Global Advisory Council that we are setting up, and we are open for suggestions and feedback as the index continues to evolve and grow. So these are some of the pointers, the comparisons that we have made, which should be available on the website. The EU Cybersecurity Index versus the Cybersecurity Index. We have also seen the Global Terrorism Index, the GTI, the Freedom on the Net versus Cyber Peace Index, and the future vision of this index is to expand real-time analytics to capture emerging digital threats and user experiences worldwide, broaden global partnership with countries, international bodies, and CSOs for inclusivity, develop specialized modules for AI manipulation, quantum cybersecurity, emerging technologies, and enhance dynamic dashboard tailored for policymakers, platform operators, and researchers. With this now, in fact, I’m just sharing the link for anyone in the community since it’s going to be a multi-stakeholder approach. So industry, academia, civil society, technical groups, and also the netizens can join the advisory board by just scanning the link. I’ll also share the link in the chat for people to join. And with that now, I’d like to head to our speaker, Mr. Suresh Yadav. Sir, over to you for your remarks.

Suresh Yadav: Thank you, Vinit. I hope you can hear me, Vinit, if you can. Loud and clear, we can hear you. Thank you very much. And good evening from the city of Manila, where I’m in transit. Thank you, Vinit, for this invite to me to share on some of my thoughts. First of all, a big congratulations to you and your entire team for this very innovative and path-breaking work where you have tried to bring together all the relevant indices around the world and create a new index, which really takes into account the peace work and the SDGs work. So it’s very, very innovative thinking and the work. So huge, huge congratulations. And also very thoughtful to host this launch event in the city of peace, where the peace resonates in each and every part of that city. So that’s very thoughtful. Thank you for that. I just wanted to highlight that the world economy, which is around to $110 trillion at the moment, expected to be around $130 trillion by 2030. And also the artificial intelligence, which has been mentioned and repeatedly that is going to contribute around 15 trillion from 2023 to 2030. And this is a context that how rapidly the global economies are getting digitalized and AI is going to accelerate further this whole process. But at the same time, if you look at the global cyber cost to the economy, also mentioned by Dr. Subbi, which is estimated to be around $10.5 trillion in 2025. This was, I mean, it is the third largest economy in terms of size, if you look at the USA and China. Then this economy was around 3.1 trillion in 2015. It was 6 trillion in 2021. And it has been growing with a rapid space of 15% growth. The fastest growing segment if you see in terms of global economy. Then what does that mean? It means that there are a lot of people who are making money on the name of committing the crimes and the fraud and the scams and the internet is space. Economies are losing, people are losing. It means that the country’s society and the people are not able to respond to themselves. And this is where the market has failed. And this is where you need investment from the different players. Now to guide the investment in a particular direction, you need certain parameters like World Bank used to do doing business report. There are world investment reports where you know which direction to go for taking the investment. So I see this great work done by the cyber piece in terms of deciding, in terms of directing, in terms of giving a choice to the investors both to the inbound within the country and outside the country that where do you need to put in your money? If this economy of cyber related costs is 10.5, it means definitely there is a counter economy if not more of the similar size which offers a new opportunity for the investors, impact investors. So I see from a very different perspective that this will give a lot of food for thought to the various investors, various people to see and identify the country. And I see it as a form of cyber diagnostic investment opportunities in this direction apart from bringing the country on a map on its cyber initiative, a bias related things existing in that countries, all those parameters which Beneath has mentioned. And also linking it up with the SDGs, I think it’s a great, great thing because as we know that we have been lagging as a board on the various SDGs and there’s already a talk to how, what you do to accelerate. So I think this is a added tool in SDGs for the global society, global world to look into the whole process. So Beneath, once again, I know that I told you I have to go for another meeting because I’ve just left a meeting to join you. But once again, congratulations to you and your entire team for this very innovative and path breaking work. I’m sure that this entire work which you have done will make the society, make the world, make the countries a much safer space, will make the internet much safer space, particularly when the speed and the quantum of the cyber attacks are increasing. And as also pointed out that non-state actors are in a position to challenge or destroy or damage largely to the state economy and the government economy. So that’s where I think it will invite a lot of attention. It will invite a lot of interest in the various forum, the governments, civil society, private sector, academics, and research institutions who will take this index as a benchmark in carrying out the further activities in this space. So thank you very much and wish you all the best in this noble endeavor. Thank you.

Vineet Kumar: Thank you, sir. Thank you and thanks for making time from Manila to join the event. Now moving from online to offline and now I’d like to invite my next speaker, Nicolas, who’s the chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee for ICANN. Nicolas, over to you for your views.

Nicolas Caballero: Thank you. Thank you so much and thank you for the invitation. My name is Nico Caballero. I’m the GAG chair at ICANN and it’s an honor for me to stand before you at this milestone 20th IGF in Oslo, you know, where collaboration and innovation define our shared vision for digital governance. Today, as we launch, you know, the cyberspace index, which was already explained, we take a critical step toward quantifying what was once abstract, the stability, security, and inclusivity of our digital ecosystems. So why this index matters for governments, for the GAG and governments in general, right? So whether shaping national policies or negotiating global frameworks, you know, we need actionable metrics to guide decisions. And I’m speaking as a data scientist, right? The cyber, you know, this index, the cyberspace index provides exactly that, a compass to navigate complex cyber landscapes. It basically aligns with the IGF 2025 theme, you know, in quotation marks, building governance together, you know, by offering a transparent multi-stakeholder tool to assess risks like cyber conflict, as was already mentioned, digital divides, and threats to critical infrastructure, and many other things. I don’t need to get into the details. For instance, just to give some more color, the index can spotlight disparities in digital resilience, such as, for example, Africa’s 38% internet connectivity gap, you know, or the gender divide, leaving more than 189 million more men online than women globally. By measuring these gaps, you know, governments can target investments and policies more effectively, ensuring, you know, basically that no one is left behind in our digital future, so to say. There’s another thing I would like to point out, you know, which is the, let’s say the open source imperative, you know, the choice to develop this index using open source software is both strategic and symbolic. Open source embodies the IGF’s spirit of collaboration, allowing governments, civil society, and technologists to scrutinize, adapt, and improve the tool collectively. As we’ve seen with initiatives like Open SSF, you know, open source security tools, you know, basically thrive when communities unite to address vulnerabilities and share best practices. Moreover, transparencies, you know, in the index’s methodology, again, enabled by open source, builds trust, a very important concept, in my opinion. Just as Norway’s Digital Emblem Initiative protects humanitarian infrastructure through open standards, the Cyberspace Index can become a global public good, free from proprietary constraints or geopolitical silos. So, you know, finally, you know, a call to action for everybody, for not only governments, but civil society, academia, and so on. So I would just say that, you know, we should commit to three principles. The first one, to adopt the index, you know, to inform national cyber strategies and international cooperation. In the second place, contribute. you know, to its open source framework, ensuring it evolves with emerging threats like AI-driven disinformation, just to give an example. And number three, to champion inclusivity, ensuring the index reflects, you know, the needs of all nations, especially those most vulnerable to cyber instability, so to say. In closing, the cyberspace index isn’t just a metric, it’s a manifesto for collective action. So as GAG chair, I would encourage, I would urge governments to embrace this tool, not as a, you know, static report card, you know, but as a living platform for progress. Together, you know, we can turn data into dialogue and dialogue into lasting cyber peace, which is the main point for this, for this, for this conference. So thank you so much.

Vineet Kumar: Thank you, Nico. And you made a very, very important point that it’s not a metric, but it’s a manifesto for collective action. And I’m sure this is how the index also, as it grows, as it evolves, and we’ll see this into action. And with that, now I move on to my next speaker, Anna, who’s Associate Professor of the St. Petersburg State University in Russia. Anna, let’s, can you see us? Can you hear us? Can you hear me? Oh, great. Yes, we can see you now. So requested to share your views, Anna. Over to you.

Anna Stynik: Yes, good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to share my reflections on the launch of the Cyber Peace Index. It’s really timely and ambitious initiative, especially as digital threats continue to multiply. So first of all, let me sincerely congratulate my colleagues on an excellent and thoughtful presentations. What I personally find most important and even inspiring is that this index doesn’t follow the usual like hard power logic. It brings us a new lens, digital peace as societal wellbeing. That is a very different like citizen-centered vision. And that’s exactly, I think, what the world needs right now. So today, humanity finds itself at a turning point, of course, because of the rapid development of AI. It’s bringing a growing number of complex interconnected threats. And societies are struggling to adapt fast enough while states are like increasingly drawn into a competitive race to develop and deploy AI technologies. And in such an environment we all live in, reaching consensus on global rules and safeguards becomes extremely difficult task. And against this backdrop, the initiative presented today offers a much needed shift in perspective. So one that starts not only, not from the top down, but from bottom up. So instead of focusing solely on state power or institutional frameworks, it seeks to understand the shared digital experience of ordinary people across the world. And perhaps by identifying common challenges faced by citizens in different countries, we can begin to uncover areas of genuine consensus, areas where international agreement is urgently needed. So this is why it is particularly meaningful that this initiative is being launched under the auspices of the United Nations, still the only universal platform where such inclusive long-term global frameworks for peace and governance can be developed. And in this time of fragmentation and distress, the cyber peace index may help us to imagine a new kind of global dialogue. At the same time, we have to acknowledge the challenges. How do we measure digital peace? Like what does peace centric means in practice? The framework presented here with its 10 pillars is like really strong and visionary, but the key issue is measurement logic, I think would be in the future. Like for example, how we quantify psychological resilience and how do we assign weights across 10 very different domains? And how can we ensure comparability across nations, especially those with limited open data or low transparency. And I believe one of the great contribution on the CPI is that it goes beyond already what we have. Like the CPI offers something broader, it’s kind of umbrella index. And so it is just important to gradually move from a broad qualitative vision towards greater quantitative clarity. And I think clear identification of data sources will play a key role in strengthening the credibility of the index. National reports can provide valuable input, but they sometimes may reflect unequal levels of transparency or consistency. And in this regard, citizen level service could offer an important compliment helping to reflect public perceptions of safety in a more grounded inclusive ways. So partnerships with survey institutions, including local organization, I think could support the development of reliable context sensitive indicators and collaborative international research would also add depth and comparability, especially if approached as a joint process rather than through reliance on external data sets alone. So last but not the least, it is also important I think to reflect on how to ensure broad global relevance. So particularly for countries of the global South. So factors such as digital divides, uneven access to data, disparities in AI development deserve careful consideration, both in the design of the framework and the interpretation of this results. So sensitivity to these dynamics can help avoid reinforcing the various symmetries that the initiatives seeks to address. So dear colleagues to conclude, I believe this index has revolutionary potential. It invites us to ask how to protect people together, their rights, safety, peace of mind, that in my view is the future we should build together. And thank you. I look forward to collaborating with you on making this vision measurable and shared reality. Thank you.

Vineet Kumar: Thank you. Thank you so much, Anna. And thanks for your remarks. We got around seven minutes left and we have few voices to be heard. So now I’ll request Marlena, who’s the Senior Legal Manager of ECNL to share his views. Over to you Marlena, please.

Marlena Wisniak: Yeah, thanks so much Vinit. And I’ll keep it short because I know we’re running out of time. Congrats on the index. I haven’t had time to review it. And I work at the European Center for Nonprofit Law, a human rights organization focused on civic space and looking at how AI impacts human rights. I’m based in San Francisco. So I’ll just share a few remarks on how the quote unquote race for AI and impact of AI does often exclude the global majority and the types of things we’d like to see. So one thing I often say when we think about AI governance is that. Algorithmic-driven systems rarely warrant a whole new approach to governance or new rights. The new thing is the scale and speed at which it operates, and really perpetuating and amplifying existing human rights risks with disproportionate impact on already marginalized groups such as in the global majority. One thing that we at ECNL really want to see when we talk about AI governance is real-world harm today, as opposed to the arguably overblown concerns of existential risk and AI misalignment, which we hear a lot in Silicon Valley and in some European or U.S. policy discussions. One of the favorite things that I love to say about AI is that it’s neither artificial nor intelligent. And what I mean by that is that it requires a lot of computing power. It’s embedded in hardware, physical infrastructure, and the global economy. And I think that’s where we see one of the biggest issues today of the global majority is that the digitalization often relies on the global north. Disproportionate data centers are based in Europe and in the U.S. and in China. There’s just been a New York Times article a few days ago, I don’t know if folks saw it, on the global AI divide. I will say that the data centers have their own negative repercussions, including environmental. So I’m not sure if the global majority actually wants more data centers. But all that to say that data centers, hardware, such as microchips, compute power, software, the financing, really where money goes to these technologies, the data, the skills education, are primarily in Silicon Valley and the global north. So how do we actually redistribute that to the global majority? And something to consider, which I don’t know if the index looks into this, is then what we call ghost labor. So folks labeling the data, moderating content for algorithmic content moderation systems are often in the global majority, further creating that gap between resources and power and money. So the concentration of power really does lie within a handful of organizations. And when we think about large language models or foundation models, it’s even more the case where you see a handful of companies really building these technologies and holding that power. However, one thing that I’ve been really excited about to see in the global majority is that there are alternative approaches to LLMs that are emerging and that could potentially offer a more inclusive path forward. We’ve seen in our work community-led initiatives in the global majority that focus on public interest driven AI development, NLP developers putting together data sets in local Indian languages and Arabic, and really around the world in Quechua and Peru. And that highlights the potential for a more culturally informed algorithmic system and more decentralized technology. And these models, though smaller in scale than the Chad GPT or Gemini or Claude, do demonstrate comparable performance in tasks like translation when we think about text-based models or sentiment analysis. And really it shows us the potential for more rights-based participatory AI development that does not rely on monopolistic AI and LLM providers. One thing that I did want to flag is language inequities in AI development. Most models, algorithmic models, are trained on data rooted in colonial and imperialist dynamics. And that leads obviously to discriminatory outcomes, especially for communities in the global majority and marginalized groups. We’ve seen some quote-unquote de-biasing efforts to de-bias the data, but these have shown limited effectiveness and there are still significant performance gaps that persist between dominant colonial languages like French, Spanish, German, and more underrepresented languages, especially dialects or countries that do not have enough data that is used to train these systems. Something that we often forget as well is that in addition to the data, cultural nuance is often lost when building these systems. And then once they are developed, there’s poor benchmarking that prevents AI developers from adequately identifying and addressing discriminatory impacts. Just a few other things to consider is that there’s a lot of relationships between AI developers and governments, including support for governments with authoritarian practices and the impacts that that has to human rights communities and marginalized groups around the world. And when there is conversation around developing AI, it often comes from a techno-solutionist approach, very top-down. This is the kind of AI will save the world, AI for development narrative. And these are often inadequate products and solutions that do not fit the local or regional context that are not built with meaningful participation from communities and local voices are excluded. And that’s both the case in the development of these technologies and then the validation. One thing that we see, for example, when we think about foundation models in particular is reinforced learning by human feedback. So I won’t go into details about that, but that’s mostly done in Silicon Valley and definitely excludes groups from the global majority.

Vineet Kumar: Before I share a few thoughts on AI Global, sorry, I actually, we have run out of time. So I’ll request maybe Edmund to make his quick remark and then we can take the conversation. No, you have, you have a many seconds, so no, thank you, Vinit, for inviting.

Edmon Chung: And we’re from DotAsia. We are very supportive and would like to lean in and participate in the development of the index. I think sometimes we joke about world peace, but I think that it is in this time of really existence existential challenges that we have to insist on peace as an option, as a preferred option. I wanted to leave with just quickly three suggestions. One is to reframe the digital security concept into digital resilience. That is, I think, very important. And earlier in the week we talked about this as well. And in the index, I think that it will be useful because resilience and not retaliation is about peace. And that’s where we need to be. We also know we shouldn’t shy away from geopolitics. And I think that’s part of what the index looks into as well. And that leads to the question of digital sovereignty and the sovereignty. And in that sense, I think it’s not only the national sovereignty. I think Subhi mentioned earlier, it’s about balancing personal digital rights and personal digital sovereignty against or together with national digital sovereignty. That is important. Recently, our program, Net Mission, actually Asian youths are calling for reclaiming agency over their data. And that is a part of the index. I think that’s important. Which comes to agreement with Nico about open source and transparency. I really want to echo what Joseph Gordon-Levitt said in the opening about your digital self belonging to you. That I believe is digital sovereignty and personal digital sovereignty. And finally, the third thing is about multilingual Internet, which we earlier talked about. I think we need to move away from an English first mentality into a multilingual by design approach. And how the index would take that into consideration in terms of the infrastructure, in terms of the resilience is something that I think is important. So again, congratulations and I look forward to participating in the Sovereign Peace Index. Thank you.

Vineet Kumar: Thank you so much. Thank you all speakers. And thank you to the IGF Secretary for allowing us two extra minutes for the session. A lot of voices to be heard. We’ll continue the conversation and also the questions also offline. So looking forward to those conversations. Thank you so much for your presence and for your views on the session. Thank you. Thank you, Vineet. Vineet, can you hear us? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Need for citizen-centered approach to digital governance

Speakers

– Anna Stynik
– Nicolas Caballero
– Vineet Kumar

Arguments

The index represents a shift from hard power logic to a citizen-centered vision focused on digital peace as societal wellbeing

The index serves as a manifesto for collective action rather than just a static metric

The Cyber Peace Index is a global initiative designed to measure digital trust, resilience, and peace rather than just compliance or cyber power

Summary

All three speakers emphasize moving away from traditional state-power focused approaches toward citizen-centered frameworks that prioritize user safety, wellbeing, and collective action over mere compliance metrics.

Topics

Human rights | Development | Legal and regulatory

Importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration and inclusivity

Speakers

– Vineet Kumar
– Nicolas Caballero
– Anna Stynik

Arguments

The index uses a multi-stakeholder approach involving governments, technology platforms, civil society, and citizens to create a comprehensive framework

The choice to develop the index using open source software embodies collaboration and allows for community scrutiny and improvement

Citizen-level surveys could complement national reports to reflect public perceptions of digital safety in more inclusive ways

Summary

Speakers agree on the necessity of inclusive, collaborative approaches that involve multiple stakeholders including governments, civil society, academia, and citizens in developing and implementing digital governance frameworks.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Recognition of significant digital divides and inequalities

Speakers

– Nicolas Caballero
– Marlena Wisniak
– Edmon Chung

Arguments

Africa faces a 38% internet connectivity gap and there’s a global gender divide leaving 189 million more men online than women

AI development is concentrated in the global north with disproportionate data centers, computing power, and resources in Europe, US, and China

The internet needs to move from an English-first mentality to a multilingual-by-design approach

Summary

Speakers acknowledge substantial global inequalities in digital access, AI development concentration in wealthy nations, and linguistic barriers that exclude marginalized communities from digital participation.

Topics

Development | Human rights | Infrastructure

Cyber threats as current global reality requiring urgent action

Speakers

– Dr. Subi Chaturvedi
– Suresh Yadav
– Vineet Kumar

Arguments

Cyber warfare has evolved from emerging threat to global reality with over 15 attacks per second targeting critical infrastructure

The cyber economy represents significant investment opportunities for impact investors in cybersecurity solutions

The Cyber Peace Index is a global initiative designed to measure digital trust, resilience, and peace rather than just compliance or cyber power

Summary

Speakers agree that cyber threats are no longer emerging concerns but present realities requiring immediate, comprehensive responses through new frameworks, investment, and measurement tools.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Economic | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize AI as a double-edged technology that amplifies existing threats and inequalities, with AI being weaponized for malicious purposes while also perpetuating historical discrimination patterns.

Speakers

– Dr. Subi Chaturvedi
– Marlena Wisniak

Arguments

45% of all breaches now involve AI-generated phishing and social engineering, driven by deepfakes and generative content

Most AI models are trained on data rooted in colonial dynamics, leading to discriminatory outcomes for marginalized communities

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers frame cyber issues in economic terms, emphasizing the massive financial scale of both opportunities and threats in the digital economy, requiring strategic investment and policy responses.

Speakers

– Suresh Yadav
– Dr. Subi Chaturvedi

Arguments

The rapid growth of AI contributing $15 trillion by 2030 creates both opportunities and challenges for global digital transformation

The global cost of cybercrime has surpassed $10.5 trillion, making it equivalent to the third largest economy after the US and China

Topics

Economic | Development | Cybersecurity

Both speakers emphasize the importance of local, community-driven approaches and the challenges of creating inclusive measurement systems that account for diverse contexts and capabilities.

Speakers

– Marlena Wisniak
– Anna Stynik

Arguments

Community-led initiatives in the global majority are developing alternative approaches to large language models with culturally informed systems

Key challenges include quantifying concepts like psychological resilience and ensuring comparability across nations with varying data transparency

Topics

Development | Human rights | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Open source as fundamental to digital governance

Speakers

– Nicolas Caballero
– Edmon Chung

Arguments

The choice to develop the index using open source software embodies collaboration and allows for community scrutiny and improvement

Digital sovereignty must balance personal digital rights and personal digital sovereignty with national digital sovereignty

Explanation

The consensus on open source principles being essential for digital governance is unexpected given that one speaker represents government advisory roles (ICANN GAC) while the other represents domain organizations. Their agreement suggests broad recognition that transparency and community participation are fundamental to legitimate digital governance.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Human rights

Need to reframe security concepts toward peace-building

Speakers

– Edmon Chung
– Anna Stynik
– Vineet Kumar

Arguments

Digital security should be reframed as digital resilience, focusing on resilience rather than retaliation as a path to peace

The index represents a shift from hard power logic to a citizen-centered vision focused on digital peace as societal wellbeing

The Cyber Peace Index is a global initiative designed to measure digital trust, resilience, and peace rather than just compliance or cyber power

Explanation

The unexpected consensus on moving away from traditional security paradigms toward peace-oriented frameworks suggests a significant shift in thinking among diverse stakeholders, from technical organizations to academic institutions to civil society.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

Speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the need for citizen-centered, inclusive approaches to digital governance, recognition of significant global digital inequalities, the urgency of current cyber threats, and the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration. There was also unexpected agreement on open source principles and reframing security toward peace-building paradigms.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for digital governance. The agreement across diverse stakeholder groups (government, academia, civil society, technical community) suggests broad recognition that traditional approaches are insufficient and that new frameworks prioritizing peace, inclusion, and citizen welfare are necessary. This consensus could facilitate adoption of the Cyber Peace Index and similar initiatives, though implementation challenges around measurement methodologies and global inequalities remain to be addressed.

Different viewpoints

Focus on current vs. future AI risks

Speakers

– Marlena Wisniak
– Dr. Subi Chaturvedi

Arguments

The index should focus on real-world harm today rather than overblown concerns about existential AI risks

45% of all breaches now involve AI-generated phishing and social engineering, driven by deepfakes and generative content

Summary

Wisniak argues for focusing on current real-world harms affecting marginalized communities rather than hypothetical future risks, while Chaturvedi emphasizes emerging AI-driven threats like deepfakes as significant current concerns requiring immediate attention

Topics

Human rights | Cybersecurity | Development

Approach to measuring digital peace

Speakers

– Anna Stynik
– Vineet Kumar

Arguments

Citizen-level surveys could complement national reports to reflect public perceptions of digital safety in more inclusive ways

The index uses a multi-stakeholder approach involving governments, technology platforms, civil society, and citizens to create a comprehensive framework

Summary

Stynik suggests citizen surveys as necessary complements to national reports due to transparency concerns, while Kumar presents a multi-stakeholder approach that includes but doesn’t prioritize citizen-level data collection over institutional frameworks

Topics

Human rights | Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Role of data centers and technological infrastructure in global development

Speakers

– Marlena Wisniak
– Suresh Yadav

Arguments

AI development is concentrated in the global north with disproportionate data centers, computing power, and resources in Europe, US, and China

The rapid growth of AI contributing $15 trillion by 2030 creates both opportunities and challenges for global digital transformation

Explanation

Unexpectedly, while both speakers acknowledge AI’s global impact, they have fundamentally different perspectives on technological infrastructure concentration. Wisniak views data center concentration as problematic inequality and questions whether the global majority even wants more data centers due to environmental concerns, while Yadav sees AI growth as creating investment opportunities without addressing the structural inequalities

Topics

Development | Economic | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows relatively low levels of direct disagreement, with most speakers supporting the Cyber Peace Index initiative. Main disagreements center on methodological approaches (top-down vs. bottom-up measurement), prioritization of current vs. emerging threats, and whether market-based or rights-based solutions should be emphasized

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers largely align on the need for the index and cyber peace goals, but differ on implementation approaches and priorities. This suggests the initiative has broad support but will need to navigate different stakeholder perspectives on methodology and focus areas to maintain consensus

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize AI as a double-edged technology that amplifies existing threats and inequalities, with AI being weaponized for malicious purposes while also perpetuating historical discrimination patterns.

Speakers

– Dr. Subi Chaturvedi
– Marlena Wisniak

Arguments

45% of all breaches now involve AI-generated phishing and social engineering, driven by deepfakes and generative content

Most AI models are trained on data rooted in colonial dynamics, leading to discriminatory outcomes for marginalized communities

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers frame cyber issues in economic terms, emphasizing the massive financial scale of both opportunities and threats in the digital economy, requiring strategic investment and policy responses.

Speakers

– Suresh Yadav
– Dr. Subi Chaturvedi

Arguments

The rapid growth of AI contributing $15 trillion by 2030 creates both opportunities and challenges for global digital transformation

The global cost of cybercrime has surpassed $10.5 trillion, making it equivalent to the third largest economy after the US and China

Topics

Economic | Development | Cybersecurity

Both speakers emphasize the importance of local, community-driven approaches and the challenges of creating inclusive measurement systems that account for diverse contexts and capabilities.

Speakers

– Marlena Wisniak
– Anna Stynik

Arguments

Community-led initiatives in the global majority are developing alternative approaches to large language models with culturally informed systems

Key challenges include quantifying concepts like psychological resilience and ensuring comparability across nations with varying data transparency

Topics

Development | Human rights | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

The Cyber Peace Index represents a paradigm shift from measuring cyber power/compliance to measuring citizen-centered digital peace, trust, and resilience

Current cyber threats pose existential challenges with $10.5 trillion annual economic impact and 15+ attacks per second on critical infrastructure

Digital inequalities are severe, with significant gaps in connectivity, AI development resources, and language representation favoring the global north

The absence of universally accepted cyber governance frameworks (unlike nuclear/chemical weapons treaties) creates urgent need for multilateral cooperation

Open source development and multi-stakeholder approaches are essential for building trust and ensuring global participation in cyber peace initiatives

AI development concentration in few organizations/regions creates power imbalances that threaten equitable digital futures

Community-led, culturally-informed alternative approaches to AI development show promise for more inclusive technological advancement

Resolutions and action items

Establish a Global Advisory Council for the Cyber Peace Index with multi-stakeholder participation (QR code/Google form provided for joining)

Develop real-time analytics capabilities and dynamic dashboards for policymakers, platform operators, and researchers

Create specialized modules for AI manipulation, quantum cybersecurity, and emerging technologies

Governments should adopt the index to inform national cyber strategies and international cooperation

Contributors should engage with the open source framework to ensure it evolves with emerging threats

Champion inclusivity to ensure the index reflects needs of all nations, especially those most vulnerable to cyber instability

Establish partnerships with survey institutions and local organizations for reliable, context-sensitive indicators

Unresolved issues

How to quantify abstract concepts like psychological resilience and digital peace in measurable terms

How to assign appropriate weights across the 10 different domains of the index

How to ensure data comparability across nations with varying levels of transparency and open data availability

How to address the concentration of AI development resources and redistribute them to the global majority

How to balance personal digital sovereignty with national digital sovereignty in governance frameworks

How to move from broad qualitative vision to greater quantitative clarity in measurement methodology

How to ensure the index remains relevant for Global South countries with limited digital infrastructure

Suggested compromises

Use citizen-level surveys to complement national reports, providing more grounded and inclusive safety perceptions

Reframe digital security as digital resilience, focusing on resilience rather than retaliation as a path to peace

Adopt a multilingual-by-design approach rather than English-first mentality in digital infrastructure development

Balance top-down institutional frameworks with bottom-up citizen experiences to find areas of genuine consensus

Combine national reports with collaborative international research to address transparency disparities

Focus on real-world harm today rather than speculative existential AI risks to maintain practical relevance

The index aligns with global compact like WSIS plus 20, the GDC, the Global Digital Compact, and the UN SDGs. But more than that, it aims to set a new normative direction. But cyber peace is not optional. It is essential.

Speaker

Vineet Kumar

Reason

This comment reframes cyber peace from an aspirational goal to an essential requirement, elevating the discussion beyond technical metrics to fundamental human needs. It positions the index not just as another measurement tool but as a normative framework that could influence global digital governance.

Impact

This framing set the tone for the entire discussion, with subsequent speakers building on this foundational premise that cyber peace is essential rather than optional. It shifted the conversation from ‘why measure cyber peace’ to ‘how do we achieve it effectively.’

What I personally find most important and even inspiring is that this index doesn’t follow the usual like hard power logic. It brings us a new lens, digital peace as societal wellbeing. That is a very different like citizen-centered vision.

Speaker

Anna Stynik

Reason

This observation identifies a paradigm shift from traditional security-focused approaches to human-centered digital governance. It highlights how the index challenges conventional power-based metrics by prioritizing citizen wellbeing over state capabilities.

Impact

Anna’s comment validated and deepened the philosophical foundation of the index, encouraging other speakers to think beyond traditional cybersecurity frameworks. It reinforced the bottom-up approach and influenced subsequent discussions about inclusivity and global representation.

If this economy of cyber related costs is 10.5 [trillion], it means definitely there is a counter economy if not more of the similar size which offers a new opportunity for the investors, impact investors… I see it as a form of cyber diagnostic investment opportunities.

Speaker

Suresh Yadav

Reason

This reframes cybersecurity from a cost center to an investment opportunity, introducing an economic lens that could attract private sector engagement. It suggests that cyber peace initiatives could be economically viable and attractive to impact investors.

Impact

This economic framing added a practical dimension to the discussion, moving beyond idealistic goals to concrete business cases. It opened up new avenues for funding and sustainability of cyber peace initiatives, influencing how other speakers considered implementation strategies.

One thing I often say when we think about AI governance is that algorithmic-driven systems rarely warrant a whole new approach to governance or new rights. The new thing is the scale and speed at which it operates, and really perpetuating and amplifying existing human rights risks.

Speaker

Marlena Wisniak

Reason

This challenges the common narrative that AI requires entirely new governance frameworks, instead arguing that AI amplifies existing inequalities. It grounds the discussion in current human rights frameworks while acknowledging the unique challenges of scale and speed.

Impact

Marlena’s perspective shifted the conversation from creating new solutions to addressing systemic inequalities that AI exacerbates. It brought focus to the global majority and marginalized communities, adding critical depth to discussions about inclusivity and representation in the index.

We also know we shouldn’t shy away from geopolitics… it’s not only the national sovereignty. I think it’s about balancing personal digital rights and personal digital sovereignty against or together with national digital sovereignty.

Speaker

Edmon Chung

Reason

This introduces the complex tension between individual and state sovereignty in digital spaces, acknowledging that cyber peace cannot ignore geopolitical realities while advocating for individual digital rights. It adds nuance to sovereignty discussions.

Impact

This comment brought necessary complexity to the discussion by acknowledging that cyber peace must navigate competing sovereignty claims. It influenced the conversation to consider multi-level governance challenges and the need to balance different stakeholder interests.

The cyber space index isn’t just a metric, it’s a manifesto for collective action… we can turn data into dialogue and dialogue into lasting cyber peace.

Speaker

Nicolas Caballero

Reason

This transforms the understanding of the index from a passive measurement tool to an active instrument for change. It emphasizes the transformative potential of data when used to facilitate meaningful dialogue between stakeholders.

Impact

Nicolas’s framing elevated the discussion by positioning the index as a catalyst for action rather than just measurement. It influenced other speakers to think about implementation and collective engagement, moving the conversation toward practical next steps.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing multiple complementary frameworks for understanding cyber peace. The conversation evolved from technical presentations to philosophical foundations (citizen-centered vs. state-centered approaches), then to practical considerations (economic opportunities, implementation challenges), and finally to complex governance questions (sovereignty tensions, global inequalities). The most impactful comments challenged conventional thinking – reframing cyber peace as essential rather than optional, viewing it through economic opportunity rather than just cost, and positioning measurement tools as catalysts for collective action. This created a rich, multi-dimensional dialogue that moved beyond technical specifications to address fundamental questions about digital governance, global equity, and the relationship between individual and collective security in cyberspace.

How do we measure digital peace and what does peace-centric mean in practice?

Speaker

Anna Stynik

Explanation

This is a fundamental question about the core methodology of the Cyber Peace Index, as measuring abstract concepts like ‘digital peace’ requires clear operational definitions and metrics.

How do we quantify psychological resilience and how do we assign weights across 10 very different domains?

Speaker

Anna Stynik

Explanation

This addresses the technical challenge of creating a composite index with diverse pillars, requiring sophisticated weighting methodologies and measurement approaches for intangible concepts.

How can we ensure comparability across nations, especially those with limited open data or low transparency?

Speaker

Anna Stynik

Explanation

This highlights the challenge of creating a globally applicable index when data availability and quality vary significantly across countries, particularly affecting developing nations.

How do we actually redistribute data centers, hardware, compute power, software, financing, data, and skills education to the global majority?

Speaker

Marlena Wisniak

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental inequality in AI and digital infrastructure distribution, which is crucial for achieving true cyber peace and digital equity globally.

How will the index take multilingual considerations into account in terms of infrastructure and resilience?

Speaker

Edmon Chung

Explanation

This is important for ensuring the index reflects the reality of a diverse, multilingual internet rather than defaulting to English-first approaches.

How to balance personal digital rights and personal digital sovereignty with national digital sovereignty?

Speaker

Edmon Chung

Explanation

This addresses a key tension in digital governance between individual privacy rights and national security interests, which is central to cyber peace.

Clear identification of data sources and their reliability for the index

Speaker

Anna Stynik

Explanation

This is crucial for establishing the credibility and validity of the index, as the quality of underlying data will determine the usefulness of the measurements.

How to ensure broad global relevance, particularly for countries of the global South, considering digital divides and disparities in AI development?

Speaker

Anna Stynik

Explanation

This addresses the risk of the index inadvertently reinforcing existing inequalities rather than helping to address them, which is essential for true inclusivity.

Development of citizen-level surveys to complement national reports and reflect public perceptions of digital safety

Speaker

Anna Stynik

Explanation

This would provide ground-truth validation of the index metrics and ensure that citizen experiences are accurately captured rather than relying solely on government-reported data.

How to address language inequities and cultural nuances in AI development within the index framework?

Speaker

Marlena Wisniak

Explanation

This is important for ensuring the index captures the full spectrum of digital experiences across different linguistic and cultural communities, not just dominant languages.