Parliamentary Closing Closing Remarks and Key Messages From the Parliamentary Track

Summary

This discussion focused on finalizing an output document from the parliamentary track at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which addressed information integrity, combating online harms, and protecting freedom of expression. Andy Richardson from the Inter-Parliamentary Union explained that the document captures key themes around three main areas: parliaments’ law-making roles, platforms’ responsibilities, and questions of power distribution between these entities. The central conclusion emphasized the fundamental importance of cooperation and dialogue between parliaments, public authorities, and various stakeholders including technical companies.

Participants provided feedback on the draft document, with suggestions to include references to environmental impacts of AI technologies, digital inclusion for marginalized groups, and balancing security with freedom of expression. Some proposed deletions regarding IGF participation and civil society references were rejected as they didn’t reflect the majority consensus. Several speakers raised concerns about moving beyond discussion to concrete action, with Anne McCormick questioning how to ensure the statement has credibility and weight through monitoring and follow-up mechanisms.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean expressed three main reservations: respect for national sovereignty in digital regulation, need for balance between security and freedom of expression, and equitable inclusion of Southern and Mediterranean countries. Other participants emphasized the urgency of developing specific instruments and frameworks, with suggestions for creating a digital governance radar similar to climate policy tracking systems. The session concluded with commitments to continue parliamentary exchanges, track AI policy developments, and organize future collaborative events, including a major parliamentary event on responsible AI to be hosted by Malaysia’s Parliament.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Output Document Development and Consensus Building**: The discussion centered around finalizing an output document that captures the parliamentary track discussions, with participants providing feedback on additions (environmental impact of AI, digital inclusion, balancing security with freedom of expression) while some proposed deletions (references to IGF and civil society) were rejected due to lack of consensus.

– **Moving from Talk to Action**: Multiple participants emphasized the urgent need to transition from discussions to concrete implementation, with calls for monitoring mechanisms, progress tracking tables, and specific instruments like treaties or binding conventions to address digital governance challenges.

– **Three P’s Framework – Parliaments, Platforms, and Power**: The core thematic framework focused on the law-making role of parliaments (ensuring human rights compliance), platform responsibilities for information integrity, and the dynamic power relationships between these entities, with cooperation and dialogue identified as fundamental solutions.

– **National Sovereignty vs. Global Cooperation**: Tensions emerged between respecting national sovereignty in digital regulation (allowing countries to regulate according to their own frameworks) and the need for international cooperation, particularly regarding support for Global South and Mediterranean countries in capacity building.

– **Resource Sharing and Knowledge Exchange**: Participants discussed creating systematic ways to share legislative experiences, including proposals for a “digital governance radar” similar to climate policy platforms, and ongoing parliamentary exchanges on AI regulation and digital policy development.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to finalize an output document from the parliamentary track of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), capture key insights from parliamentary discussions on digital governance and AI regulation, and establish concrete next steps for international parliamentary cooperation on technology policy issues.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, characterized by diplomatic language and mutual respect. While there were some tensions around specific content (particularly regarding national sovereignty concerns raised by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean), the overall atmosphere remained cooperative. The tone became increasingly urgent and action-oriented as participants emphasized the need to move beyond discussions to concrete implementation, but this urgency was expressed constructively rather than critically. The closing remarks reinforced the positive, forward-looking nature of the collaboration.

Speakers

– **Andy Richardson**: Inter-Parliamentary Union collaborator, involved in creating output documents for parliamentary tracks at IGF

– **Mahabd Al-Nasir**: From Egypt, attending his third international IGF

– **Audience**: Multiple unidentified speakers including a colleague from Algeria representing the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean, and other participants

– **Celine Bal**: Organizer/coordinator of the parliamentary track, works with IGF initiatives

– **Amira Saber**: From Egypt, has experience developing draft bills on climate policy

– **Anne McCormick**: From EY (Ernst & Young)

Additional speakers:

– No additional speakers were identified beyond those in the provided speakers names list. All speakers in the transcript were either named individuals from the list or identified as “Audience” members.

# Parliamentary Track Discussion: Finalising Output Document on Digital Governance and Information Integrity

## Executive Summary

This discussion focused on finalising an output document from the parliamentary track at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), addressing information integrity, online harms, and freedom of expression. The session brought together parliamentarians and stakeholders to review policy recommendations and discuss implementation challenges in digital governance.

## Key Participants and Context

The discussion was facilitated by Andy Richardson from the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Participants included Mahabd Al-Nasir from Egypt (attending his third international IGF), Amira Saber from Egypt with experience in climate policy development, Anne McCormick from EY, and Celine Bal from the parliamentary track. Additional contributions came from audience members, including a representative from Algeria speaking on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean. Celine Bal noted that there are 176 national and regional IGF initiatives globally.

## Core Framework: The Three P’s Approach

Richardson outlined the document’s central framework organised around three areas: Parliaments, Platforms, and Power. This structure addresses parliaments’ law-making roles in ensuring human rights compliance, platforms’ responsibilities for maintaining information integrity, and the power relationships between these entities. The framework emphasises that cooperation and dialogue between parliaments, public authorities, and stakeholders represents the fundamental solution to digital governance challenges.

## Document Development and Feedback Integration

The session focused on refining the output document based on participant feedback. Richardson detailed proposed additions, including references to the environmental impact of AI technologies, digital inclusion provisions for marginalised groups such as women, children, and people with disabilities, and the balance between security measures and freedom of expression.

Some participants had proposed deletions, particularly regarding references to IGF participation and civil society engagement. Richardson indicated these proposals might be set aside unless someone wished to pursue them further, as they did not reflect the majority consensus from the discussions.

## Implementation and Accountability Challenges

Anne McCormick raised questions about document credibility and implementation, asking about speed, concreteness and credibility. She challenged participants to consider committing to monitoring progress or reviewing achievements within six months, asking “How do we make this more than talk?”

Mahabd Al-Nasir echoed these concerns, expressing his desire for a year-over-year tracking system that would document actual achievements rather than simply producing documents without knowing their impact in parliaments, governments, or countries. He suggested creating progress tracking tables.

## Calls for Binding Instruments

An audience member highlighted the urgency expressed by parliamentarians present, calling for moving beyond strategies and frameworks towards “treaties or universally binding conventions.” This intervention elevated the discussion to questions about governance structures and the adequacy of current approaches.

## National Sovereignty and Regional Perspectives

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean, represented by the Algerian delegate, outlined three main reservations presented as constructive and cooperative feedback: the importance of respecting national sovereignty and allowing parliaments to regulate digital space according to their own legal, cultural, and social frameworks; the need for balance between digital security and freedom of expression with clearer definitions of harmful content and disinformation; and the requirement for equitable inclusion of Global South and Mediterranean countries with strengthened capacity-building support. They also asked when the final document version would be available.

## Environmental Considerations

Multiple participants emphasised the need for attention to the environmental impact of AI technologies. An audience member called for greater emphasis on environmental impact, noting that AI technologies are particularly energy-intensive. This concern was integrated into the document revisions.

## Knowledge Sharing Proposals

Amira Saber proposed creating a “digital governance radar” platform similar to existing climate policy radar systems. This platform would be developed in collaboration with the Inter-Parliamentary Union and IGF secretariat to provide parliamentarians with comprehensive access to global legislative experiences and digital governance policies.

## Concrete Commitments and Next Steps

Several specific commitments emerged from the discussion:

– The IPU committed to integrating feedback into the output document and tracking parliamentary actions on AI policy across jurisdictions, with an invitation for parliaments to share their AI policy work

– The Parliament of Malaysia committed to hosting a parliamentary event on responsible AI development at the end of November in partnership with the IPU, UNDP, and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

– Upcoming collaborative sessions were announced, including AI regulation discussions (2:45 to 3:45 in the afternoon in Studio N) and sessions on youth policy visions and indigenous language technology barriers (on the 26th in Vestfold)

– The final output document will become part of the formal IGF record and be distributed to all national parliaments

– Organisers pledged to circulate the final output document and session summaries to all participants

## Conclusion

The discussion addressed practical implementation challenges in digital governance while reviewing policy recommendations. Key themes included the need for concrete accountability mechanisms, environmental considerations in AI policy, knowledge sharing platforms, and balancing international cooperation with national sovereignty. The session produced specific commitments for future collaboration, including the Malaysian parliamentary event and ongoing tracking of AI policy developments across jurisdictions.

Celine Bal: very much. And before I actually give the floor also to Andy, our close collaborator from the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I also wanted to mention that we do have over 176 national and regional IGF initiatives and we also very much encourage members of parliaments not only to take part in our global parliamentary track but also the ones that exist at regional, sub-regional or even national levels. So I would like to give the floor now to Andy so that we discuss a little bit more the next steps for the output document that is resulting from that track.

Andy Richardson: Thank you, Celine, and to everybody who is still with us today. At the end of each parliamentary track at IGF there is an output document which tries to capture and summarize your discussions and then becomes part of the formal record of the parliamentary track, part of the record of this IGF and is also distributed to all national parliaments. And so between Celine, myself and with the help of many others we’ve tried to capture the different points that have come up in your discussions. A draft was circulated this morning and we received a lot of very positive feedback indicating a strong degree of consensus. Also some suggestions for modifications. I’ll say a couple of words about the document and then open the floor if anyone would like to make further observations. So firstly on the output document itself, what does it say? Our discussions here have been largely focused on questions of information integrity, of combating online harms while protecting freedom of expression. And the main ideas can be maybe captured in three P’s. Parliaments, platforms and power. Noting that parliaments of course have a fundamental law-making role that all legislation should be in line with and compliant with international human rights principles and really inviting parliaments to draw upon the best available expertise within the technical community and amongst the whole IGF multi-stakeholder community. There’s also been a lot of discussion of the role of platforms and the particular responsibilities that platforms bear when it comes to information integrity and combating online harms. And from this intersection between parliaments and platforms there are really questions of power, relational power, where that sits. And you’ve heard the discussions yourselves. It’s a very dynamic relationship with different perspectives but it’s very much a live issue of where does the power lie. And out of your discussions the main conclusion that we really heard from you was about the fundamental importance of cooperation and dialogue. Cooperation between parliaments to share experiences but also cooperation between parliaments and public authorities and the whole range of stakeholders including the technical sector, including the very powerful technical companies. These questions can only be resolved through ongoing dialogue. And so the output document attempts to capture these points. The feedback on the draft made some really interesting and useful suggestions for additions which with your approval we propose to take on board. So points around noting the environmental impact of technologies, particularly AI data centers, reinforcing the notion of digital inclusion, inclusion for women, children but also other groups which risk exclusion such as people with disabilities. And reinforcing some of the points around trying to balance security with freedom of expression and combating hate speech. So there are a lot of really useful comments which will be integrated into the output document. There were a couple of proposals for deletions which didn’t obviously meet with the consensus of the discussions. I’ll reference them. There were proposals to delete references to the IGF and participation in international processes, to delete references to civil society. But really it didn’t feel that these were in line with the majority of views during the discussion. So unless someone wishes to pursue and explain the points we may set them aside. So with that this is the very main ideas around the output document as a reflection of your discussions. We have a little bit of time, a couple of minutes, if there are any further observations on the draft which you received earlier today and following these comments. Would anyone like to make any further comments? Please raise your hand.

Anne McCormick: Bonjour, it’s Anne McCormick from EY again. We provided some written comments but I had a question which is given the importance of speed, concreteness and credibility in these types of statements, from your experience and that of the people in this room, how do we make sure that this statement has weight and credibility? Do we state that we will monitor this or that we will come back and review progress on each of the points and sub points in six months? How do we make this more than talk? Talk matters but talk itself loses the power of its content if it’s not followed by action.

Mahabd Al-Nasir: Thank you. A comment from the side. My name is Mahabd Al-Nasir, I’m from Egypt. Actually this is the third international IGF I’m attending. I can say that we always say very great things, so capitalizing on what my colleague was just saying. I would love to have for the next IGF something like, I don’t know, a table saying that we need to take down what is already done or what we could achieve year over year. So we don’t just get out with the very good documents but we don’t know what they are going to do with it in our parliaments or in our governments or countries or whatever. Thank you.

Celine Bal: Thank you. A colleague from Algeria.

Audience: Thank you, Andy. I switch to French, please. So, in relation to the project of declaration of the parliamentary course, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean wishes to formulate, in a constructive and cooperative spirit, three main reservations. Firstly, the respect for national sovereignty. Indeed, the PM underlines the importance of allowing each parliament to regulate the digital space according to its own legal, cultural and social frameworks. This requirement is particularly crucial in terms of the proposed legislative approaches on online content and platform regulation. I have given you references to the corresponding paragraphs. Secondly, there is a need for a balance between digital security and freedom of expression. While reaffirming the commitment of the PM against disinformation and harmful content and severe threats, the PM calls for guarantees to ensure that fundamental freedoms are not compromised. A greater clarity is also desired when defining terms such as harmful content, disinformation or intimidation. And thirdly, the equitable inclusion of the countries of the South and the Mediterranean. The APM insists on the need for strengthened support and on the development of the capacities of the South and the East Parliaments of the Mediterranean in order to guarantee a balanced and inclusive implementation of the commitments made. By thanking you for the collaboration and the spirit of openness and mutual respect, I just wanted to know when we will have the final version of the document. Thank you. One of the things that I think needs to be captured out of IGF 2025 is the urgency with which every Member of Parliament who has spoken here is asking for us to define the mission. We have been coming to IGF and generally speaking about technology and then in the last few years now we are hearing about AI. The conversations are general, they are talking about what parameters we should put but now there is an urgency in terms of what instruments, specific instruments are going to be developed so that we can draw the riverbanks for this work that we are doing. Each and every person I have listened to, including at the plenary when Joseph Gordon was presenting, each of them has a struggle. The developers have a struggle. I heard him speak about the struggle that the creatives have. We definitely have a struggle about data representation and people are asking what is that common ground that defines this struggle for all of us so that it is not a developer versus government front or a civil society versus government or even people versus big tech. We are asking what is that common ground and how can it be put in an instrument that we are able to pursue and to my mind I am thinking about working towards strategies, working towards frameworks and with the need to come to treaties or universally binding conventions and the urgency is real. Everybody is saying to us we have spoken too much, let’s put the ink to paper. I thank you.

Andy Richardson: Thank you very much. From Egypt. Thank you so much.

Amira Saber: I will be very quick about my suggestion. In my experience to develop the draft bill on climate in Egypt, I used a climate policy radar which is a very good platform where every legislation that is related to climate anywhere in the world is put on the map and is accessible for every parliamentarian. This gives the wealth of knowledge on the legislation. I suggest the same thing which could be easily done in collaboration with the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the IGF secretariat to have a digital inclusion or digital governance radar. Or what has been released from the parliamentarians across the world when it comes to digital governance. That would be extremely beneficial to any parliamentarian. Thank you.

Andy Richardson: Thank you very much. And perhaps a final comment at the back of the room, please.

Audience: Thank you so much, dear honorable colleagues and experts. First of all, I want to thank you for the enlightenment and discussions and inputs we got the last two days. It’s amazing. And we tackled a lot of issues that are very, very important. Especially, we discussed risks of digitalization of AI. We explored threats to human rights, to democracy, to truth itself through deepfake and algorithmic manipulation. One thing that we tackled, not enough, that I also sent to you is the need to have a clear vision of the future. One thing that we tackled, not enough, that I also sent to you is the issue of environmental impact of the technologies we use. Especially AI is very intense in energy. And I just wanted to stress out the point that we also have to think about that probably all the time because it’s an issue that tackles us on the whole world. And I think we have to, we didn’t, the only part where we did that was yesterday in the parliament. There was a discussion about that and I wanted to enforce that we get that too. Thank you.

Andy Richardson: Thank you very much to everybody for these very useful inputs. We take good note of all of these points. I think the first speakers raised the core action referring to the urgency, to the need to move. Now I think that this is a shared responsibility amongst every person in the room whether they’re a member of parliament or a different type of participant. There are different ways and at different levels that each of us can be taking action. Firstly, the parliamentarians here are truly and genuinely the central figures in this. And so it’s within your national parliaments. What questions are being raised? What hearings are being carried out? And are you able to move the political agenda in your own countries? We’ve heard a lot about the different resources available within the IGF community and really an invitation to draw upon the expertise of the technical community of civil society in the private sector. Parliaments can engage in their national IGF communities. These communities exist very broadly. They can engage at the regional level as well where there are many guidance documents and fora that exist. And at our level, at the IPU level, we are committed to continuing the exchange between parliaments providing fora for ongoing exchange of experience. I talked a little bit earlier about we have a specific focus around AI at the moment because it’s so new and emerging. So many parliaments are asking themselves questions. Tomorrow, in partnership with UNDP, there will be a session on AI regulation where we will hear examples from different jurisdictions, from the European Parliament, from Egypt and from Uruguay, but also all other parliaments that want to come and share what they have done or what they are doing. We are currently tracking parliamentary actions on AI policy. There are also other sources of what legislation exists. And there are links to all of the committees that are acting, to all of the draft legislation. If your parliament is taking action on AI policy, we want to hear about that so that that can be shared. And as the colleague from UNDP referred to earlier, we are about to publicly announce that at the end of November, the Parliament of Malaysia will host, along with the IPU, UNDP and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, a major parliamentary event on the role of parliaments in developing responsible AI. We see very much our role is trying to connect the members of parliament who are trying to take action in this area so that they can exchange notes on their progress, on their challenges, their obstacles and how to try to work together and build the coalitions that you have been describing today. So at all of these different levels, we believe there is space for progress and frankly I think we are heartened as well. by the very high level of participation in this parliamentary track and it’s the sign that there is action taking place in your parliaments. We will clean up the output document, we will circulate it and we hope that this will be helpful to you as you try to advance your agendas in your parliaments. Céline, maybe a closing word?

Celine Bal: Thank you very much, Andy, also for this very good summary. Perhaps just for advanced information, we will also, in addition to this output document, have some summary of discussions from each of the sessions and we will of course also track the different references that have been done, different documents that have been mentioned, especially from the session that happened just before with all the various stakeholder groups that came together and really wanted to show some concrete collaboration opportunities with you members of Parliament. And last but not least, before closing the parliamentary track, I mentioned already that there are other sessions taking place for the rest of the week from different stakeholder groups organized and there are specific ones that are really inviting members of parliaments also to join. So one of them will be starting tomorrow at 9 here in Studio N, a collaborative sessions on foundations of AI and cloud policy. There is also one that has been mentioned by the European Parliament, including youth and their policy visions, happening later on in Vestfold, also in the morning. And we have also the session that has been mentioned by Andy, co-organized by UNDP as well, with the Interparliamentary Union in the afternoon from 2.45 to 3.45 on the AI regulation. And last but not least, there’s also a session on the 26th organized by the Sámi Parliament, together with the Norwegian government and also UNESCO, on addressing the barriers to indigenous language technology and AI uptake. So again, explore the program and also, last but not least, let us know about any feedback that you may have. We’re going to integrate it also for future sessions. Thank you so much.

Andy Richardson: Thank you, Celine. And with that… Thank you. And with those final words, I thank the Parliament of Norway for hosting this parliamentary track to all of the participants and particularly to Celine for all of her efforts in putting this together. Thank you. Enjoy the rest of the IGF.

Agreement points

Need for concrete action and implementation mechanisms beyond producing documents

Speakers

– Anne McCormick
– Mahabd Al-Nasir
– Audience

Arguments

Importance of speed, concreteness, and credibility in statements, with need for monitoring and progress review mechanisms

Need for year-over-year tracking of achievements rather than just producing good documents without follow-up action

Urgency for developing specific instruments and frameworks, moving from general discussions to binding conventions and treaties

Summary

Multiple speakers emphasized the critical need to move beyond discussions and document production to concrete implementation, monitoring, and accountability mechanisms. They shared concerns about the gap between policy statements and actual action.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Environmental impact of AI technologies requires greater attention

Speakers

– Andy Richardson
– Audience

Arguments

Suggestions for additions include environmental impact of AI, digital inclusion for marginalized groups, and balancing security with freedom of expression

Need for clear vision of future and greater emphasis on environmental impact of AI technologies which are energy-intensive

Summary

Both speakers recognized that the environmental impact of AI technologies, particularly their energy-intensive nature, needs more emphasis and consideration in policy discussions.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Importance of knowledge sharing platforms and collaborative mechanisms

Speakers

– Andy Richardson
– Amira Saber
– Celine Bal

Arguments

Commitment to continuing parliamentary exchanges and providing forums for experience sharing, particularly on AI regulation

Proposal to create a digital governance radar platform similar to climate policy radar to share legislative knowledge globally

Encouragement for parliamentarians to engage with national and regional IGF initiatives beyond the global parliamentary track

Summary

Speakers agreed on the value of creating and maintaining platforms for knowledge sharing, whether through parliamentary exchanges, digital governance radars, or multi-level IGF initiatives to facilitate collaboration and learning.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers expressed frustration with the cycle of producing good policy documents without adequate follow-up mechanisms to ensure implementation and track progress over time.

Speakers

– Anne McCormick
– Mahabd Al-Nasir

Arguments

Importance of speed, concreteness, and credibility in statements, with need for monitoring and progress review mechanisms

Need for year-over-year tracking of achievements rather than just producing good documents without follow-up action

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both organizational representatives emphasized the importance of ongoing parliamentary engagement through multiple channels and levels, from global to national initiatives.

Speakers

– Andy Richardson
– Celine Bal

Arguments

Commitment to continuing parliamentary exchanges and providing forums for experience sharing, particularly on AI regulation

Upcoming collaborative sessions and events including AI policy discussions and indigenous language technology barriers

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Environmental impact of AI should be integrated into digital governance discussions

Speakers

– Andy Richardson
– Audience

Arguments

Suggestions for additions include environmental impact of AI, digital inclusion for marginalized groups, and balancing security with freedom of expression

Need for clear vision of future and greater emphasis on environmental impact of AI technologies which are energy-intensive

Explanation

It was unexpected to see environmental concerns emerge as a consensus point in what was primarily a discussion about parliamentary governance and digital policy. This suggests a growing recognition that environmental sustainability must be integrated into all technology policy discussions.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Strong agreement on need for practical implementation despite diverse national contexts

Speakers

– Anne McCormick
– Mahabd Al-Nasir
– Audience

Arguments

Importance of speed, concreteness, and credibility in statements, with need for monitoring and progress review mechanisms

Need for year-over-year tracking of achievements rather than just producing good documents without follow-up action

Urgency for developing specific instruments and frameworks, moving from general discussions to binding conventions and treaties

Explanation

Despite representing different regions and contexts, speakers showed remarkable consensus on the need for concrete action and accountability mechanisms, suggesting universal frustration with the gap between policy discussions and implementation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus around three main areas: the urgent need for concrete implementation mechanisms beyond document production, the importance of knowledge-sharing platforms and collaborative frameworks, and the recognition that environmental impacts of AI technologies must be integrated into digital governance discussions.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive engagement. While there were some specific reservations raised (particularly around national sovereignty and cultural considerations), the overall tone was collaborative with speakers building on each other’s ideas rather than opposing them. This suggests a mature policy discussion environment where participants are focused on practical solutions rather than ideological differences. The implications are positive for future parliamentary cooperation on digital governance issues, as the shared recognition of implementation gaps and the value of collaboration provides a strong foundation for concrete action.

Different viewpoints

Inclusion of references to IGF and civil society in output document

Speakers

– Andy Richardson
– Audience

Arguments

Document captures discussions on information integrity, combating online harms, and protecting freedom of expression through three key areas: parliaments, platforms, and power

There were proposals to delete references to the IGF and participation in international processes, to delete references to civil society

Summary

Some participants proposed removing references to IGF and civil society from the output document, but Andy Richardson indicated these deletions didn’t meet consensus and weren’t in line with majority views during discussions

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Unexpected differences

National sovereignty versus international cooperation framework

Speakers

– Audience
– Andy Richardson

Arguments

Importance of respecting national sovereignty and allowing parliaments to regulate digital space according to their own legal, cultural, and social frameworks

Document captures discussions on information integrity, combating online harms, and protecting freedom of expression through three key areas: parliaments, platforms, and power

Explanation

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean raised significant concerns about national sovereignty and the need for parliaments to regulate according to their own frameworks, which was unexpected given the collaborative nature of the IGF process and suggests tension between international coordination and national autonomy

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The main disagreements centered on document content (IGF/civil society references), implementation mechanisms (monitoring vs tracking vs treaties), emphasis on environmental issues, and national sovereignty concerns. Most disagreements were procedural rather than substantive.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. While there were some tensions around national sovereignty and document content, most participants shared common goals of moving from discussion to action. The disagreements were primarily about methods and emphasis rather than fundamental objectives, suggesting good potential for resolution through continued dialogue.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers expressed frustration with the cycle of producing good policy documents without adequate follow-up mechanisms to ensure implementation and track progress over time.

Speakers

– Anne McCormick
– Mahabd Al-Nasir

Arguments

Importance of speed, concreteness, and credibility in statements, with need for monitoring and progress review mechanisms

Need for year-over-year tracking of achievements rather than just producing good documents without follow-up action

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both organizational representatives emphasized the importance of ongoing parliamentary engagement through multiple channels and levels, from global to national initiatives.

Speakers

– Andy Richardson
– Celine Bal

Arguments

Commitment to continuing parliamentary exchanges and providing forums for experience sharing, particularly on AI regulation

Upcoming collaborative sessions and events including AI policy discussions and indigenous language technology barriers

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

Parliamentary discussions should focus on three key areas: parliaments (law-making role compliant with human rights), platforms (responsibilities for information integrity), and power (dynamic relationships between stakeholders)

Cooperation and dialogue are fundamental – between parliaments to share experiences and between parliaments and all stakeholders including technical sector and companies

There is urgent need to move from general discussions to concrete action and specific instruments, with parliamentarians expressing frustration about too much talk without implementation

Environmental impact of AI technologies, particularly energy-intensive data centers, needs greater emphasis in policy discussions

Digital inclusion must encompass women, children, people with disabilities, and other marginalized groups

National sovereignty must be respected, allowing parliaments to regulate digital space according to their own legal, cultural, and social frameworks

Resolutions and action items

Integrate feedback into output document including environmental impact of AI, digital inclusion provisions, and security-freedom of expression balance

IPU committed to continuing parliamentary exchanges and providing forums for ongoing experience sharing

Track parliamentary actions on AI policy and share information about legislation and committees across jurisdictions

Create opportunities for parliamentarians to engage with national and regional IGF initiatives

Organize upcoming collaborative sessions including AI regulation discussions and indigenous language technology barriers

Parliament of Malaysia to host major parliamentary event on responsible AI development in partnership with IPU, UNDP, and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

Circulate final output document and session summaries to all participants

Unresolved issues

How to ensure document credibility and implementation beyond just producing statements – no concrete monitoring mechanism established

Lack of year-over-year tracking system to measure actual achievements versus commitments

Need for clearer definitions of terms like ‘harmful content,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘intimidation’

Timeline for final document version not clearly specified

No specific binding instruments or treaties developed despite expressed urgency

Proposal for digital governance radar platform mentioned but not formally adopted or resourced

Suggested compromises

Balance between digital security and freedom of expression while protecting against disinformation and harmful content

Respect national sovereignty while maintaining international cooperation and human rights compliance

Include references to IGF participation and civil society engagement despite some proposals for deletion

Strengthen support for Global South and Mediterranean countries while maintaining universal applicability of commitments

Move toward specific instruments and frameworks while continuing dialogue and cooperation approaches

Given the importance of speed, concreteness and credibility in these types of statements, from your experience and that of the people in this room, how do we make sure that this statement has weight and credibility? Do we state that we will monitor this or that we will come back and review progress on each of the points and sub points in six months? How do we make this more than talk?

Speaker

Anne McCormick

Reason

This comment cuts to the heart of a fundamental problem with international policy discussions – the gap between rhetoric and action. McCormick challenges the entire premise of creating output documents without accountability mechanisms, forcing participants to confront whether their efforts will have real-world impact.

Impact

This comment created a pivotal shift in the discussion from focusing on document content to questioning the entire framework of how policy recommendations are implemented. It sparked immediate agreement from other participants and led to concrete suggestions for tracking mechanisms and follow-up processes.

I would love to have for the next IGF something like, I don’t know, a table saying that we need to take down what is already done or what we could achieve year over year. So we don’t just get out with the very good documents but we don’t know what they are going to do with it in our parliaments or in our governments or countries or whatever.

Speaker

Mahabd Al-Nasir

Reason

This builds on McCormick’s challenge by proposing a concrete solution – creating accountability through year-over-year progress tracking. It demonstrates the frustration of repeat participants who see the same patterns of discussion without measurable outcomes.

Impact

This comment reinforced the accountability theme and provided a practical framework that other participants could envision implementing. It helped transform abstract concerns about effectiveness into actionable proposals.

One of the things that I think needs to be captured out of IGF 2025 is the urgency with which every Member of Parliament who has spoken here is asking for us to define the mission… We are asking what is that common ground and how can it be put in an instrument that we are able to pursue and to my mind I am thinking about working towards strategies, working towards frameworks and with the need to come to treaties or universally binding conventions and the urgency is real.

Speaker

Unidentified participant

Reason

This comment synthesizes the frustration expressed throughout the discussion and elevates it to a strategic level, calling for binding international instruments rather than voluntary guidelines. It reframes the discussion from technical cooperation to fundamental governance structures.

Impact

This intervention shifted the conversation toward more ambitious policy solutions and highlighted the inadequacy of current soft-law approaches. It introduced the concept of binding treaties, raising the stakes of the discussion significantly.

I suggest the same thing which could be easily done in collaboration with the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the IGF secretariat to have a digital inclusion or digital governance radar… That would be extremely beneficial to any parliamentarian.

Speaker

Amira Saber

Reason

This comment provides a concrete, actionable solution that addresses the knowledge-sharing challenges parliamentarians face. By referencing her successful experience with climate policy radar, she offers a proven model that could be adapted for digital governance.

Impact

This practical suggestion provided a tangible next step that organizers could implement, moving the discussion from abstract concerns to specific solutions. It demonstrated how cross-sector learning could address parliamentarians’ information needs.

The PM underlines the importance of allowing each parliament to regulate the digital space according to its own legal, cultural and social frameworks… calls for guarantees to ensure that fundamental freedoms are not compromised… insists on the need for strengthened support and on the development of the capacities of the South and the East Parliaments of the Mediterranean

Speaker

Audience member from Algeria (Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean)

Reason

This comment introduces crucial tensions between international cooperation and national sovereignty, highlighting how global digital governance frameworks may conflict with regional values and capabilities. It challenges the assumption that one-size-fits-all approaches are appropriate.

Impact

This intervention added complexity to the discussion by highlighting potential conflicts between global standards and local contexts. It forced organizers to acknowledge that consensus might not be as strong as initially assumed and that implementation would need to account for diverse national circumstances.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed the discussion from a routine policy document review into a critical examination of international governance effectiveness. The progression from McCormick’s accountability challenge through Al-Nasir’s tracking proposal to the call for binding treaties created a crescendo of frustration with existing approaches. Saber’s practical radar suggestion and the Algerian representative’s sovereignty concerns added both solutions and complexity. Together, these interventions elevated the conversation from technical cooperation to fundamental questions about how international digital governance should work, creating pressure for more ambitious and accountable approaches while acknowledging the challenges of diverse national contexts.

How do we make sure that this statement has weight and credibility? Do we state that we will monitor this or that we will come back and review progress on each of the points and sub points in six months? How do we make this more than talk?

Speaker

Anne McCormick

Explanation

This addresses the critical need for accountability and follow-through on parliamentary commitments, moving beyond discussion to concrete action and measurable outcomes.

Need for a tracking system to monitor what has been achieved year over year from IGF outcomes

Speaker

Mahabd Al-Nasir

Explanation

This suggests creating a systematic approach to track progress on IGF commitments and outcomes across different parliaments and countries to ensure accountability.

When will we have the final version of the document?

Speaker

Audience member from Algeria

Explanation

This is a practical question about timeline and delivery of the output document that needs clarification for participants.

What is that common ground that defines the struggle for all stakeholders so that it is not a developer versus government front or a civil society versus government or even people versus big tech?

Speaker

Unidentified speaker

Explanation

This addresses the need to identify shared challenges and interests across different stakeholder groups to foster collaboration rather than adversarial relationships.

How can common ground be put in an instrument that we are able to pursue – working towards strategies, frameworks, treaties or universally binding conventions?

Speaker

Unidentified speaker

Explanation

This explores the need for concrete legal and policy instruments to address digital governance challenges at national and international levels.

Development of a digital inclusion or digital governance radar platform in collaboration with IPU and IGF secretariat

Speaker

Amira Saber

Explanation

This proposes creating a comprehensive database of digital governance legislation worldwide, similar to climate policy radar, to help parliamentarians access and learn from global legislative experiences.

How to better address and integrate environmental impact of technologies, especially AI’s energy intensity, into digital governance discussions

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This highlights the need for more comprehensive consideration of environmental sustainability in digital policy discussions, particularly regarding AI and data centers.