Parliamentary Session 4 From Dialogue to Action Advancing Digital Cooperation Across Regions and Stakeholder Groups

Summary

This discussion focused on advancing digital cooperation across regions and stakeholder groups, building on the 2024 parliamentarian track at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The session brought together parliamentarians, technical community representatives, private sector actors, civil society organizations, and intergovernmental bodies to explore practical approaches for collaborative digital policymaking.

Key themes emerged around capacity building and multi-stakeholder cooperation. Representatives from organizations like Internet Society and APNIC Foundation emphasized the importance of national and regional IGFs as platforms for norm-setting and knowledge exchange. Several parliamentarians highlighted the need for enhanced technical understanding among legislators, with speakers from Timor-Leste and Tanzania proposing specific mechanisms for integrating internet governance expertise into parliamentary committees.

A significant concern raised was addressing power imbalances between national governments and major technology companies. The German parliamentarian stressed the need for legislators to reclaim authority over digital platforms that currently operate with quasi-monopolistic power. This sentiment was echoed by speakers from Pakistan and Lithuania, who called for greater accountability from social media platforms regarding content moderation and compliance with national laws.

Regional cooperation emerged as a crucial element, with representatives from Africa, Latin America, and Europe sharing successful models. The African Union and various African organizations highlighted the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance (APRINIC) as an effective capacity-building initiative. Similarly, Chile’s senator discussed future committees as innovative parliamentary structures for addressing digital challenges.

Several speakers emphasized the importance of trust as the foundation of digital cooperation, while others called for transparent and accountable AI development. The discussion concluded with strong support for creating ongoing platforms for parliamentarian collaboration beyond the annual IGF meetings.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Multi-stakeholder collaboration and capacity building for parliamentarians**: Multiple speakers emphasized the need for ongoing training and knowledge exchange between parliamentarians, technical communities, private sector, and civil society to bridge knowledge gaps in digital governance and AI policy-making.

– **Power imbalances and accountability of big tech companies**: Several parliamentarians, particularly from Germany and Pakistan, raised concerns about the quasi-monopolistic power of major technology platforms and the need for stronger mechanisms to hold them accountable to national laws and public interests.

– **Operationalizing digital cooperation beyond the IGF**: Speakers discussed practical steps for sustaining collaboration, including establishing permanent platforms for dialogue, creating knowledge-sharing portals, and integrating internet governance into parliamentary committee structures.

– **Regional cooperation and harmonization of regulatory frameworks**: Many participants highlighted the importance of regional networks (like APNIC in Africa) and the need to harmonize digital governance approaches across regions, especially to help developing countries build capacity.

– **Trust, transparency, and technical infrastructure protection**: Discussion centered on building trust in digital systems through transparency (especially in AI), protecting the technical underpinnings of the internet, and ensuring policy decisions don’t compromise global internet interoperability.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to move “from dialogue to action” by bringing together parliamentarians with multi-stakeholder representatives to identify concrete, collaborative approaches for advancing digital governance and sustaining cooperation beyond the Internet Governance Forum.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was constructive and collaborative throughout, with participants sharing experiences and best practices rather than engaging in confrontational debate. There was a sense of urgency about addressing digital governance challenges, but the atmosphere remained solution-oriented. The tone became slightly more pointed when discussing big tech accountability, but overall maintained a diplomatic and cooperative spirit focused on building bridges between different stakeholder groups.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Jennifer Chung** – Moderator, from DotAsia and 2025 MAG member

– **Olaf Kolkman** – Principal of Internet Technology Policy and Advocacy at the Internet Society

– **Raul Echeberria** – Executive Director of the Latin American Internet Association (private sector)

– **Abel Pires da Silva** – Former Chair of Infrastructure Committee, National Parliament of Timor-Leste

– **Rajnesh Singh** – CEO at APNIC Foundation (Asia Pacific Network Information Centre)

– **Anna Luhrmann** – Member of Parliament from Germany

– **Rodrigo Goni** – Member of Parliament from Uruguay

– **Anusha Rahman** – Senator from Pakistan

– **Nazarius Kirama** – President of Internet Society Tanzania chapter, from Tanzania IGF

– **Johannes Vallesverd** – Norwegian regulator

– **Becky Burr** – Representative from ICANN

– **Kenneth Pugh** – Senator from Chile

– **Laura Gerasim** – Member of Romanian Parliament, Chairperson of committee on investigation of abuses, corruptions, and petitions

– **Adel ElMessiry** – Justice from Egypt

– **Jekaterina Rojaka** – Lithuanian Parliament member, heads committee for suicide and violence prevention

– **Peace Oliver Amuge** – Works for Association for Progressive Communications, involved with AFRICIG

– **Munir Ibrahim Suroor** – Member of Parliament from Bahrain Kingdom

– **Guilherme Canela** – Director for Digital Policies and Transformation at UNESCO

– **Sarah Lister** – Director of Governance at UNDP

– **Sean Maher** – Global Vice Chair of Public Policy for EY

– **Shuaib Afolabi Salisu** – Senator from Nigeria, Chair of Nigerian Senate Committee on ICT and Cybersecurity, Chairman of West African Parliamentarians Network on Internet Governance

– **Amira Saber** – Member of Parliament from Egypt

– **Speaker 1** – Representative from IPU (Inter-Parliamentary Union)

– **Brando Benifei** – Member of European Parliament, co-chair and lead negotiator for AI Act

– **Desiree Milosevic** – RIPE Corporation Working Group Co-Chair, RIPE NCC representative

– **Adil Suleiman** – Representative from African Union and APNIC (African Parliamentary Network)

– **Lillian Nalwoga** – Works with CIPESA (Collaboration on International ICT Policy for Eastern and Southern Africa), based in Kampala, Uganda

– **Mactar Seck** – Dr., Chief of Technology and Innovation at United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA)

# Comprehensive Report: From Dialogue to Action – Advancing Digital Cooperation Through Multi-Stakeholder Parliamentary Engagement

## Executive Summary

This comprehensive discussion brought together parliamentarians, technical community representatives, private sector actors, civil society organisations, and intergovernmental bodies to explore practical approaches for collaborative digital policymaking. The session, moderated by Jennifer Chung from DotAsia and the 2025 MAG, aimed to move beyond theoretical discussions towards actionable frameworks for digital cooperation, building upon the successful 2024 parliamentarian track at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

The 19-minute session (which ran longer) was interpreted in English, Spanish, and French, and included representatives from diverse organizations including OpenAI, Ally, Google, Meta, ISOC, APNIC Foundation, ICANN, RIPE NCC, Center for Democracy and Technology, Oversight Board, AFRICIG, Atlantic Council, African Union, GIZ, UNDP, UNESCO, and UNICEF.

The dialogue revealed strong consensus around key digital governance challenges, with participants demonstrating agreement on the necessity of multi-stakeholder collaboration, the critical importance of capacity building for parliamentarians, the need for technical expertise to inform policy decisions, and the urgency of addressing platform accountability issues.

## Key Themes and Areas of Focus

### Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration and Governance Mechanisms

The discussion opened with strong emphasis on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration. Olaf Kolkman from the Internet Society highlighted how “national and regional IGFs serve as collection points for norming and operationalising solutions that can be shared globally,” positioning these forums as crucial infrastructure for collaborative governance.

Raul Echeberria from the Latin American Internet Association provided insightful analysis of the cultural challenges inherent in multi-stakeholder cooperation, observing differences between consensus-building approaches common in internet governance and majority-rule systems in traditional politics.

Abel Pires da Silva from Timor-Leste’s Parliament advocated for specific working groups on AI, data privacy, and misinformation to improve multi-stakeholder collaboration. Rodrigo Goni from Uruguay introduced the concept of “future committees” in parliaments that practice multi-stakeholder governance and overcome traditional political dichotomies.

Johannes Vallesverd from the Norwegian regulator demonstrated practical multi-stakeholder cooperation through the Global Informal Regulatory Anti-Fraud Forum (GIRAFFE), which operates across 40 countries with participants from multiple nations. Norway’s anti-fraud measures have been particularly effective, blocking 61 million spoofed numbers over six months.

### Platform Accountability and Power Dynamics

Anna Luhrmann from the German Parliament raised fundamental questions about power structures in digital governance, arguing that “the actual power in the internet currently resides with the big tech companies that have in their respective fields quasi-monopolies in many areas.” She emphasized that parliamentarians, national governments, and the UN system lack sufficient power in this system.

Senator Anusha Rahman from Pakistan challenged existing legal frameworks, specifically questioning intermediary liability protections and arguing for making platforms more responsible for content on their platforms. She also highlighted Pakistan Senate’s launch of the first AI-generated chat platform for legislative transparency and information sharing.

Jekaterina Rojaka from Lithuania provided concrete examples of platform inconsistencies, noting that platforms block legitimate parliamentary content while allowing harmful content. She specifically mentioned harmful TikTok challenges that have caused deaths, demonstrating the real-world consequences of inadequate content moderation.

### Capacity Building and Knowledge Sharing for Parliamentarians

There was overwhelming consensus on the critical importance of capacity building for parliamentarians. Abel Pires da Silva emphasized the particular needs of developing countries, whilst Nazarius Kirama from Tanzania advocated for anchoring programming within permanent parliamentary committees to institutionalize internet governance.

Peace Oliver Amuge from the Association for Progressive Communications highlighted the success of AFRICIG, which has trained over 40 parliamentarians across three years (since 2022) with meaningful ongoing engagement. This example demonstrated the importance of sustained, long-term capacity building.

Guilherme Canela from UNESCO described the scale of international efforts, noting that the UNESCO-IPU joint program trained 3,300 parliamentarians and staff from 180 countries through online courses. This programme importantly included parliamentary staff, recognizing continuity challenges when elected officials change through electoral cycles.

Sarah Lister from UNDP emphasized coordination with international actors to support parliamentary digital transformation and AI regulation, whilst Mactar Seck from UNECA described capacity building modules on emerging technologies and knowledge-sharing platforms specifically designed for African contexts.

### Technical Infrastructure and Internet Governance

Technical community representatives provided crucial perspectives on the importance of understanding technical implications in policy decisions. Rajnesh Singh from APNIC Foundation emphasized that policy decisions must consider technical underpinnings to avoid breaking basic internet infrastructure.

Becky Burr from ICANN stressed that “ICANN focuses on coordination not control, ensuring globally interoperable and resilient internet.” This distinction between coordination and control proved important in discussions about governance mechanisms and sovereignty concerns.

Desiree Milosevic from RIPE NCC highlighted how technical coordination work maintains robust internet foundation that powers all digital services, emphasizing the often-invisible technical infrastructure that enables all digital governance discussions.

### Artificial Intelligence Governance and Regulation

AI governance emerged as a particularly important area with multiple approaches being proposed. Abel Pires da Silva called for transparent artificial intelligence mechanisms, arguing that current fears about AI stem from it being treated as a “black box” without understanding how it reaches conclusions.

Brando Benifei from the European Parliament described the EU AI Act as representing the “first co-legislative multi-stakeholder approach to regulating powerful AI models,” providing a concrete example of how regulatory frameworks can incorporate multi-stakeholder input whilst maintaining democratic oversight.

Sean Maher from EY emphasized that “technology doesn’t have to be in black boxes – audit and governance mechanisms can ensure compliance and effectiveness,” suggesting that transparency could be achieved through verification mechanisms.

Kenneth Pugh from Chile introduced concerns about AI bias and cultural appropriateness, advocating for investing in regional AI models to solve local problems rather than relying on models trained primarily on Anglo-Saxon data. Chile has also implemented Cybersecurity Awareness Month legislation as part of their comprehensive digital strategy.

### Regional and International Cooperation

Regional cooperation emerged as a crucial element for effective digital governance. Adil Suleiman from the African Union emphasized that parliamentarians should be incorporated in continental digital policy development cycles, demonstrating institutional commitment to parliamentary engagement.

Kenneth Pugh from Chile described building a coalition of parliamentarians with digital agendas across Iberoamerica, representing approximately 1 billion people and showing how linguistic and cultural connections can facilitate regional cooperation.

Shuaib Afolabi Salisu from Nigeria highlighted the West African Parliamentarians Network on Internet Governance, which addresses common challenges across the region. Senator Salisu also noted the absence of US senators or congresspeople in the discussion, despite the focus on big tech companies that are largely US-based.

Munir Ibrahim Suroor from Bahrain advocated for cross-border digital partnerships between public, private and civil society sectors, emphasizing multi-stakeholder regional cooperation rather than just government-to-government collaboration.

Lillian Nalwoga from CIPESA described the Uganda Parliamentary Internet Governance Forum with 31 members, demonstrating successful national implementation of global models adapted to local contexts.

### Specific National Initiatives and Best Practices

Several speakers shared concrete examples of successful digital governance initiatives. Norway’s comprehensive approach includes a four-point framework: regulate, know your customer (KYC), trace back capabilities, and accountability/transparency mechanisms. Romania has established committees for investigating abuses and corruption in digital spaces.

Laura Gerasim from Romania described their committee’s work on investigation of abuses and corruptions, while Justice ElMessiry emphasized using existing UN legal frameworks as the foundation for international cooperation.

The discussion included mention of upcoming events, including the UNDP-CPA-IPU conference on responsible AI in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and continued UNESCO-IPU collaboration on training parliamentarians and their staff on digital policy issues.

## Areas of Strong Consensus

The discussion revealed remarkable consensus across several key areas:

**Multi-stakeholder collaboration necessity**: Speakers from all stakeholder groups emphasized that effective digital governance requires bringing together diverse stakeholders including governments, private sector, civil society, and technical community.

**Critical importance of capacity building**: There was overwhelming agreement that parliamentarians need continuous capacity building and training, including parliamentary staff, with sustained rather than one-off programmes.

**Technical expertise in policymaking**: Strong agreement that policymakers must understand technical implications to maintain internet stability and interoperability.

**Platform accountability challenges**: Parliamentarians from different regions shared concerns about big tech companies’ inconsistent content moderation and resistance to national regulations.

**Regional cooperation value**: Speakers emphasized the importance of regional networks and cooperation to address shared digital governance challenges.

**Trust as foundation**: Both private sector representatives and civil society emphasized trust as the fundamental foundation for digital cooperation.

## Actionable Outcomes and Next Steps

The discussion generated several concrete action items:

**IGF Secretariat initiatives**: Creating an ongoing platform where parliamentarians can share legislative experiences, materials, and best practices beyond annual meetings. The Secretariat committed to gathering information for distribution to participants.

**Expanded participation**: Recognition of the need to include US parliamentarians in future IGF parliamentary tracks to address big tech accountability concerns.

**Capacity building expansion**: Strengthening integration between parliamentary track and main IGF programme, expanding participation in initiatives like GIRAFFE, and establishing regional parliamentary networks.

**Institutional changes**: Institutionalizing internet governance programming within permanent parliamentary committees and incorporating parliamentarians into continental digital policy development cycles.

**Upcoming collaborations**: The UNDP-CPA-IPU conference on responsible AI in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and continued UNESCO-IPU collaboration on training programmes.

## Conclusion

This comprehensive discussion demonstrated the strong potential for multi-stakeholder digital cooperation. The consensus around fundamental principles—the necessity of collaboration, the importance of capacity building, the need for technical expertise in policymaking, and the value of regional cooperation—provides a solid foundation for continued work.

The concrete examples shared, from Norway’s anti-fraud measures blocking 61 million spoofed numbers to Pakistan’s AI-generated parliamentary chat platform, demonstrate that effective digital governance is achievable when stakeholders work together with clear frameworks and sustained commitment.

The identification of specific action items and next steps, including the IGF Secretariat’s commitment to creating ongoing collaboration platforms, offers clear pathways for moving from dialogue to action. The success of this initiative will be measured by the concrete actions taken by participants in their respective roles and institutions to advance collaborative digital governance in the months and years ahead.

As Jennifer Chung noted in her closing remarks, the session’s collaborative tone and practical focus on actionable outcomes reflects the maturation of multi-stakeholder digital governance from theoretical discussions to practical implementation. The path forward requires sustained commitment to dialogue, continued investment in capacity building, and creative approaches to bridging different governance cultures while maintaining trust as the foundation for all digital cooperation efforts.

Jennifer Chung: It looks like almost everyone of us is a huge contributor to this event. Hello, everyone, and welcome. Welcome to the session from dialogue to action, advancing digital cooperation across regions and stakeholder groups. So building on the outputs of the 2024 parliamentarian track and the discussions you’ve had in this room for the past two days, this is the open dialogue session where we have multi-stakeholder representation and consultations to bring together the members of parliament and key digital players to reflect on how to operationalize, how to concrete tangible, inclusive, and collaborative policy-making efforts that you are doing all in your home jurisdictions. All groups are invited to propose collaborative and co-operative approaches to building digital governance and to identify practical steps for sustaining cooperation beyond the IGF. I’m your moderator. My name is Jennifer Chung. I’m from DotAsia and also the 2025 MAG this year. A little bit of housekeeping rules. So this session is scheduled for the next 19 minutes and interpreted into English, Spanish, and French. It’s an open dialogue, as I mentioned, with no panelists, but there will be support staff around the room, and I think I see them. Yes. Holding the mics. If you would like to take the floor, please do raise your hand. A brief reminder, the previous sessions that you’ve had included many different experts from the technical community, from the private sector, from civil society and intergovernmental organizations, and members of parliament. I know you’ve been waiting for an open dialogue as well. I know you have a lot to contribute in this session as well, and you’ve been discussing emerging trends on freedom of expression, information integrity, and other online harms. So we also have invited, of course, I see in the rows here, different representatives from the stakeholder groups, from private sector. I see representation from Open AI, from Ally, from Google and Meta. From technical community, I see ISOC. There is APNIC Foundation. There is ICANN. There should be RIPE NCC, I think, in the room as well, and Center for Democracy and Technology. From civil society and academia, we have the Oversight Board, AFRICIG, and Atlantic Council. We invite, of course, the whole of government, the executive, legislative, and judicial branch members to speak here. And from intergovernmental organizations, we have the African Union, GIZ, UNDP, UNESCO, UNICEF, and, of course, the Parliamentary Associations and Organizations. Before I open the floor, there are some brief guiding questions, I think, which start to, you know, get your creative juices flowing and thinking about things you’d like to share. And after yesterday and today’s parliamentary track sessions, how can we operationalize concrete, inclusive, and collaborative policymaking efforts? Are there any proposals for cooperative approaches to building strong and efficient, effective digital governance? And also, finally, any practical steps for sustaining cooperation with members of Parliament and other valuable and important stakeholders beyond the IGF? So now, without further ado, I’m going to open the floor, and I’m seeing in the front row there are already representatives that might want to start us off. Maybe Olaf? From ISOC?

Olaf Kolkman: Olaf Kolkman, I’m a principal of Internet Technology Policy and Advocacy at the Internet Society. That means a lot. It also means not that much. But at the Internet Society, we have been basically trying to operationalize this interaction with policymakers for, I would say, the duration of our existence. And one of the ways we have been doing that, and there are numerous ways, is through the funding and enabling and training of national and regional IGFs. That is a way where you can have a very, very, very, very large number of IGFs, and that is a way where you can take the ideas that come out of the global IGF back to the national level, and vice versa. I see this as a flying wheel. Ideas and new norms are being discussed. Things that work are being sorted out at the national level. The Internet is global. Software is being developed global. The Internet itself is a global infrastructure, a network of networks. But at the local level, we have perhaps different norms than in other places in the world, and we have different approaches to how we organize our societies. And things that work at one place might be an inspiration for other places. I strongly believe that the national IGFs are sort of those collection points of norming, forming, and storming about solutions, and operationalizing those solutions. And then bringing them back in the regional level and the global level where people can discuss them and bring them back as examples of how to to collaborate and actually operationalize the things that you’re dealing with within your local and national jurisdictions. I don’t want to go on too long. I think this is I’ll be happy to answer any any questions you have.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much, Olaf, from Internet Society. Perhaps Raul, Raul from Allied, from private sector.

Raul Echeberria: Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for the invitation to participate in this session. My name is Raul Echeverria. I’m the executive director of the Latin American Internet Association. It’s a private sector association. in Latin America. We have in our DNA the idea of cooperating with the policymakers. So we are always trying to find avenues of participation and collaboration with the policymakers. As Olaf said before, we have in the region regional IGF, and we have also national IGFs in many countries of Latin America. The participation of governments and parliamentarians is not is not very high in the in the in the regional and local IGFs. This is something that I hope we could change with this based on this experience of the parliamentarian track in IGF and that that allow many people to to have an idea, a more concrete idea, about what the IGF is and what the regional IGFs are. In addition to that, we are trying to promote other possibilities of cooperation and working opportunities to work together. We recently organized a meeting in in Mexico that were attended by 30 parliamentarians from the region. Colleagues from Uruguay joined us in that meeting. So we are very hopeful in this sense that that is a something that we are building, something in construction, but that we will progress in the in the future with bigger participation. But there are other initiatives ongoing. I think that if we take all these initiatives together, there are reasons to be optimistic in having a more cooperative work in the in the region. One thing that we have learned from all those years working in the in IGF and internet governance field is that the wisdom and expertise is highly distributed and so only with the participation of everybody we can really develop not only the best policies that we need, but also in the right time. Timing is not a minor thing. So this is a reason to encourage people to work together. Those of us who come from the internet community are accustomed to what we could call maximizing the consensus opportunities. We are accustomed to do that. We work hard until we realize that we achieve the best possible consensus. The traditional politics systems work in a different manner. Work not in the maximizing the opportunity of consensus, but based on the construction of majorities. That is a rule of democracy. So I think that we have to bring those two cultures close together, understand each other, and try to produce the best results we can. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Raul, for those really good collaborative proposals and suggestions. I now have on my list Abel Da Silva from Timor-Leste.

Abel Pires da Silva: Thank you very much, Jennifer. My name is again Abel Da Silva from Timor-Leste. I’m a former chair of the Infrastructure Committee in the National Parliament. So I would like to propose perspective from developing countries. I think, add on to what mentioned by the two previous speakers, I would like to propose three main points here. First is how to improve multi-stakeholder collaboration mechanism. Because we are coming from so many different backgrounds. You have Google here, big tech corporates with different interests, academics, governments, and also NGOs. So we have how to say, sometimes conflicting interests. So we need some sort of real mechanism for us to sit together and then discuss honestly about the issues we are facing here. For instance, we need perhaps specific, how to say, specific group on AI, data privacy, misinformation or disinformation, something like that. So that will increase our capacity to work together. The second issue, the point that I would like to promote is how to harmonize regional and global regulatory framework. Because if you if you try to engage with different countries from Western Hemisphere, they have more advanced capacity to develop their own legal frameworks. But if you’re speaking like from my background in East Timor, we have very, very, very limited capacity. So this kind of mechanism will help us to evaluate ourselves and then to plan and develop our capacity. The last point that I would like to suggest is that how to promote a more transparent artificial intelligence. Well, yesterday we visited the Parliament of Norway and they introduced something that’s really, really important, really, really interesting, which is a more accountable AI machine. At the moment, we are fearing AI because it has been treated as a black box. We don’t know how it reaches its conclusions. So that makes us very, very, how to say, suspicious of the machine. But if somehow we can develop a technology with a very transparent mechanism, then all of a sudden we don’t You don’t need to fear the machine anymore. We have more transparent way of accountability for the machine in how it reaches its conclusion. So that’s really, really important effort here. The last one, for the above three proposals, I think we really, really need to actually increase effort to enhance parliamentary capacity for digital policy-making process. And I think, speaking from my background, I think not only Timor-Leste, but other developed countries are in need of such capacity-development process. I think that’s all from me. Thank you so much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much. You brought up very, very good points because, you know, even in a multi-stakeholder model or conflicting interests, I think that is actually somewhere where you can have open and frank dialogue. It’s really good. Building capacity is also extremely important. And of course, there’s transparent and accountable development of emerging technology like AI. I’m going to next go to Raj Singh from APNIC Foundation, right in front. Raj, please.

Rajnesh Singh: Thanks Jennifer. Good afternoon. My name is Raj Singh. I’m CEO at the APNIC Foundation. APNIC is the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre. Our claim to fame is that over the last 30 years, we have helped build most of the internet in the Asia Pacific region. As you all, I’m sure, are aware, the Asia Pacific is a very diverse region. We have some of the most advanced economies in the world and we have some of the least developed economies in the world as well. So the region itself has been a bit of a challenge in how we’ve been able to do things. And I was just listening to my colleague from Timor-Leste. A couple of things I would just like to say. As policy makers, you have a responsibility to reach or create outcomes for your citizens. But when you go down that path, I would urge you to consider that there are a range of technical experts around the world who are there ready to help you with those decisions. Oftentimes we see around the world, not just in the Asia Pacific, but around the world, there are decisions made at the policy level which don’t really take into account the technical under workings of the internet, the interoperability that is required to make things work. We rely on the internet every day, from your AI to whatever else that you use today. But what makes all that work is the internet. And once you start fiddling at the basic structure of the internet, you start creating a whole lot of problems that you may not realize. As I said, I have a lot of my colleagues here from the technical community. All of us are always ready to help you better understand what the implications could be of certain policy decisions that you make. Now, I know there are challenges at the higher layers of the internet, the applications we use, the services we use, but when you are working at those layers and trying to control things or change things, ensure that the decisions you make at that higher level do not affect the basic co-internet infrastructure. Because if we lose that basic co-internet infrastructure, all this other stuff won’t work either. So I think it’s very important to recognize and realize that. One very quick other point I’ll make, some of my previous colleagues spoke about IGFs and local IGFs and regional IGFs, APNIC Foundation has been supporting that since our inception as well. But there’s another group that work in all regions, which are also very, very important for you to recognize and engage with, and they are network operator groups. They are the groups from the private sector, from the public sector, from academia, who run the actual networks that we all use every day. Now, most of them compete at the commercial level, but they come together at these NOG meetings to solve technical problems. And again, in most of your economies, you will have network operator groups, and therefore you can be a good resource as well to better understand the technicalities of the internet and what policy implications, you know, how policy implications could affect the actual technical end workings of the internet. So, I’ll stop there. I’ve said quite a bit, but I’m happy to continue the dialogue, and I’ll offer you my card, say from Tim Oleste. We should have a chat. Yeah. Please. Thanks, Jennifer.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Raj. Very important as well. Near and dear to my heart, because I’m also a technical community, and it’s really important for policy decisions to actually take into account the technical underpinnings of the critical infrastructure of the internet. You know, don’t break the internet, is what we like to say. I think next on my queue, I do have a parliamentarian in the back. I think the lady with the glasses, yes, please.

Anna Luhrmann: Thank you. My name is Anna Luhmann. I’m a member of parliament from Germany, and since yesterday, I’m thinking about a comment that an esteemed colleague from Kenya made yesterday in the bigger session, the bigger room. Namely, it was a very strong plea for IGF to provide a forum to actually support us as national parliamentarians. in actually addressing the power dynamics that exist in the internet at the moment, which is that the actual power in the internet currently resides with the big tech companies that have in their respective fields quasi- monopolies in many areas, and that we as parliamentarians, as national governments, but also as the UN system as a whole, doesn’t have power in this system. I think that’s the fundamental problem that we should address here as parliamentarians, and that we should think about how we can use this forum, IGF, but also maybe potentially other ways of working together as parliamentarians across borders to actually address this issue, to make sure that we are the ones who voice the concerns of citizens, who voice the public interest, and that we get some power over the big tech companies that are currently playing with us as national governments, as national parliaments, as they want. Threatening to leave, threatening not to have a service, threatening not to pay this, threatening to maybe use some other tactics, and I think that’s something that we need to work on and use this forum also to address this, particularly when it comes to hate crimes, when it comes to issues that we were talking about, digital colonialism, that is a key concern I know from many colleagues here from the African continent, so I would like us to talk actually about that also as parliamentarians and think about that, while at the same time of course preserving the Internet, the technology behind it, and as well providing a space for freedom of speech, so that at the same time is something that needs to be safeguarded, so I also don’t want national governments or international organizations to limit the freedom of speech, on the contrary, to provide an even better realm for that, so that we can actually have a space where everyone feels encouraged and is not repressed in expressing themselves, no matter which gender, which orientation, which religion, which country, and I think currently we don’t have that, so I came here to work together with you on creating that.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, you brought together a very, very important point, adjusting the power imbalances, I think as well having a multi-stakeholder process and a way to dialogue in the way that we can talk to each other at the IGF, that is very important, and I don’t know, I’m looking at IGF Secretariat, maybe in the future parliamentarians can be even more integrated with the rest of the program where we don’t have to come to you or you don’t have to come to us, but it is together we have a dialogue, that’s very important. I think I have on my list next Rodrigo Goni from Uruguay,

Rodrigo Goni: yes, oh I’m sorry, can I speak in Spanish? Creo que después de haber escuchado y lo que sabemos de la de los challenges that are raised, the parliaments, yes or yes, have to put it in the center of their agenda and also integrate it into their activity. We have to bring all the issues that we are seeing to the parliament. Of course we have to overcome distrust for that, we have to change the paradigm that we have today in the parliaments, we have to get out of the reactive paradigm, we have to get out of the paradigm of wanting to control artificial intelligence, new technologies, the internet. We have to find a space in the parliaments to address all these challenges and we simply wanted to share an experience in Uruguay that other parliaments in the world are also doing, which are the future committees. Future committees have found a model that practices, cultivates the multistakeholder, practices early governance. It is a model that allows to overcome left and right dichotomies, because these issues really demand it and allow it. So, to invite the parliamentarians who are in this room today to cultivate this model, which I reiterate, in some parliaments is being implemented, and also that it allows the other parties, from ALAI, internet associations, industries, academia, to integrate in these spaces in a permanent way, not as guests of one day, not as guests of a second level, but as a in a parliamentary space, which is still the democratic space by antonomy to address and define the issues, but in a different model, in a different paradigm that allows to address this issue in the way that I think we all agree that we have to address it. And there, what is known, and the United Nations is encouraging it as that model of innovative and responsible anticipatory governance can be applied, and I reiterate, we are applying it in some parliaments and I think it is giving us good results. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much.

Anusha Rahman: First of all, I’d like to really appreciate this joint effort by the UN and IGF to put together a multi-stakeholder forum because this is what was missing from the IGF, to have the parliamentarians and to build out a guided policy framework with everybody on board. It was extremely essential and my compliments. And your launching ceremony today, where we could see the UN and the political leaderships all coming together, opened new opportunity for solving the issues that we’ve been debating for years. Now, in Pakistan, the Senate of Pakistan is the first Senate that I know of has launched the AI-generated chat platform where they are going to provide and use the technology for transparency and sharing of the information for legislative purposes. And this initiative under the chairman of the Senate, Mr. Yusuf Zaghilani, is a unique model that would be taken forward. And you would see Pakistan leaping in technology in terms of the parliament. But for me, one more important point is is that we consider internet as the public good. And appreciating that it is two kilometers above the ground still makes it within the bounds and the boundaries of the sovereign countries who have the right to legislate. Now, we are fighting over what is being legislated versus what is being violated. So what we are legislating in our own land is being infringed by companies, the platforms, who are very far away from us. So what we are trying to advocate is that please respect the law of the land. And when we are requesting you to harmonize with our laws, we find a very blanket answer that we are not responsible for the content that goes on the platform. This is the basic flaw now in the legislation that we have had, is providing intermediary liability protection to the social media platforms, absolving them of the content that is placed on that platform, which essentially is the responsibility of the social media company that runs it. So I would say that the parliamentarians who are sitting here to go back and review their legislation and see that we can put more onus on the social media companies to be more responsible with respect to the content. Otherwise, this is going to become very ugly, because I see the temperature of the parliamentarians going up very fast, because the citizens are demanding their online rights to be the same as their offline rights. But the countries are failing to give the guarantee of the online rights to their citizens in the same way that they could or be accountable for their offline rights. So I would say that the countries are now or have crossed that point where they were continuously sending the request to the social media platforms and sitting on those requests, waiting for them to take action. There is a review that is required by the social media companies, and I would request the IGF to put some sense into their heads and make them realize that before the water is actually above the heads, it’s important to review the whole landscape in which we are working. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, Senator from Pakistan. I think it’s a very important point, especially internet as a public good, looking at learning from the unique platform that Pakistan is actually going to establish. The next person I have on the list is Nisar. Nisar, please go ahead.

Nazarius Kirama: I thank you, Jennifer and Celine, for putting this together. My name is Dr. Nisar Nicholas Kirama from Tanzania IGF, and I also serve as the president of the Internet Society Tanzania chapter. Mine is just a very simple proposal in terms of actually actualizing programming of the capacity building. My idea is that everything should now be upside down. They should start from the parliament. For example, the National Assemblies have all these permanent committees on, for example, infrastructure. So my idea is we do the programming for the capacity building, for the awareness within the parliament committees. So when the parliamentarians come to a space like this, instead of actually getting lectures from stakeholders, they start actually lecturing from the point of what they are actually achieving in terms of internet governance from their parliament. So the idea is to have everything anchored and programmed within the permanent committees of the parliament. For example, in Tanzania. we have a permanent committee on infrastructure, so if we are able to anchor this and make it home for the Internet Governance in the Parliament, we will be able to achieve a lot. I’m saying this because if you think about 10 years ago when UNDESA, you know, make the Internet Governance Secretariat a home for it, you know, we’ve been able to achieve a lot. So my proposal is let us institutionalize the programming and programming of the Internet Governance things, I might say, within the Parliament, so when they are doing the policy making and legislating, they are legislating actually from the lenses of Internet Governance. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Nazar, and thank you for sharing the learnings from Tanzania. I think you echo a lot of the things that have been said from Raj, from AAPNIC Foundation, from our Parliamentarian from Germany, as well as Timor-Leste. The next person I have on the list has the mic, please go ahead.

Johannes Vallesverd: Thank you very much. My name is Johannes Wallesward and I’m from the Norwegian regulator. Welcome to Norway. Pleasure to have you here. So I’m just ignited by this fantastic overview that we need to go from talk to action, so I would just mention a couple of actions that you might be interested in, and I’m very interested to hear your reflection afterwards. So in Norway we have created a multi-stakeholder group trying to generate increased trust in digital communications. It’s a national expert group against digital fraud, consisting of police, banks, network operators, and security professionals. So what we’re trying to do is then to do operational measures, so we actually managed to, through the MNOs, put up a digital shield, so to speak, around Norway. Norway, making it almost impossible to spoof Norwegian numbers coming into Norway. So for six months we have blocked, there have been blocked 61 million numbers, mobile numbers. So the reason why I’m saying this is that the whole notion of action, you need to some, one of you explained it here, you need to also do it together with industry. So we have also tried to expand this notion of multilateral, multilateral stakeholder together on a more global level. So we have together with industry, with something called One Consortium, it’s an international carrier industry, we have together created something called GIRAFFE, which is the Global Informal Regulatory Anti-Fraud Forum, I know it’s a long, long word, but it, so we’re trying to, we are now 40 members, 40 participants in the meeting, including from Nigeria, also from Colombia, from the US, from Brazil, we have had participation from, in some of the meetings from Australia. We miss a little bit more of the Asian footprints, so if there are any Asian regulators, please contact me. The goal is to get a global best practice on enhancing digital trust. So I will give you, before I end, I will just give you four of the key elements that have come up, so it can be used either nationally, in your national legislation, or it can be more used internationally for a best practice. So one, regulate. You can regulate, nationally, spoofing. You can regulate taking action against misuse and fraud. You can regulate age limits. Second, KYC, know your customer. You can regulate obligation that you should at least know the customer. Third, trace back. You should have some obligation to provide trace back of fraudulent traffic. Accountability, and also transparency. So we are now in the sort of a pathway where we should maintain freedom of speech. we should not have freedom of fraud. We should put up operational sidebars, so that the good guys know where to go. And the good guys want to go in the right way, but we need to set up the clear path for them, the sidebars. And then we can build up reputation on those who want to follow the best practice, and those who don’t, okay, we’ll never have a perfect world where everybody will follow the best practice, but we could meet at least make it transparent who are following the best practice and who are not. So that’s why we are also, in collaboration with UNODC, try to get there on board to endorse this best practice that we hope we will get ready next year. This is a two-year project, so we are in a hurry, but we are going to try. Thank you very

Jennifer Chung: much, and thank you, of course, for welcoming us to Norway, it’s a beautiful country. I think there was a call to action there about Asian AIPAC colleagues to actually find our Norwegian regulator, and it’s good to know about the global best practice to enhance digital trust. The next person I have on the list is Becky Burr from ICANN.

Becky Burr: Thank you, and thank you for welcoming us to Norway. It’s a beautiful country, and I just want to say what we’re seeing today is a really good example of what’s important about internet governance. ICANN is about coordination, not control. We’re part of the ecosystem, and we work hard to ensure that all of the policymaking that parliamentarians are entitled to do in their country, that all of the regulatory work is informed and has access to the technical information that you need to provide policies that are coordinated and consensus-based, practical and implementable and globally coherent policies. By working together in an environment like the IGF, all of us come together as peers. We then go back to our work, better informed about what everybody else is doing and how the internet works and what we can do to make sure that it stays globally interoperable and resilient. We think that it’s wonderful that there’s this parliamentary track in IGF because you are all very important to maintaining a globally interoperable, not fragmented internet. I think one of the other speakers mentioned that the technical community is available and willing to provide technical input and information whenever you are thinking about regulation lawmaking, please take advantage of the technical resources that are available in your country, in your region, and globally.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Becky. Very important points, ICANN does a lot of the coordination of critical internet resources and it’s really good to hear also another aspect and view from the technical community. Next I’m going to go to Kenneth Pugh, our senator from Chile.

Kenneth Pugh: Thank you, Jennifer, I’m Kenneth Pugh, senator from the Republic of Chile, South America. Why is it important to be sharing our experiences here? Because maybe we face the same problem but different ways. In our country, I started eight years ago at the Senate trying to build a digital transformation agenda. The problem, this was not a political issue. Every march for the digital agenda, there are no votes. My colleagues say, you’re wasting your time. Well, I’m working for the next generation, not for my re-election. And that is very important because this should be a cause. And when we are speaking digitally, we need to secure the environment. So cyber security is actually a very important aspect, but not the traditional definition. It’s a nearly broader definition from data protection to protection of critical infrastructure, protecting the environment, but granting all the rights of the people, taking control of this information, but with digital ethics. We need then to add all these elements all together. So in our experience, and what I want to share with you, is our last seven years. First, we created a law in order to define a month dedicated to these events, taking the good experience of Europe. North America. Cybersecurity Awareness Month, you can call it whatever you want, and a month to update information, threats and everything, they’re changing, but also to force to have exercises, digital exercises, to prevent as you have to face earthquakes, tsunamis, you have to train, and you have to train every year and check that capability. Companies, they use ISO, and they, yes, make check boxes, but they really are not relying on what they did. Second, we create a forum, and a forum in a country is very special because you can have everybody. If we want to have a global governance, we have to first govern our countries and get together all the stakeholders and the meaningful stakeholders, because sometimes there are different levels. One little example of knowledge on Internet, Wikimedia, Wikifoundation with Wikipedia, they are the fifth most used website in the world. They’re trying to get funds from everywhere. If we want to have a system like an Internet without knowledge and proven logic checked, we need to invest in this. So we have to give them time in order to ask the legislators to work. Then having a forum with a platform, you have to have both physically, physical connection, and a platform working, you can get all the feedback you need for public policy. You need a strategy and a plan. What we did, we’re using the university, the model of maturity capabilities of Oxford University, but planning to 15 years. 12 years, it’s good enough. Why we say 12 years? It’s a time that goes from grade 1 to grade 12. So it’s more a political view rather than 5 or 10 years where you cannot really achieve it. What we are working now is to create a coalition of parliamentarians that have digital agendas. Digital agendas are very specific, it’s a lot of knowledge, and we need this parliamentarian bench across our region, and our region is Iberoamerica. That means Spain, we have three colleagues from Spain, Portugal, Brazil, and all Latin American countries. We are 1 billion people all together, and the artificial intelligence, which is now trained with material learning, I hope for good, with models from Anglo-Saxon countries and data from them, they’re not resolving our problem. So we are investing in our own models. Yesterday we were presented with a Nurean solution, it’s in Norwegian, but we are going to try to understand it. But now we’re going to invest in creating models that can solve our problems. So we need to have this as part of our national strategy, build it, then make the coalition. We would like to work with all the parliamentarians with the digital agendas, that they really will be focused with knowledge on this, and to have this bench, to have it at the higher level. Global level is much more difficult, and that’s something we’re living for United Nations, but as I said, it’s good to share the experiences and to see what’s working, what’s not working. In Chile, my colleagues call me the cyber senator, because I’m always involved in this issue. I hope there will be many of you then in the same public policy way. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, legislator from Chile. The next I have on the list is legislator, member of parliament from Romania, please.

Laura Gerasim: Hello everybody, thank you for having us here. My name is Laura Gerasim, I’m member of the Romanian parliament, and I’m speaking today not only as a member of a parliament, but mother of a 16 years old daughter, and of a 24 years old son, that they are using all the gadget, and everything you prepare here, or in your countries, and I also want to tell you something. I’m the president, I’m the chairperson of the committee on investigation of abuses, corruptions, and petitions. And it is where the voice of the citizens arrive, where the voice of the institutions close. And I think here we are all together because of the values, and I want to remember you, these kind of values, the freedom of speech, the freedom to have the plane and arrive here, to bring our culture, our problems, our worries. So please, use this platform to promote peace, because if we have it online, we can keep it also offline. It is important to also have critical thinking, to have education for critical thinking, and to be sure that all together we use the algorithm for the people and not the people for the algorithm. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much for the learnings from Romania. Good reminder that we need to use this for peace. Again, you know, quoting from someone that I know, the internet is a reflection of the society, and we need to have that also. The next person I have on the list is our justice from Egypt. Justice Adel Majid.

Adel ElMessiry: Thank you. As a matter of fact, I’ve been hearing your nice comments, all of you, and I can find that there are some specific issues representatives are focusing on, like hate speech, respecting human rights, freedom of speech, this issue, and strengthening international cooperation. And I’m going to ask you, as a panel, and other stakeholders and parliamentary representatives, we have a legal framework which is organizing everything. We have many resolutions by the UN General Assembly on internet, on digital information, on cyber crimes, and most of these resolutions refer to international cooperation and ask states to strengthen international cooperation between them and ask developed countries to assist developing countries in issue of capacity building because you can’t engage international cooperation unless you have capacity for this. Recently, last December, the UN have adopted the United Nations Convention Against Cyber Crimes. One of the goals of this convention is to strengthen cooperation between states to combat cyber crimes committed by means of communications and technologies. And then, as I mentioned before, it’s repeat and repeat, please, international cooperation. So while I’m attending the forum, as a matter of fact, I didn’t hear about this legal framework, the UN legal framework, that is, I am not saying it is obligatory, sometimes it’s obligatory after states sign the treaties or conventions, but why we don’t use this legal framework as a base for our work, for our cooperation? And I’m putting this comment as a question to everybody. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much. This is from Egypt, and it’s really important to remember we do have treaties and legal frameworks, especially the ones that would strengthen cooperation between states, especially regarding cyber crime, very, very important. The next person I have on the list, yes, right in the front there.

Jekaterina Rojaka: Thank you very much. Ekaterina Rayakova, Lithuanian Parliament. Well, there was a very good mention about the Committees of the Future. We also have the Committee for the Future, so we do collaborate with the stakeholders on a pretty much weekly basis, raising all the issues, all the questions, however, I’m also heading a committee for suicide and violence prevention, and I just want to talk about the dual standards, where legislation is already put in, but there are kind of dual standards regarding what social networks can do and what they can’t do, because every single time when we are on the open parliament session on YouTube, when we start our session, we name the name of the committee, and they block us, because it’s suicide, so it’s out of the range. Then, of course, they reinstall, but there are so many harmful YouTube roles that are not stopped, and again, we have quite a lot of accidents, and just very recently, we have two lives lost because of the harmful TikTok challenges in Lithuania, so it is definitely important, what a colleague from Armenia told about the critical thinking, but again, the critical thinking, and this is the part of the program which is already fully integrated in our schools, and unfortunately, there is still a rise of addiction, also because the younger children could access restricted things via internet, unfortunately, and there are also quite bad statistics regarding the effect on the children, so unfortunately, I very much believe in the business, and the responsibility of the business, however, nowadays, I see that there is definitely a lack of mechanism that is really working, because the longer we are looking for this balance, the harsher the response would be from the government, and we are talking now further regarding the hash taxation of the platforms, or the total responsibility on the content, so we definitely need to make it clearer, and we make it now, and also to make it more globally, because even a national response wouldn’t be enough, we definitely need it regional, and we definitely need it global. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, yes, there’s always this balance we need to strike, and I think it’s important from the parliamentarians, those who are looking at this, to actually figure this out, the balance between child protection and online harms, and also in enabling enriching environment, where you can have knowledge, and you can use this technology and network of networks for good. Next on my list, I have a representative from AFRICIG, is it Peace?

Peace Oliver Amuge: Yes, Peace, please. Thanks very much for the mic. My name is Peace Olivamu. and I work for the Association for Progressive Communications, that in partnership with the research ICT Africa and African Union, brings together the school on Internet governance, African School on Internet Governance, AFRICIC. And I will briefly say that this is a very impactful project that I have worked on in my life and I’m very proud to share how impactful it is. We work in collaborations with the parliamentary track, with other partners that support the school, like GIZ, Luminate, ISOC, ICANN, PRR, Identical Digital and host governments whenever the Africa IGF is happening. And through the parliamentary track, since 2003 until now, those are three years, we’ve had over 40 members of parliament come to AFRICIC. So it’s really something great. And when you, like in this room, we have very many AFRICIC alumni members of parliament that have continued to meaningfully engage in the space. And not only at Africa, I mean at global IGF, but also at Africa IGF, at sub-regional IGF and national IGF. So I think this is a great way to build capacity of members of parliament and ensure that they can meaningfully engage in conversations of IGF and yeah, make meaningful contributions in their different parliament. We only don’t bring members of parliament, of course, we have other stakeholder groups that come and some of the outputs that we have, all the output that we have are really resourceful tools that different stakeholders can use for policies and the rest. In 2023, 2022 first, we had a recommendation to the open-ended working group on cybersecurity and we were giving out recommendations from the African perspective. In 2023, we made a recommendation, a multi-stakeholder recommendation to the implementation of African Union data policy framework. In 2024, our output looked at the African Union data framework and African continent of free trade area digital protocol. And we also gave recommendations to its implementation, we looked at the two documents. And this year, we are finalizing on our output that is giving a recommendation to the CSTD working group on data governance. So this is something that can be replicated in other regions and I just want to call out on anyone who is interested to support such initiatives and we are very grateful to the parliamentary track. We are very committed to continue to do this and have members of parliament join the school and interact and engage with the different stakeholders that join the school. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, Peace. You brought together a very important point as well, capacity building, especially in the schools of Internet governance. I know Africa region is doing a lot of very good work. I know Latin America has the South School of Internet Governance as well that does a lot of work for parliamentarians. In Asia Pacific, there is also AP SIG and APIGA as well. The next person I have on the list is from Bahrain, the Shura Council. Please.

Munir Ibrahim Suroor: Hi. Assalamu alaikum. My name is Munir Surur. I am from Bahrain Kingdom, a member in the Parliament of Bahrain. I have some notes I would like to share with you. We all recognize that the digital world is shared space. When will the government, the private sectors, civil society and academia must work together? The more we build. bridge between these sectors, the great capacity will be promoted and will be inclusive growth and address common challenges. Based on our legislative and oversight experience, I believe we can focus on three areas. First, we need to develop new legal frameworks by developing flexible and supportive legislation that promote the exchanging of data and best practice, while ensuring privacy and respect the surfacing thing. Number two, investing in human capacity. Provide the detailed skills and capacity, build a program to bridge the knowledge gap across regions and the stakeholders’ groups. Number three, establish sustainable coordination mechanism by creating permanent platforms for dialogues and follow-up between countries and organizations to ensure country and measurable progress. Allow me also to highlight what Kingdom Bahrain is doing in this field. Bahrain has made significant progress in creating an inclusive digital ecosystem that supports innovation and collaboration. Our national strategy such as the Economic Vision 2030 and National Communication Plan have accelerated digital transformation across all sectors. Furthermore, Bahrain was one of the first countries in the region that introduced cloud first place policy to public sector service, braving the way we create openness and cross borders partner. Additionally, Bahrain has invested heavily in the capacity building through initiatives like Bahrain Institute of Finance and Temkin programs, which support youth and professionals in acquiring advanced digital skills. These efforts have strengthened cooperation between public and private sectors and enhanced regional partnership and supporting start-up ecosystem to integrate into international network. Some practical recommendations I would like to recommend. Supporting cross-border digital partnership between public, private and civil society sectors. Sharing successful initiative across region to scale up solution that work. Launching dedicated fund and a partnership to support innovation and local digital internships, especially in under-revered community. In closing, strengthening digital collaboration across region and stakeholder group is not only shared responsibility, it is real opportunity to achieve sustainable and inclusive digital development to everyone. And then I have question, if you allow me, how we can leverage our experience to encourage deeper region collaboration and ensure that country across the Gulf and Middle East can equally benefit from this achievement. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, learnings from Bahrain and that call there for deeper regional collaboration. And I’ll take that initiative to also call for deeper inter-regional and international cooperation as well. I do have, one, two, three, four, I have eight more on my list so far, but before I go to the next eight speakers, I’m just wondering if we do have anybody from open AI in the room. I’m not seeing any. And in that case, I’d like to go next to UNESCO. Hello, everyone.

Guilherme Canela: Good afternoon. My name is Guilherme Canela. I’m the Director for Digital Policies and Transformation at UNESCO. But for many years, I was the Head of Freedom of Expression and Safety of Journalists, so connecting these two worlds. So very briefly, three things that can contribute to the action part of the title. We have a joint agreement with the Inter-Parliamentarian Union, precisely to offer to MPs all over the world this overview of the international standards on freedom of expression applied to these different discussions we have here today. And there are some good news there. Last year, we launched a massive online course with the Inter-Parliamentarian Union. 3,300 parliamentarians and their staff did the course from 180 countries. So the first good news is that, as you can see here, there’s lots of interest. Second important point, we can’t forget about the staff of the parliaments, because parliamentarians rotate a lot, is the logic of democracy, but their staff remains. So they also need to receive capacity building, and they are very much interested on that. And the third lesson learned, in many countries, there are schools of parliamentarians, official institutes, and we need to engage them in this conversation as well. And all those things were very much part of this initiative with the IPU. With also with IPU, we are offering some technical support for parliaments that are drafting legislation about these issues, with the aim of guaranteeing that this draft legislation is aligned with international human rights law. So this is the first thing. Second thing, cross-fertilization between the different duty bearers. UNESCO also has a big program for training judges and prosecutors, just from Egypt, Egypt just mentioned the importance of this. We have trained 36,000 judges and prosecutors on these issues, and we are putting them in touch with the parliamentarians, because some of the questions. are similar, and we also have a global program for regulators, and also with UNDP, with electoral authorities. So, putting all these different players together is essential because the problem is too complex to solve it alone. And the final issue, as a suggestion for the action, we also work a lot with women parliamentarians, which are particularly and unfortunately targeted with this current situation, technologically facilitated gender-based violence and so on. And there are several lessons learned from other constituencies. For example, the women journalists are also very much attacked, and there are different tools available out there that could be shared among those different groups. So, from UNESCO, obviously, always ready to help. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, UNESCO. Very important points, especially when we’re looking at capacity building for parliamentarians, their staff, their aides, and also schools for parliamentarians, especially pointing out women parliamentarians. I think the next person I have is right in the middle of the room here. Yes.

Sarah Lister: Hi, I’m Sarah Lister. I’m Director of Governance at UNDP. So, it’s a good segue from my dear colleague Guilherme at UNESCO, and I will just add a few things to what he said in terms of what the UN system is doing to move from dialogue to action. So, UNDP supports parliaments in our partner countries on many of the issues that we’re talking about today in their digital and AI transformation, and we coordinate our support offer with other international actors, such as UNESCO, IPU, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and others. And so, we work alongside those in supporting knowledge development, training, capacity building, peer expert networking, cooperation, and practical tools for regulation, oversight, and public engagement on these issues. And UNDP, together with IPU, co-hosts an expert group on parliamentary and digital policy to support this work. So, I wanted to bring that to the attention of those in the room, and it serves as a global platform for parliamentarians, parliamentary staff, whom Guilherme mentioned, academics, and representatives from international organizations to exchange information on these issues, share good practices, and develop resources jointly. And we are joined in that expert group with representatives from other organizations, CPA, IGF, Parl America, and others. And in that light, just to highlight that UNDP is planning, together with CPA and IPU, a conference on the role of parliament in shaping the future of responsible AI, to be held at the end of November in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. So, we’re expected to bring together parliamentarians from across regions and parliamentary staff to further that conversation on parliamentarians and responsible AI. So, I’m participating in another session tomorrow, this is a bit of a PR slot at 2.45 where we’ll be talking about some of the lessons from that engagement. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much UNDP, UNESCO and UNDP, very good work that you do with the IPU and I think the call to action there is to go to this conference that’s shaping the responsibility of AI in Kuala Lumpur. Okay, the next person I have on the list is Sean Maher from EY, right in the middle of the room.

Sean Maher: Thank you Jennifer and Celine for inviting EY to be here. Hello everyone, my name is Sean Maher, I’m the Global Vice Chair of Public Policy for EY, we’re a large global professional services organization. I am not a parliamentarian, I am not a former parliamentarian, however, I have worked for former parliamentarians in the federal government of the United States, as well as for a former president, and one of our finest but least known former parliamentarians was a gentleman named Morris Udall from Arizona, and he was known for his patience and he would often be among the last speakers in a very long meeting of his fellow parliamentarians, and he would stand up and he would say, everything has been said, but not everybody has said it. And then he would proceed to make his statement, touching on the comments of his various colleagues. So in that spirit. Jennifer, you’ve challenged us to think about practical steps that we can take to advance digital cooperation, and we at EY have thought and think a lot about that issue. And I would just make a couple of high-level observations. One is trust is the foundation of digital cooperation. And trust has two ingredients. One is communication. And forums like this play such an important role in advancing communication and understanding among all stakeholders in the digital ecosystem. The other is verification. And I don’t know if we have anyone in the room who speaks Russian, but I want to apologize because I’m about to butcher your wonderful language. But the saying that comes to mind is trust but verify. And that really goes to the heart, I think, of the challenge we all face, regardless of whether we’re in the public sector, the private sector, the nongovernmental space. How do we verify that the AI and other technologies, systems that we’re developing, we’re deploying, we’re using every day, how do we verify that those systems are as we say they are or as we believe them to be, that they’re safe, that they’re effective, that they’re reliable? That’s a critical, critical issue that requires the work of all of us across society. We, as I say, spend a lot of time thinking about this. We believe there are practical steps that are being taken today that can continue to be taken in an expanded way. way to build trust in the technologies that are playing an increasing role in all of our lives. The foundation of our organization is audit, auditing companies, auditing governments. This is a foundational principle. So the technology that we see today does not have to be in a black box. It doesn’t have to be something that’s not comprehensible to us. We have the ability to understand it, to make sure it is properly governed, to make sure it complies with any applicable rules and regulations, and to make sure it is effective for the purposes that it’s created. We would welcome an opportunity to talk with you more about some of the work we’re doing in this area. But again, my thanks to all of you for everything you’re doing here at the IGF, in your home countries and around the world.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, Sean, reminding us trust is the foundation of the dual cooperation. Next on the list, I have Senator Salisu from Nigeria.

Shuaib Afolabi Salisu: Thank you. My name is Senator Shoeba Falabe Salisu from Nigeria. I chair the Nigerian Senate Committee on ICT and Cybersecurity, and I’m also the chairman of the West African Parliamentarians Network on Internet Governance. I’d like to speak to three issues very quickly. First one is an appreciation, the second is an observation, and the third is a request. Let me start with the appreciation. I’d like to appreciate the IGF Secretariat, particularly for this year’s edition of the parliamentarian track. You could see how engaged the parliamentarians are, because the issues that we are discussing are issues that are very important to us, and I could see that. I would like to thank the IGF for this, and we must also thank the UNDP, UNESCO, IPU, ICANN on to the table, so I would like to start on a note of our presentation. Now moving to observation, I discovered that almost all the issues I talked about in my presentation are related to the IGF, so I would like to start on a note of our presentation. Discovered that almost all the issues are the same, particularly in the global south, from Malaysia to Pakistan to Mauritius, even Romania, the issues seem to be the same, the challenges of making laws, the laws that are more often than not trailing behind the development and also trying to hold the social media big giants accountable. Be that as it may, how comforting will it have been if you have a US senator, a congressman sit with us, listening to us as we express frustrations, as Romania, as Philippines, experience frustrations, also the roles and worth the big tech companies, who are largely US companies, are doing in terms of not respecting national laws, national values, and helping us to address the issues of disinformation and misinformation. I think it would be nice for the next IGF, for the IGF sectariat, the same way we have senators from Europe, from Romania, from Africa, from Asia, to also have parliamentarians from the US to sit with us, so perhaps they can share their thoughts and views as to how they have been able to have legislations or moral solutions to ensure that the the big tech companies, the same algorithm, the same accountability that they have in their home countries, they also extend it when they come to other parts of the world. Lastly, the request. I have listened in the last two days to some very innovative and very creative means that parliamentarians from different parts over the world have adopted. I’m making a request on the IGF sectariat. Can we have a portal, a platform, where we could go and have a glimpse of some of this? Where I can go and say, well, I am about to lead an effort to have a cyber crime act in Nigeria amendment. Is there anyone who has done something similar that can share views and materials with me? Or, oh, we’re looking at amending the Data Protection Act. Is that something new that we need to incorporate from the recently adopted UN conventions? I think we need such a forum beyond the conversation that we have here, something that can go on on a regular basis. Do peer review, share information, put inside there, and then have these conversations, not just within the period of the IGF alone, but on a long-term basis, even when we return back to our various parliament. Again, I’d like to thank the IGF sectariat for this opportunity, and I bring you the best wishes and goodwill of the government and people of Nigeria.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, Senator El-Solisu from Nigeria. I think IGF sectariat hears you loud and clear. We’ll probably try to take that proposal forward as well. Next, I have Amira Saber from Egypt.

Amira Saber: Thank you so much. I am a member of parliament, Amira Saber from Egypt, and it brings to my mind this kind of important dialogue, several tips, actually. Whenever in Egypt we have a kind of a grant, or… alone, I’m very keen to scrutinize on the topic of exchanging experiences because sometimes we just have the experts coming from the UNDP, coming from whatever UN agency, they consult, but the amount of knowledge and experience that needs to be transmitted, it doesn’t happen unless there is a certain track for transmitting this digital cooperation to national entities and parties inside Egypt. One other important thing is the experience which we had at APNIC. APNIC is a network, it is the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance and this network is adding a lot to the African parliamentarians in terms of digital cooperation to see what really works in a country and what could possibly work in another and when it comes to the role of legislators, was it to put a legislation on the table or to scrutinize the budget or to ask the government and held them accountable for whatever topic related to internet connectivity, AI, any related topic, the experience exchange is extremely important, especially for legislation. I introduced the first draft bill to the Egyptian Parliament on AI governance and I learned a lot from the space which had the EU Act, which had another contributions from diversified and different parliamentarians from Africa and somewhere else in the world. So what I suggest here clearly is that we meet from one year to another at the IGF. I suggest that all across the year, away from the African IGF to or whatever other group of the IGF, the parliamentary track could have from time to time sessions that talk to the UN agencies, that talk to the experts, that brings all the stakeholders together and also we could have a room for exchange of experiences along with other MPs. All the time it’s about the knowledge gap, all the time it’s about the exchange of experiences and how much of them could be inspiring others to move and to act. I think this could cross the divide in a way or another. Thank you. Thank you

Jennifer Chung: very much. The learnings from the Africa region and Egypt, I think that’s really important to actually attire closer, not just at the global IGF but the regional schools, the regional IGFs, even the national IGFs. I think I have a very quick response from the IPU to the senator from Nigeria, IPU.

Speaker 1: Just a quick response. Thank you very much. And yes, taking good note of the observation and request from the member of parliament from Nigeria for ongoing exchange of information, what are different parliaments doing on these subjects we’re discussing? So one of the initiatives at the IPU at the moment is to publish a monthly summary of parliamentary actions on AI policy. So we try to observe and report on which parliaments are taking different kinds of actions, whether that’s introducing legislation, carrying out committee reports and inquiries, so that different parliaments can see what their peers are doing and can help to make contact and to learn from each other, as we do in this kind of forum, but also in other ways. And so what we’re observing is that many parliaments, currently 37 parliaments are listed. Many parliaments are considering framework legislation, but other parliaments are setting up specialized institutes on AI. Sometimes it’s the education committee carrying out an inquiry or the health committee, et cetera. There are many types of parliamentary actions, and it’s part of our job to help to share that information and help you connect to each other. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, IPU. And from IPU, I have, next, going to European Parliament, Brando Benifei. European Parliament, please.

Brando Benifei: Yes, thank you very much for this opportunity. I think that this topic is extremely relevant. We see from the different interventions. And I would like to underline that we are now, in this moment, as European Union, trying to do some very special and very important work, and we will see from your interpretation and also the word interpretation that we will see multiple interventions that will be able to enact an event for when the European Union becomes Committee Member. So, yes, Moderator. I think we discuss a lot of issues here about proprietarian governments and pro-European governments I’m a member of the European Parliament, and I’m the co-chair of the European Parliament, which is a multi-stakeholder process in this sense, so on the involvement of stakeholder groups, but also across regions, which is the work based on the AI Act of which I was the lead negotiator for the European Parliament, which is the code of practice, which is being developed with a multi-stakeholder discussion in the EU, and also with the European Parliament, and also with the European Parliament and the EU at all, that are contributing to, and in fact we are in the final phase on these code for how to operationalise the obligations of the AI Act for the most powerful models, the ones we define as bearing systemic risks, because of their role in the EU, and also in the European Parliament, and also in the European Parliament, and also in the EU at all. So this is the first case of rules that are the fruit of a co-legislative process regarding this specific very high level of the AI, the one that is, in fact, the engine of everything today. And this entails also the need to actually have, and I say that as a guarantee that these authors should be perhaps regulated, because the truth is that institutions have difficulty in checking that we actually can apply these rules on such complex entities, like very powerful big tech companies, that are behind these very powerful models. very powerful models. the objective of this regulating is in fact to put more transparency and more obligations to reduce risks on those very powerful subjects. On the other hand we do need their cooperation because to make this operational and to avoid a situation of extreme confrontation but rather of cooperation in the way we implement the rules we need to have this dialogue and in fact their active involvement which was there in the development of the code of practice. This has brought two different results I can say as a parliamentarian who chairs the implementation working group of the AI Act that there are stronger and in our view I know I can speak on this in the name of the working group we have a clear position a better in our view result in terms of defending fundamental rights so reducing risks on fundamental rights including damage to democracy through the very powerful models. While we could say that on copyright protection and downstream transparency so from the larger providers to the various deployers that are under the original providers until we reach to the actual affected user on this part of transparency some of us could say we could get more but in the end we are finalizing that that’s going to be real at the beginning of August and I think it will become obviously an interesting element to discuss how we regulate the most powerful models but also and I conclude and this was the reason of my intervention the way we did it because it’s a co-legislative multi-stakeholder in fact involving people from outside Europe in this work that is very unique. If it will be effective, we will see. But the reasoning is the one I explained, the very strong difficulty that we need always to reflect on, on containing and controlling in a way that is effective, very powerful actors that are exercising a state-like power sometimes, even though they are not. And the institutions, sometimes they need to find a way so that they can be brought into a process and then can be more transparently checked. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, European Parliament, noting our time is really coming to an end very, very soon. I have four last speakers on my list. I will tell you who they are so you are ready to take the mic. Next, I’m gonna go to RIPE NCC, Desiree in the front. After that, I will come to Africa Union. After African Union, I will come to CIPESA. I think that’s Lillian. And our last speaker will come from UNECA. Desiree, please.

Desiree Milosevic: Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Desiree Milosevic. I’m a RIPE Corporation Working Group Co-Chair and the RIPE NCC provides the secretariat for the RIPE technical community. And I’m really pleased to see such a big room with a lot of discussion, very useful discussion, just introduce the RIPE NCC as a technical coordination body, whose work plays an important and essential role in maintaining the resilient and robust internet. And we do that with registering IP addresses and other key resources and also doing the registration of these resources throughout Europe, throughout the Middle East, and the part of Central Asia. And the work of NCC contributes directly to the sustainable digital goals as well as the WSIS action lines by helping connect the unconnected. And we work with many stakeholders, including governments and parliamentarians to help them realize and build some capacity building for this important foundation that we run, which powers then all the digital services that run on this foundation, be it artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and all the applications and platform. And with our capacity building efforts, we are not just doing the capacity building by involving other stakeholders, but also in upskilling engineers in these regions. So that is a part of our contribution. I think the other thing I would like to say that perhaps today when we look at the Internet Governance Forum, which is the premier platform for internet governance discussion, it is important to recognize that it has this record and has achieved a record of inclusive dialogue. And I believe this is what we need to come here together with tools and trust, the colleague earlier said from EU, and the time to share our expertise together and to support, to invest in our shared policymaking platform as we hear today and hopefully also continue with these efforts. So because of the time, I think I will stop here and please stop by and we’re happy to continue our conversation with the UIP and the RIPE NCC is a member of the European Internet Platform. So these discussions are also taken back within European Union and likewise, there are governmental roundtables in Southeastern Europe, in the Middle East, and parts of Central Asia. So we really welcome the opportunity to talk to you. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Desiree, for highlighting all the good work that RIPE NCC is doing and please do to grab Desiree afterwards if you have any more questions. I’m gonna come to the front now to African Union from Adil Suleiman. Thank you.

Adil Suleiman: Thank you very much. I’m going to speak on behalf of the African Union and APNIC, the African Parliamentary Network. When we established this network in 2022, we were very nervous, we want the network to survive, so we focused on two elements. We focused on making sure that it’s a part of the African IGF, we have a fixed track on African IGF since 2022, and then we provided also capacity building, but it’s not sustained capacity building, it was like a couple of session on capacity building. We, thanks to, by the way, thanks to the support we received from UNDESA and also GIZ, but now we want to go to the next level. We are responsible for developing continental policy, digital continental policy, and we want our African parliamentarian to be part of this policy, actually policy development, policy adoption, policy implementation, policy domestication. Today we rely on our member state to nominate candidate, and most of the time they are not parliamentarians, so we want to make sure that parliamentarian are incorporated in the policy development cycle within the African Union Commission. I think this is very important, it’s a very concrete proposal, and we also want our parliamentarian. to receive continuous training. I think it was mentioned all the time that they need continuous training. As I said, we are working with GIZ to get parliamentarians to participate in the African IGF, the UN IGF, but also now, thanks to our collaboration with the EU, we have a new program called PRIDA, which is Policy Regulation Initiative for Digital Africa, aimed at providing capacity building for youth, parliamentarians, established national IGF, and so forth. So we want to make sure that also they receive sustained capacity building, because you know the environment is very dynamic, and it is important that they receive, so that they can be also part of the policy development. Then also, we are very limited in terms of resources. We want to make sure that also during the UN processes, our parliamentarian can be part of this negotiation. We know that we have staff in New York, but we want to make sure that they get complemented by our parliamentarian at their work, so that they can provide guidance and advice. And I think finally, I was also to echo the comments from the honourable parliamentarian from Nigeria. I think it’s important to have a platform where parliamentarians from all over the world, they come together and exchange knowledge, expertise, what works, what doesn’t work. So it’s very important. So I think now we are doing it throughout the African IGF, the UN IGF, but I think it’s important to have this separate track, where all the parliamentarian meet and then exchange expertise. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, African Union. We have our final two speakers, and of course, thank you, Tech, for indulging us for a few more minutes. We’re running a little over. Last two speakers, we have one from, I think it’s Lilian from CIPESA, if you could be a little brief with your remarks.

Lillian Nalwoga: Thank you. Thank you so much, Jennifer. I feel I’m under pressure, because I’m holding you between now and the next session. My name is Lilian Naroga, based in Kampala, Uganda, and I work with CIPESA, which is the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for Eastern and Southern Africa. We are a non-government organization. We work around advocating for digital policies, inclusive digital policymaking within Africa, and our work on the parliamentary track, we’ve been engaging with parliamentarians within Uganda and in East Africa, mainly on the issue of digital policymaking, and I’m happy to hear APRINIC being mentioned, because I think one of the key recommendations that came from APRINIC is to strengthen national processes, and in Uganda, we have a member of parliament who is part of APRINIC, who went ahead and registered the Uganda Parliamentary Internet Governance Forum, and it consists of 31 members. They are very active, and this year, when we held the Uganda Internet Governance Forum, the Uganda Parliamentary Forum was launched officially by the Parliament of Uganda, and we had the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, and the Minister were happy to launch this forum. So, in terms of collaborating, the key message that perhaps I can put out to parliamentarians within this meeting is, we listen to so much, we come, we have conversations at these processes, but when we go back home, we should be able to concretize and take action, and this is what we are seeing happening in Africa, and I think maybe in terms of collaborations, even if we don’t know what’s going to happen to the IGF after this, but these processes that have been established need to be able to provide input. So, if there’s APRINIC in Africa, maybe there should be something in, you know, there’s, I think, Eurodig or, you know, other kind of, you know, processes. So, our work has mainly been around capacity building, and with support from GIZ, we currently are working at the East Africa community level, pushing for the adoption of an East Africa digital governance strategy, and we are working, we are training, working with members of parliament from the East Africa Legislative Assembly in being able to understand the policies, because one of the things is, members keep changing, members of parliament keep changing, and this year we have elections in Uganda, we don’t know if the same members will come, but when we target at institutional level, working directly with institutions like, say, the Ugandan Parliament or the East African Legislative Assembly, then you know there will be continuity. So, that’s the key message that I wanted to share from what we are doing within East Africa, and thank you so much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, Liliane, for sharing. It’s really good work, again, there, coming from the Africa region. Our final speaker, the last word, we do have UNECA, I believe this intervention will be done in French.

Mactar Seck: Give me to speak in French, it’s okay. My name is Dr. Magata Sek, I’m the Chief of Technology and Innovation at United Nations. Commission for Africa. Let me highlight some key activity undertaken by UNECA. I’m going to do it in French. Qu’est-ce que nous avons remarqué au niveau du continent africain? Les parlementaires ont un rôle important au niveau de l’élaboration des lois politiques et règlements au niveau de leur pays, surtout en matière de technologie de l’information et de la communication. Et ceci, ce n’est pas seulement en Afrique, c’est dans tous les pays du monde. C’est le rôle du parlementaire de voter les lois, de les examiner, de faire des amendements. Le problème qui se pose en Afrique, c’est que nos parlementaires ne sont pas bien formés avec le développement rapide de ces technologies de l’information. On parle d’emerging technologies, frontières technologies, on parle d’intelligence artificielle, on parle d’internet des objets, on parle de nanotechnologies, de biotechnologies, on va parler aussi de quantum technologies plus tard. Comment outiller nos parlementaires? On vient ici et nous avons un programme de capacity building, de renforcement des capacités de ces parlementaires africains. Comment on renforce leurs capacités? On a des modules de formation sur ces technologies, AI, blockchain, comment on peut développer les policiers et aussi des guidelines pour les parlementaires pour pouvoir adopter les politiques en matière de la stratégie nationale, en matière de la technologie de l’information. Plusieurs parlementaires en ont bénéficié. On a organisé récemment durant African IGF en Tanzanie un cours sur l’intelligence artificielle politique et aussi à Cotonou. Je vous rappelle que ICI also gère l’African Internet Governance Forum Secretariat avec l’Union africaine. Une autre activité, je pense que l’honorable délégué de l’MP de Nigeria, it is knowledge-sharing. We are developing now a knowledge-sharing platform to share experience and best practices across the continent and across other regions. What is the best rule and regulation in terms of technology? How a country like America, Latin America, or Europe find a solution for the dis- and misinformation? And why we are going to now to develop a strategy, African strategy guideline for mis- and disinformation, because it is a big challenge across the continent. Also, we are going to work with several African countries to develop a platform for dis- and misinformation to exchange all information, all best practices across this policy. It is what we are doing now at UNECA, and I think before I conclude, I would like to congratulate Celine for the successful organization of this African parliamentary track, and congratulations, and well done. Thanks.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, UNECA. I think you should give yourselves a big round of applause. There’s a very good best practices shared, resources shared. I think we heard that trust is the foundation of digital cooperation. I hear, you know, we need to address power imbalances. I hear so many things. Conversation is here. It’s here in the IGF. It’s here in this room, in the corridors. I hope you take advantage of all of this. I’ve been asked to do a little bit of housekeeping as well. We will be meeting again at half past for the final session of the day, but there is coffee break right now. IGF Secretariat has been very diligently gathering all the information that we heard during the session, and I believe they will be distributing and circulating all these resources to all of you. Thank you very much. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective digital governance

Speakers

– Olaf Kolkman
– Raul Echeberria
– Anna Luhrmann
– Rodrigo Goni
– Johannes Vallesverd
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

National and regional IGFs serve as collection points for norming and operationalizing solutions that can be shared globally

Multi-stakeholder model allows maximizing consensus opportunities, unlike traditional politics based on majority construction

Multi-stakeholder processes need to address power imbalances between big tech companies and national governments

Future committees in parliaments practice multi-stakeholder governance and overcome left-right dichotomies

Global Informal Regulatory Anti-Fraud Forum demonstrates operational multi-stakeholder cooperation across 40 countries

Multi-stakeholder dialogue should be integrated rather than separated, bringing parliamentarians and other stakeholders together

Summary

Multiple speakers emphasized that effective digital governance requires bringing together diverse stakeholders including governments, private sector, civil society, and technical community to work collaboratively rather than in isolation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Capacity building for parliamentarians is critically important

Speakers

– Abel Pires da Silva
– Nazarius Kirama
– Peace Oliver Amuge
– Guilherme Canela
– Sarah Lister
– Mactar Seck
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Need to enhance parliamentary capacity for digital policy-making, especially in developing countries

Programming should be anchored within permanent parliamentary committees to institutionalize internet governance

AFRICIG has trained over 40 parliamentarians across three years with meaningful ongoing engagement

UNESCO-IPU joint program trained 3,300 parliamentarians and staff from 180 countries through online courses

UNDP coordinates with international actors to support parliamentary digital transformation and AI regulation

UNECA provides capacity building modules on emerging technologies and develops knowledge-sharing platforms

Capacity building is extremely important for effective digital governance participation

Summary

There was strong consensus that parliamentarians need continuous capacity building and training to effectively engage with rapidly evolving digital technologies and governance challenges

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Technical expertise must inform policy decisions to avoid breaking internet infrastructure

Speakers

– Rajnesh Singh
– Becky Burr
– Desiree Milosevic
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Policy decisions must consider technical underpinnings to avoid breaking basic internet infrastructure

ICANN focuses on coordination not control, ensuring globally interoperable and resilient internet

RIPE NCC’s technical coordination work maintains robust internet foundation that powers all digital services

Technical community input is essential for policy decisions to avoid breaking internet infrastructure

Summary

Technical community representatives and moderator agreed that policymakers must understand and consider technical implications to maintain internet stability and interoperability

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Platform accountability and content governance need improvement

Speakers

– Anna Luhrmann
– Anusha Rahman
– Jekaterina Rojaka

Arguments

Big tech companies threaten to leave or withdraw services when faced with national regulations

Social media platforms should respect national laws rather than providing blanket intermediary liability protection

Dual standards exist where platforms block legitimate parliamentary content while allowing harmful content

Summary

Parliamentarians from different regions shared frustration with big tech companies’ inconsistent content moderation and resistance to national regulations

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Regional cooperation and knowledge sharing are vital

Speakers

– Kenneth Pugh
– Shuaib Afolabi Salisu
– Adil Suleiman
– Munir Ibrahim Suroor

Arguments

Building coalition of parliamentarians with digital agendas across Iberoamerica (1 billion people)

West African Parliamentarians Network on Internet Governance addresses common challenges across the region

African Union wants parliamentarians incorporated in continental digital policy development cycle

Need flexible legislation promoting data exchange while ensuring privacy and respecting sovereignty

Summary

Speakers from different regions emphasized the importance of regional networks and cooperation to address shared digital governance challenges

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the need to make AI and technology systems transparent and auditable rather than incomprehensible black boxes

Speakers

– Abel Pires da Silva
– Sean Maher

Arguments

Need for transparent and accountable AI development to move away from ‘black box’ decision-making

Technology doesn’t have to be in black boxes – audit and governance mechanisms can ensure compliance and effectiveness

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both emphasized that digital rights should match offline rights and that technology should serve people rather than the reverse

Speakers

– Anusha Rahman
– Laura Gerasim

Arguments

Citizens demand same online rights as offline rights, requiring government accountability

Internet should be used to promote peace and critical thinking, using algorithms for people not vice versa

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Both emphasized the importance of using existing international frameworks and sharing information to facilitate cooperation and learning among parliamentarians

Speakers

– Adel ElMessiry
– Speaker 1

Arguments

UN legal framework including cybercrime convention should be used as base for international cooperation

IPU publishes monthly summaries of parliamentary AI policy actions to facilitate peer learning

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected consensus

Trust as foundation of digital cooperation

Speakers

– Sean Maher
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Trust is foundation of digital cooperation, requiring both communication and verification mechanisms

Trust is the foundation of digital cooperation and multi-stakeholder processes enable open dialogue despite conflicting interests

Explanation

It was unexpected to see both a private sector representative (EY) and the session moderator independently emphasize trust as the fundamental foundation for digital cooperation, suggesting this principle transcends stakeholder boundaries

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Need for long-term strategic planning in digital governance

Speakers

– Kenneth Pugh
– Munir Ibrahim Suroor

Arguments

12-year digital strategy planning allows for comprehensive educational system transformation

Bahrain’s cloud-first policy and Economic Vision 2030 demonstrate comprehensive digital transformation approach

Explanation

Unexpected consensus between Latin American and Middle Eastern parliamentarians on the need for long-term (10+ year) strategic planning for digital transformation, showing shared understanding across different regions

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Importance of including parliamentary staff in capacity building

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela
– Sarah Lister

Arguments

UNESCO-IPU joint program trained 3,300 parliamentarians and staff from 180 countries through online courses

UNDP coordinates with international actors to support parliamentary digital transformation and AI regulation

Explanation

Unexpected specific focus from international organizations on training not just parliamentarians but also their staff, recognizing the continuity challenge when elected officials change

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around five key areas: the necessity of multi-stakeholder collaboration, critical importance of capacity building for parliamentarians, need for technical expertise in policymaking, platform accountability challenges, and value of regional cooperation. There was also notable agreement on making technology transparent rather than black-box systems.

Consensus level

High level of consensus across diverse stakeholders and regions, indicating mature understanding of digital governance challenges. The convergence of views from parliamentarians, technical community, international organizations, and private sector suggests these principles could form the foundation for actionable digital cooperation frameworks. However, the consensus was more about identifying problems and principles rather than specific solutions, indicating need for continued dialogue on implementation mechanisms.

Different viewpoints

Platform accountability and content responsibility approaches

Speakers

– Anusha Rahman
– Jekaterina Rojaka
– Anna Luhrmann

Arguments

Social media platforms should respect national laws rather than providing blanket intermediary liability protection

Dual standards exist where platforms block legitimate parliamentary content while allowing harmful content

Big tech companies threaten to leave or withdraw services when faced with national regulations

Summary

Rahman advocates for removing intermediary liability protection and making platforms responsible for content, while Rojaka focuses on inconsistent content moderation standards, and Luhrmann emphasizes addressing power imbalances. They agree platforms are problematic but differ on specific solutions – legal liability changes vs. moderation consistency vs. power redistribution.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Approach to AI governance and transparency

Speakers

– Abel Pires da Silva
– Brando Benifei
– Sean Maher

Arguments

Need for transparent and accountable AI development to move away from ‘black box’ decision-making

EU AI Act represents first co-legislative multi-stakeholder approach to regulating powerful AI models

Technology doesn’t have to be in black boxes – audit and governance mechanisms can ensure compliance and effectiveness

Summary

Da Silva calls for transparent AI mechanisms, Benifei describes the EU’s regulatory approach with multi-stakeholder involvement, while Maher emphasizes audit-based verification. They agree on the need for AI accountability but differ on methods – transparency requirements vs. regulatory frameworks vs. audit mechanisms.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Multi-stakeholder governance implementation approaches

Speakers

– Raul Echeberria
– Rodrigo Goni
– Anna Luhrmann

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder model allows maximizing consensus opportunities, unlike traditional politics based on majority construction

Future committees in parliaments practice multi-stakeholder governance and overcome left-right dichotomies

Multi-stakeholder processes need to address power imbalances between big tech companies and national governments

Summary

Echeberria promotes consensus-building approaches, Goni advocates for institutional parliamentary changes through future committees, while Luhrmann emphasizes addressing fundamental power imbalances. They agree on multi-stakeholder importance but differ on implementation – consensus maximization vs. institutional reform vs. power redistribution.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected differences

Absence of US parliamentary representation in global discussions

Speakers

– Shuaib Afolabi Salisu

Arguments

Need for ongoing platform where parliamentarians can share legislative experiences and materials beyond IGF meetings

Explanation

Salisu specifically called out the absence of US senators or congresspeople in the discussion, noting that while parliamentarians from Europe, Africa, and Asia were present to discuss frustrations with big tech companies (largely US-based), there was no US parliamentary perspective. This represents an unexpected structural disagreement about representation in global internet governance discussions.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Reliance on existing UN legal frameworks vs. new governance mechanisms

Speakers

– Adel ElMessiry

Arguments

UN legal framework including cybercrime convention should be used as base for international cooperation

Explanation

ElMessiry’s emphasis on using existing UN legal frameworks as the foundation for cooperation stands in contrast to other speakers who focused on creating new multi-stakeholder mechanisms, capacity building programs, and innovative governance approaches. This represents an unexpected disagreement about whether to build on existing legal structures or develop new governance models.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed moderate disagreements primarily around implementation approaches rather than fundamental goals. Key areas of tension included platform accountability mechanisms, AI governance methods, and multi-stakeholder implementation strategies. Most disagreements were constructive, focusing on different pathways to achieve shared objectives of better digital governance.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with high potential for convergence. The disagreements were largely tactical rather than strategic, suggesting that collaborative solutions addressing multiple approaches simultaneously could be developed. The absence of certain key stakeholders (particularly US parliamentarians) may limit the comprehensiveness of proposed solutions.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the need to make AI and technology systems transparent and auditable rather than incomprehensible black boxes

Speakers

– Abel Pires da Silva
– Sean Maher

Arguments

Need for transparent and accountable AI development to move away from ‘black box’ decision-making

Technology doesn’t have to be in black boxes – audit and governance mechanisms can ensure compliance and effectiveness

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both emphasized that digital rights should match offline rights and that technology should serve people rather than the reverse

Speakers

– Anusha Rahman
– Laura Gerasim

Arguments

Citizens demand same online rights as offline rights, requiring government accountability

Internet should be used to promote peace and critical thinking, using algorithms for people not vice versa

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Both emphasized the importance of using existing international frameworks and sharing information to facilitate cooperation and learning among parliamentarians

Speakers

– Adel ElMessiry
– Speaker 1

Arguments

UN legal framework including cybercrime convention should be used as base for international cooperation

IPU publishes monthly summaries of parliamentary AI policy actions to facilitate peer learning

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Key takeaways

Trust is the foundation of digital cooperation, requiring both communication and verification mechanisms

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential but requires new mechanisms to address conflicting interests and power imbalances between big tech companies and national governments

National and regional IGFs serve as crucial collection points for developing and sharing digital governance solutions that can be scaled globally

Parliamentarians need continuous capacity building and institutionalized internet governance programming within permanent parliamentary committees

Technical expertise must inform policy decisions to avoid breaking basic internet infrastructure while addressing higher-level application concerns

Platform accountability requires reviewing intermediary liability protections and ensuring social media companies respect national laws and values

Regional cooperation and knowledge sharing are essential, especially for developing countries with limited regulatory capacity

AI governance requires transparent, accountable development moving away from ‘black box’ decision-making toward auditable systems

Digital rights online should match offline rights, with particular attention to protecting vulnerable groups like women parliamentarians and children

International legal frameworks and UN conventions should serve as the foundation for cross-border digital cooperation

Resolutions and action items

IGF Secretariat to create an ongoing platform/portal where parliamentarians can share legislative experiences, materials, and best practices beyond annual meetings

Include US parliamentarians in future IGF parliamentary tracks to address concerns about big tech accountability

Expand Asian participation in the Global Informal Regulatory Anti-Fraud Forum (GIRAFFE)

Strengthen integration between parliamentary track and main IGF program rather than separate sessions

Develop knowledge-sharing platform for exchanging best practices on misinformation and disinformation strategies

Institutionalize internet governance programming within permanent parliamentary committees

Create sustained capacity building programs rather than one-off training sessions

Incorporate parliamentarians into African Union continental digital policy development cycle

Establish regional parliamentary networks similar to APNIC in other regions

Continue UNESCO-IPU collaboration on training parliamentarians and their staff on digital policy issues

Hold upcoming UNDP-CPA-IPU conference on responsible AI in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Develop African strategy guidelines for addressing mis- and disinformation

Unresolved issues

How to effectively balance child protection and online safety with maintaining an enriching digital environment and freedom of expression

Mechanisms for ensuring big tech companies apply the same accountability standards globally as they do in their home countries

How to address the fundamental power imbalance between sovereign governments and quasi-monopolistic tech platforms

Sustainable funding models for ongoing parliamentary capacity building and knowledge sharing platforms

Technical implementation details for transparent and accountable AI systems that move beyond ‘black box’ decision-making

Harmonization of regional and global regulatory frameworks while respecting national sovereignty and local values

How to ensure continuity of digital governance expertise as parliamentarians change through electoral cycles

Effective enforcement mechanisms for international digital cooperation agreements and conventions

Balancing innovation and technological development with necessary regulatory oversight

Addressing digital colonialism concerns while maintaining global internet interoperability

Suggested compromises

Multi-stakeholder approach that brings together competing interests (government, private sector, civil society, technical community) in structured dialogue rather than adversarial relationships

Co-legislative processes like the EU AI Act that involve industry cooperation in developing implementation guidelines while maintaining regulatory authority

Maximizing consensus opportunities (internet governance approach) while respecting democratic majority-based decision making (traditional politics)

Using algorithms and technology ‘for people’ rather than ‘people for algorithms’ – human-centered approach to digital development

Operational measures that maintain freedom of speech while eliminating ‘freedom of fraud’ through clear guidelines and reputation systems

Flexible legislation that promotes data exchange and innovation while ensuring privacy protection and respecting national sovereignty

Anchoring internet governance within existing parliamentary committee structures rather than creating entirely separate processes

Building on existing international legal frameworks (UN conventions) while allowing for regional adaptation and implementation

Combining technical expertise with policy-making authority through structured consultation processes

Gradual implementation of platform accountability measures through dialogue and cooperation rather than immediate confrontational regulation

Anna Luhmann’s plea to address power dynamics: ‘the actual power in the internet currently resides with the big tech companies that have in their respective fields quasi-monopolies in many areas, and that we as parliamentarians, as national governments, but also as the UN system as a whole, doesn’t have power in this system. I think that’s the fundamental problem that we should address here as parliamentarians’

Speaker

Anna Luhmann (German MP)

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it reframed the entire discussion from technical cooperation to fundamental power structures. Rather than focusing on capacity building or technical standards, Luhmann identified the core issue as a power imbalance between democratic institutions and tech corporations, introducing concepts of digital colonialism and corporate threats to national sovereignty.

Impact

This comment created a significant shift in the discussion’s tone and focus. It moved the conversation from collaborative problem-solving to addressing systemic power imbalances. Subsequent speakers, particularly from developing nations, began echoing themes of sovereignty and accountability, with speakers like Senator Anusha Rahman from Pakistan directly building on this theme by discussing how platforms disregard national laws.

Raul Echeberria’s observation about different working cultures: ‘Those of us who come from the internet community are accustomed to what we could call maximizing the consensus opportunities… The traditional politics systems work in a different manner. Work not in the maximizing the opportunity of consensus, but based on the construction of majorities. That is a rule of democracy. So I think that we have to bring those two cultures close together’

Speaker

Raul Echeberria (Latin American Internet Association)

Reason

This comment provided crucial insight into why multi-stakeholder cooperation often fails. By identifying the fundamental difference between consensus-building (internet governance culture) and majority-rule (democratic political culture), Echeberria highlighted a structural challenge that underlies many of the cooperation difficulties discussed.

Impact

This observation helped explain many of the frustrations expressed by parliamentarians throughout the session. It provided a framework for understanding why technical experts and politicians often talk past each other, and influenced later speakers to focus more on bridging these cultural gaps rather than just sharing technical knowledge.

Abel Pires da Silva’s call for ‘transparent artificial intelligence’: ‘At the moment, we are fearing AI because it has been treated as a black box. We don’t know how it reaches its conclusions… But if somehow we can develop a technology with a very transparent mechanism, then all of a sudden we don’t need to fear the machine anymore’

Speaker

Abel Pires da Silva (Timor-Leste Parliament)

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it shifted the AI governance discussion from regulation and control to transparency and understanding. Coming from a developing nation perspective, it highlighted how the ‘black box’ nature of AI creates particular challenges for countries with limited technical capacity, while proposing a solution focused on explainability rather than restriction.

Impact

This comment influenced the discussion by introducing the concept that fear of AI stems from lack of understanding rather than inherent danger. It connected to later discussions about capacity building and technical cooperation, with several speakers referencing the need for transparency and accountability in AI systems.

Senator Anusha Rahman’s challenge to intermediary liability: ‘This is the basic flaw now in the legislation that we have had, is providing intermediary liability protection to the social media platforms, absolving them of the content that is placed on that platform, which essentially is the responsibility of the social media company that runs it’

Speaker

Anusha Rahman (Pakistani Senator)

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it identified a specific legal mechanism (intermediary liability protection) as the root cause of platform accountability issues. It connected abstract discussions about power imbalances to concrete legal frameworks, providing a tangible target for legislative action.

Impact

This comment energized the discussion around platform accountability and led to more concrete proposals for legislative action. It influenced subsequent speakers to focus on specific regulatory mechanisms rather than general cooperation principles, and connected directly to the power dynamics theme introduced by Luhmann.

Kenneth Pugh’s long-term strategic thinking: ‘Why we say 12 years? It’s a time that goes from grade 1 to grade 12. So it’s more a political view rather than 5 or 10 years where you cannot really achieve it… We are investing in our own models. Yesterday we were presented with a Norwegian solution, it’s in Norwegian, but we are going to try to understand it. But now we’re going to invest in creating models that can solve our problems’

Speaker

Kenneth Pugh (Chilean Senator)

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it introduced the concept of digital sovereignty through technological independence, while also demonstrating practical long-term planning that aligns political cycles with educational development. The idea of developing region-specific AI models challenged the assumption of universal technological solutions.

Impact

This comment influenced the discussion by introducing themes of technological sovereignty and regional cooperation. It demonstrated how parliamentarians could think strategically about technology policy beyond reactive regulation, inspiring other speakers to discuss regional collaboration and capacity building initiatives.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed the discussion from a technical cooperation forum into a deeper examination of power, sovereignty, and democratic governance in the digital age. Luhmann’s power dynamics framework provided the conceptual foundation that allowed other speakers to articulate their frustrations with platform accountability and digital colonialism. Echeberria’s cultural analysis helped explain why these power imbalances persist, while da Silva’s transparency focus and Rahman’s legal specificity provided concrete pathways for addressing them. Pugh’s strategic thinking demonstrated how parliamentarians could move beyond reactive policies to proactive digital sovereignty. Together, these comments elevated the conversation from operational cooperation to fundamental questions about democratic control over digital infrastructure, creating a more substantive and politically relevant dialogue that better reflected the real challenges parliamentarians face in governing digital technologies.

How can we improve multi-stakeholder collaboration mechanisms when stakeholders have conflicting interests?

Speaker

Abel Pires da Silva

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental challenge of bringing together diverse stakeholders (big tech, academics, governments, NGOs) with different interests to work collaboratively on digital governance issues.

How can we harmonize regional and global regulatory frameworks, especially for developing countries with limited capacity?

Speaker

Abel Pires da Silva

Explanation

This highlights the need to bridge the capacity gap between developed and developing nations in creating effective digital governance frameworks.

How can we develop more transparent and accountable AI systems to address the ‘black box’ problem?

Speaker

Abel Pires da Silva

Explanation

This addresses public concerns about AI decision-making processes and the need for explainable AI to build trust and accountability.

How can parliamentarians address power imbalances with big tech companies that currently dominate internet governance?

Speaker

Anna Luhrmann

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental issue of democratic oversight and regulation of powerful technology companies that operate across borders.

How can we ensure social media platforms respect national laws while maintaining global interoperability?

Speaker

Anusha Rahman

Explanation

This explores the tension between national sovereignty in lawmaking and the global nature of internet platforms and services.

Should intermediary liability protections for social media platforms be reviewed and reformed?

Speaker

Anusha Rahman

Explanation

This questions current legal frameworks that protect platforms from content liability and whether they need updating for current digital challenges.

How can we institutionalize internet governance programming within parliamentary permanent committees?

Speaker

Nazarius Kirama

Explanation

This proposes a structural approach to embedding digital governance expertise within existing parliamentary frameworks for more effective policymaking.

How can we replicate successful regional capacity-building models like AFRICIG in other regions?

Speaker

Peace Oliver Amuge

Explanation

This explores scaling successful parliamentary capacity-building initiatives to strengthen global digital governance capabilities.

How can we leverage existing UN legal frameworks and conventions for stronger international cooperation in digital governance?

Speaker

Adel ElMessiry

Explanation

This addresses the underutilization of existing international legal instruments for digital cooperation and cybercrime prevention.

How can we establish a permanent platform for ongoing dialogue and knowledge sharing among parliamentarians beyond IGF meetings?

Speaker

Shuaib Afolabi Salisu

Explanation

This addresses the need for continuous collaboration and resource sharing among parliamentarians working on digital policy issues.

How can we ensure US parliamentarians participate in global digital governance discussions given the dominance of US-based tech companies?

Speaker

Shuaib Afolabi Salisu

Explanation

This highlights the need for more inclusive global dialogue that includes lawmakers from countries where major tech companies are based.

How can we develop AI models that address regional and cultural needs rather than relying solely on Anglo-Saxon models and data?

Speaker

Kenneth Pugh

Explanation

This addresses concerns about AI bias and the need for more diverse and culturally appropriate AI development approaches.

How can we better integrate parliamentary tracks with the broader IGF program to avoid stakeholder silos?

Speaker

Jennifer Chung

Explanation

This suggests improving the structure of IGF to create more integrated multi-stakeholder dialogue rather than separate tracks.