Human Rights-Centered Global Governance of Quantum Technologies: Implications for AI, Digital Rights, and the Digital Divide

Summary

This UNESCO session at the WSIS Forum focused on the global governance of quantum technology from a human rights perspective, based on an issue brief jointly developed by UNESCO’s Information for All Program, Sciences Po, and the European University Institute. The discussion was moderated by Xianhong Hu and featured presentations from lead author Shamira Ahmed and several expert panelists.

Ahmed outlined three main challenges identified in the issue brief: dual-use risks where quantum technologies present both opportunities and threats for encryption and security, an emerging quantum divide that could exacerbate global inequalities, and significant gender inequity in the quantum field where 79% of quantum companies have no female senior leaders. The brief proposes human rights as a key enabler for responsible quantum governance, with recommendations focusing on infrastructure investments, policy action and awareness, capacity building, and leveraging public-private partnerships.

UNESCO Director Guilherme Canela emphasized that innovation and human rights protection are not opposing forces but complementary elements, arguing that the international human rights system actually enabled the conditions for technological innovation. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse from Sciences Po highlighted the need for institutionalizing multi-stakeholder participation in governance processes and developing agile, forward-looking frameworks that can adapt as quantum technology evolves.

Professor Pieter Vermaas from Delft University stressed the importance of moving beyond dialogue to actual collaborative action, suggesting the creation of international quantum research centers. Journalist Elodie Vialle warned about the surveillance implications for press freedom and the need for proactive rather than reactive governance approaches. The discussion emphasized that quantum governance should build upon existing internet governance principles while addressing the unique challenges posed by quantum technologies, particularly their potential impact on encryption, privacy, and global digital divides.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Three Key Challenges of Quantum Technology**: The discussion identified dual-use risks (opportunities and threats for encryption/security), an emerging quantum divide based on existing digital inequalities, and significant gender inequity in quantum fields (79% of quantum companies have no female senior leaders, only 1 in 54 job applicants are women).

– **Human Rights-Centered Governance Framework**: Speakers emphasized the need for proactive, human rights-driven governance of quantum technologies rather than reactive approaches, drawing lessons from AI governance to avoid repeating past mistakes where technological transitions led to exploitation and discrimination.

– **Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Inclusivity**: The conversation stressed the importance of institutionalizing multi-stakeholder participation in quantum governance, including academia, private sector, civil society, and international organizations, while ensuring developing countries aren’t left behind in quantum development.

– **Quantum-AI Convergence and Security Implications**: Discussion covered the intersection of quantum computing with AI, particularly concerning surveillance capabilities, encryption vulnerabilities, and threats to press freedom and digital safety, with emphasis on protecting journalists and human rights defenders.

– **International Cooperation and Standards**: Speakers highlighted the need for global collaboration in quantum development, shared technical standards for interoperability, and the role of organizations like UNESCO in facilitating responsible quantum governance through science diplomacy.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to present findings from a UNESCO policy brief on quantum technology governance, focusing on human rights implications and the need for inclusive, proactive global governance frameworks. The session sought to gather stakeholder input on recommendations for ensuring quantum technologies serve as digital public goods rather than exacerbating existing inequalities.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with speakers demonstrating expertise while remaining accessible to non-technical audiences. The tone was forward-looking and solution-oriented, emphasizing urgency without being alarmist. There was a consistent emphasis on learning from past technological transitions (particularly AI governance) to avoid repeating mistakes, and the conversation remained focused on practical recommendations and actionable next steps for international cooperation.

Speakers

– **Xianhong Hu**: Session moderator, UNESCO

– **Shamira Ahmed**: Lead author of the issue brief on quantum technology and human rights

– **Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi**: UNESCO Director for Digital Inclusion, Policy and Transformation; Secretary of IFAP

– **Constance Bommelaer de Leusse**: Executive Director of the Tech and Global Affairs at Sciences Po; Co-author of the issue brief

– **Pieter Vermaas**: Professor and Dr. from Delft University of Technology and Quantum Delta Netherlands; Ethics lead of the Dutch quantum ecosystem; Head of the Delft University Quantum Governance and Values Lab; Professor of Philosophy and Ethics

– **Elodie Vialle**: Journalist; Digital safety trainer; Press freedom defender; Works on surveillance of journalists and human rights defenders

– **Wolfgang Kleinwachter**: Retired professor from the University of Aarhus

– **Chris Buckridge**:

– **Jandhyala Prabhakar Rao**: Prof. from Hyderabad, India; Chair of Information for Development Working Group

**Additional speakers:**

– **Yicheng**: UNESCO colleague supporting online moderation

– **Zhao Wei**: From China, mentioned as IFAP working group member and expert

– **Maxime Brionov**: Author of the book “Global Digital Human Rights in the Implementation of the Global Digital Compact” (participated via chat)

# UNESCO Session on Global Governance of Quantum Technology: A Human Rights Perspective

## Executive Summary

This UNESCO session at the WSIS Forum examined the intersection of quantum technology development and human rights governance, presenting findings from an issue brief published in April 2024 and jointly developed by UNESCO’s Information for All Programme, Sciences Po, and the European University Institute. The brief was based on a March 2024 discussion paper and a May 2023 WSIS consultative workshop. Moderated by Xianhong Hu from UNESCO, the hybrid session brought together experts to discuss the need for inclusive governance frameworks for quantum technologies.

UNESCO Director Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi provided welcome remarks, emphasizing that “there is no innovation without human rights” and rejecting what he called the “false dichotomy” between innovation and human rights protection.

## Key Findings from the Issue Brief

Lead author Shamira Ahmed presented three fundamental challenges identified in the UNESCO issue brief:

### Three Primary Challenges

**Dual-Use Risks**: Quantum technologies present both opportunities and threats, particularly regarding encryption and security. While quantum cryptography could provide enhanced security, quantum computing simultaneously threatens current encryption methods.

**The Emerging Quantum Divide**: Building upon existing digital inequalities, quantum technologies risk creating new forms of global stratification. Ahmed emphasized that “technological transitions do not happen in a vacuum” and that decisions made today within existing inequitable science, technology, and innovation ecosystems will shape tomorrow’s technology landscape.

**Gender Inequity**: The quantum field demonstrates severe gender imbalances, with 79% of quantum companies having no female senior leaders and only 1 in 54 job applicants being women.

### Four Key Recommendation Areas

Ahmed outlined four areas for action identified in the brief:

1. **Infrastructure Investments**: Strengthening digital infrastructure fundamentals and leveraging public-private partnerships

2. **Policy Action and Awareness**: Raising awareness beyond national security discussions to include equity and human rights issues

3. **Capacity Building**: Developing systematic approaches to keep policymakers updated on emerging technologies

4. **UNESCO’s International Year of Quantum**: Utilizing the UN-declared International Year of Quantum to advance governance discussions

## Expert Perspectives

### Multi-Stakeholder Governance Approaches

Constance Bommelaer de Leusse from Sciences Po emphasized the need for “institutionalizing multi-stakeholder participation in multilateral processes,” arguing that experts, private sector representatives, and academia should help define governance agendas rather than merely being consulted. She highlighted the importance of developing “agile and forward-looking frameworks that adjust as technology evolves” and noted that quantum technologies impact the geopolitical order by creating what she described as a “quantum arms race.”

### Collaborative Technology Development

Professor Pieter Vermaas from Delft University advocated for moving “beyond dialogue to actual collaborative technology development.” He argued that quantum technology should “move out of the sphere of developing countries and be developed globally,” suggesting the creation of international quantum research centers as a governance mechanism.

### Press Freedom and Surveillance Concerns

Journalist and digital safety trainer Elodie Vialle highlighted how quantum technologies intersect with existing surveillance threats to press freedom. She warned that “unchecked surveillance already targets journalists and creates chilling effects on free speech” and that stored conversations could be broken in the future when quantum capabilities mature. Vialle emphasized the need to “close the cultural gap between quantum science field and human rights communities.”

## Discussion Points and Questions

### Relationship to Existing Frameworks

The discussion addressed how quantum governance relates to existing internet governance structures. Ahmed explained that “quantum governance relates to internet governance through quantum information and communications technologies,” while Bommelaer de Leusse argued that “fundamental principles from Tunis agenda should apply to quantum technologies governance.”

Wolfgang Kleinwächter raised concerns about definitional clarity, questioning how quantum governance relates to existing internet and AI governance frameworks and warning about “growing confusion” with various governance concepts.

### Technology Sharing and International Cooperation

Chris Buckridge raised practical questions about “how to convince countries with technology to share with those without,” highlighting tensions between openness and national interests in quantum development.

### Cultural Considerations

Professor Jandhyala Prabhakar Rao from Hyderabad introduced questions about the “role of culture in AI-quantum convergence context” and emphasized the importance of building “local AI to solve local problems effectively.”

## Key Themes and Recommendations

### Proactive Governance

Multiple speakers emphasized the urgency of developing governance frameworks now rather than waiting for quantum technologies to mature. Vialle stated that “we cannot afford to be reactive in governance conversations – must act now.”

### Human Rights as Foundation

The session positioned human rights as fundamental to quantum governance rather than as constraints on innovation. Speakers argued for embedding human rights principles into technology development processes from the earliest stages.

### Integration with Existing Processes

Participants discussed integrating quantum governance discussions into existing frameworks like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process and connecting to the WSIS+20 review process.

## Challenges and Next Steps

The discussion identified several ongoing challenges:

– Developing specific mechanisms for technology sharing between countries with different quantum capabilities

– Creating effective multi-stakeholder participation in multilateral governance processes

– Addressing the severe gender imbalance in quantum technology fields

– Bridging knowledge gaps between technical and human rights communities

– Developing coordinated technical standards for quantum technology interoperability

## Conclusion

The session established quantum governance as requiring immediate attention and proactive approaches that integrate human rights principles with technology development. While participants agreed on the importance of inclusive, multi-stakeholder governance and the complementary relationship between innovation and human rights, significant work remains in developing specific mechanisms and institutional frameworks to address the challenges posed by emerging quantum technologies.

The discussion highlighted the need to learn from experiences with AI governance while developing quantum-specific approaches, and emphasized that quantum governance cannot be separated from broader questions of digital equity, press freedom, and inclusive innovation.

Xianhong Hu: We are going to tackle the important issues related to quantum technology, a focus on the human rights center, the global governance of the quantum technology. It’s based on the issue brief UNESCO information for all program jointly developed with our dear partner, who is also present today, with St. Paul, the technology and global affairs center, with the European University Institute, our lead author is here. So, quantum technology is going to be the new frontier technology, which is going to have the potential to transform the entire digital ecosystem and the AI development, as we are hotly debating in this WSIS Forum. They are having complex implications for human rights, for digital inclusion, etc. So, I would like to firstly give the floor to our lead author, Ms. Shamira Ahmed, to unpack the key findings and also the recommendations from the issue brief. So, Shamira, you may start your presentation. You have 10 minutes, and I will signal to you when there are one minute left, so we can have the speakers follow you continue the conversation. Each of the speakers, we have three, each of you have five minutes, and then I hope we can have 10 minutes for the interaction and discussion with the audiences. Also, send my warm greetings to the participants online, so in the room, please prepare your questions, comments while the meeting goes on. And for the online participants, my colleague Yicheng will support the online moderation. Please do not hesitate to post your comments, your questions online, so we can really have a very interactive, hybrid discussion. So, without delaying further, Shamira, please start your presentation.

Shamira Ahmed: Thank you, Xianhong. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us in this session. As Xianhong mentioned, I’m one of the key authors of the issue brief, and I’d just like to give you a background of how we developed the issue brief. It’s based on the extension of the discussion paper that was published in March 2024 on quantum technologies and their global impact. And we also had a consultative workshop at last year’s WSIS in May, and it was called Pioneering Responsible Global Governance of Quantum Technologies. And as a result, we gathered different input from key stakeholders, and we published the issue brief in April earlier this year. So the main challenges we identified in the issue brief after gathering various information is that there are three main challenges that we associated with quantum technologies. Okay, sorry. It’s dual use risks. There’s a quantum divide, and there’s a gender inequity. Sorry, I don’t know what’s happening to the clicker and technology. Yeah, that’s okay, Shamira. You are on the slide on the… Maybe you can help me with the slides instead of me clicking. Yeah, the third slide. Yes, the one before. Yes, perfect. No. Yes, perfect. So, sorry about that, but as I mentioned, there are three main challenges we identified after gathering all the information. It’s dual-use risks, there’s a quantum divide that’s emerging, and there are gender inequity issues. So, in terms of dual-use risks, we found out that quantum technologies paradoxically have opportunities and risks, especially for encryption, privacy, and security. And there’s an emerging quantum divide that’s based on the existing entrenched digital divide, and it could increase multidimensional global inequalities. And as with other STEM subjects, there is gender inequity in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematical pipeline for quantum computing jobs. On other quantum technologies, for example, 79% of quantum companies have no female senior leaders, and one in 54 quantum job applicants are women. And these are some of the highlights that we’ve highlighted and indicated in our issue brief. Next slide. As a result, we consolidated all the information, and we focused on human rights as the key enabler for responsible global quantum governance. And we did a preliminary search and found that human rights could facilitate a few of the sustainable development goals when we align them with protecting fundamental freedoms, like the right to privacy and freedom of expression, addressing global inequalities, as per the quantum divide I mentioned, and gender inequity, for example. Ethical use of digital technologies, having a human rights focus, can facilitate ethical use. and Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. And lastly, anticipating future risks could be mitigated through a human rights lens given the quantum AI convergence and potential environmental risks. In terms of the key recommendations we had four focus areas infrastructure investments, policy, action and awareness, capacity building, and we also focused on UNESCO’s international year of quantum. So the key recommendations in terms of infrastructure was leveraging public-private partnerships, also going back to fundamentals on digital infrastructure, especially if we’re talking about global digital infrastructure and how it would relate to an envisioned quantum internet and quantum communications network. Policy and awareness action, we also identified that raising awareness on global debates on quantum technologies beyond the discussion about national security, sovereignty, and strategic autonomy, it was important to also highlight how existing entrenched systems of inequity could be perpetuated by the inactivity in the global, in predicting global governance for quantum technologies. Next slide. And you can have, we went into further detail in the issue brief, so you can have a look at them for further details. Next slide. So the three key takeaways I’d like us to think about, and you can also raise them in the discussion portion later, is that despite the hype around the positive aspects of quantum technologies, we also have to have meaningful discussions about in ways that they can exacerbate harm, privacy, and freedom, and not only for countries or organizations that have quantum computing capabilities. We should also be cognizant of the fact that technological transitions do not happen in a vacuum. The decisions that are made today are developed in the context of existing and equitable science, technology, and innovation ecosystems and institutions. And without concerted efforts, then they will continue to shape tomorrow’s technology landscape. And lastly, lessons from history show that without concerted efforts, the status quo of technological transitions from the Third Industrial Revolution show that these transitions often lead to exploitation, discrimination, and or suppression of human rights. So we need to be cognizant of the fact that nothing happens in a vacuum, and we need to have active interventions to create a future where everyone can benefit from quantum technologies. Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you. Thank you, Shamira, for your excellent presentation. Actually, we also posted the link to download. this issue brief and it’s a really easy reading of 20 pages and you can just read more once downloaded from UNESCO website. And I wonder if Shamira, can you stop here? I don’t know the technical support, could you stop the PowerPoint because I couldn’t see my speakers from the Zoom somehow. Oh yes, that’s better. Thank you so much. Wow, we have so many online participants. I couldn’t see very clear in the room, but I’d really like to thank all of you for participating in this interesting session on the quantum. I’d like to also recognize our IFAP working group members and experts, Prof. Rao from India, the Chair of Information for Development Working Group, Ms. Zhao Wei from China, and also we have our partners around the world attending us really good morning, evening, and thank you for your interest in this session. So now I’d like to move to our panelists. The first one I’d like to introduce is Ms.

Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi: Constance Bommeler-DeLuzo. I think I will need to open another session, maybe you can just

Xianhong Hu: very quickly, one minute. Oh yeah, hi Guilherme and welcome on board because sorry I’m online, I couldn’t see the situation in the room. Thank you for sticking to me. So now I’m very honored to introduce actually Mr. Guilherme Canela, the UNESCO Director for Digital Inclusion, Policy and Transformation, as well as the Secretary of IFAP to address some of his welcome remarks. You know, it’s never too late to address the welcome remarks and also share your visions given your extensive expertise and experience in digital governance. So, Constance, if you don’t mind, I’m now giving the floor to Guilherme to address some remarks and then we’ll continue with our panelists. So, Guilherme, please take the floor. Thank you.

Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi: Thank you, everyone. I won’t take too much of your time. The very bright algorithm of WSIS organization put three sessions I need to speak at this very same moment, so I’m trying my best to do it. So, actually, basically, the paper already underlines the key recommendations that are also recommendations from the Information for All program. I won’t repeat that. But my presence here is more to reinforce how much UNESCO is committed to this conversation in different ways. As you know, this year is the quantum year established by the UN General Assembly. UNESCO is the agency in charge of organizing this conversation and this discussion. And this paper was very timely to contribute to this conversation from the perspective of human rights-driven approach to this conversation. Obviously, the science approach is very much important. The economic approach is very much important. But we can’t forget the central element of having a human rights-driven approach to this. So, of course, we need to discuss opportunities and risks in this conversation. It’s not one thing or the other. It’s one thing and the other. I was just in a session when I was saying that I’m listening in a very worried manner, more and more about a false dichotomy that we would need to choose between innovation and protecting human rights. I think this is wrong and we need to stop this. We need to show that there is no dichotomy here. Those things actually exist. They are interlinked. There is no innovation without human rights. And we need to make that point absolutely clear, but with evidence. The innovation that we are facing today, everything these companies were able to do, it’s precisely because the UN system created the universal system of human rights eight years ago that allowed an international rule of law system. An international rule of law system that allowed the circulation of scientists, the circulation of ideas. So without these, there were no innovation. So we need to be very clear on that point. So I think this paper or this policy brief tried to go into that direction, not only talking about risks, but also about opportunities, but showing that those things should go hand in hand. So sorry to interrupt the conversation, but I just wanted to make clear that from the perspective of the UNESCO Secretariat, we are very much engaged with you in this conversation. We want to be part of it. We want to listen to you. And I’m very happy that this session is taking place with this concrete issue brief that was launched earlier this year. Back to you, Xiangkong. Thanks.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you, Guillermo. I also take this opportunity to actually thank you for your editorial guidance of the entire issue brief. Without your support, we won’t be able to launch this issue brief in such a comprehensive manner. And thanks again for your remarks, Guillermo. Now I’d like to move to continue with our speaker, another co-author of the issue brief, Constance Bolleman. You are the executive director of the Tech and Global Affairs at Sciences Po as well. And actually, it was you who had also initiated with UNESCO to develop this quantum issue brief. Also, you are the co-author. and you have been at the forefront of science diplomacy and governance in emerging technology for so many years. Given your extensive experience and drawing lessons from the current AI governance, what do you think should be the most effective approach to ensure the inclusive multi-stakeholder governance of quantum so that it will be a technology as to be harnessed as a digital public good and to ensure our approach, our policy to be really proactive, inclusive instead of just being reactive. So Constance, the floor is yours.

Constance Bommelaer de Leusse: Thank you very much Xianhong and good morning everyone. I’m sorry to not be there in Geneva with you. Good afternoon perhaps for those who are joining remotely from other places around the world. First of all I’d like to thank UNESCO for its leadership throughout this exercise. We decided to work on quantum governance at a time where everyone is getting excited about AI. So it was a bit of an interesting exercise in that context and also thank our colleagues from DELF and also Shamira Ahmed who’s been a leading force in developing this paper. Before I propose perhaps a few ideas on the new approaches to ensure we have inclusive multilateral processes to harness governance issues that derive from quantum technologies, I’d like to create a clear link with what Shamira explained in her very good introduction and presentation. The technology of quantum comes along with new governance challenges. You can go back, revert back to the slides that she shared previously, perhaps after this conversation, but just in a nutshell. It’s important to realize, to assess the importance of how this technology is impacting, first of all, geopolitical order. We’re seeing, for instance, that there’s, I would say, a quantum arm race going on in terms of which regional or national force is going to be investing the more in this technology and utilizing it to support its economic, social growth, and perhaps even a defense aspect. There’s also the very important question of the dual nature of this technology that, of course, can be used for good, but also there are some harmful potential impacts of this technology that need to be assessed. Another important, I think, governance issue that hasn’t perhaps been mentioned is the lack of technical standards that are coordinated and that are going to allow interoperability when it comes to quantum governance. Of course, there’s also the divide, the gender, but also geographical divide between those who have and those who have not, the potential to grow in the field of this technology. So, these are some of the governance challenges that are emerging along with this technology. I think given these dynamics along, I would say, some of the reflections and adaptions that have supported the development of other very dynamic technologies, just like artificial intelligence, I think a new approach, a new dynamic is needed when we think about the multilateral frameworks, governance frameworks, that are going to allow us to navigate this technology for the benefit of all. One aspect that is very important from my perspective is almost institutionalizing multi-stakeholder participation in multilateral processes. We’ve seen the importance on artificial intelligence, technical, digital technical topics in general, but also in other fields when you think about environmental technologies, for instance. These are very technical topics and you need experts around the table. You need the private sector, you need academia. Academia is self-organizing, I would say, at the moment, a little bit like civil society 20 years ago, professionalizing its participation in these global policy discussions. And it’s important that multilateral processes institutionalize how these different stakeholders are going to be not just consulted, but also are going to help define the agenda of multilateral organizations and their meetings. Another, perhaps, aspect that could be explored in how we develop these governance frameworks around quantum technologies is how do we design agile and forward-looking frameworks that are going to be able to adjust as the technology adjusts. Here, I know in the academic environment, we’ve been running a lot of foresight exercises, scenario planning exercises. And I think these technologies and these new governance challenges that come along with it are perfect materials to be utilized for such types of governance approaches. And then finally, and I would conclude with that, I think this notion of science diplomacy, science diplomacy is becoming mainstream. certainly in Geneva and hopefully more and more in other global capitals. This notion that academics, scientists, experts, civil society, individuals actively participate in setting the agenda, but also help leaders of multilateral organizations organize their governance frameworks. And I think this is very important. It’s a notion that is growing, that is becoming mainstream, and that clearly when it comes to quantum governance is a shared responsibility from my perspective. And so with that, I’ll hand it back to you, Xianhong, and happy to pursue the conversation.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you so much for highlighting so many important issues, particularly institutionalizing the most stakeholder governance. It’s so inspiring also for the organization like UNESCO. Thank you. Now I’d like to introduce our second speaker, Prof. and Dr. Pieter Vermaas from the Delft University of Technology and also Quantum Delta Netherlands. Hi Pieter, you are there. As the ethics lead of the Dutch quantum ecosystem and the head of the Delft University Quantum Governance and Values Lab, you would be the best positioned to tell us what needs to be emphasized to navigate the potential global impacts of the quantum technology. Pieter, the floor is yours.

Pieter Vermaas: Okay, thank you, Xianhong. And thank you for all being here. Great to speak here and to have this dialogue, to be part of this dialogue. If I want to emphasize something in this wonderful brief is that I think it should go beyond dialogue. What I really like of the brief is that there’s a plea for dialogue. Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, University of London University of London are trying to address the issues and decide what we want to do. So I’m really as an ethicist in favour of this brief and we should do more on ethics so yes, as a stakeholder yes but I think we should also go beyond that and just do technology together. Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you, Professor. What you have suggested from your side, UNESCO certainly is a leading organisation to foster international collaboration for innovation but also I think what you said about creating centres, international collaboration can also be so valid to be considered by the OASIS plus 20 review process. Imagine what we should do more in the post 2025. We really need such a kind of action. I hope that we can really include what you have said in the session in the conference. I hope that OASIS can also be another important vehicle we can foster quantum collaboration. Thank you very much. So now I’d like to introduce our last speaker Elodie Vialle. In the spirit of multi-stakeholder we are very appreciative of your participation. You are the journalist you are the digital safety trainer as you heard from Shamira from our Professor Peter that quantum is going to impact the safety of communication, encryption, surveillance and decomposing risks and also some opportunities as well to the digital safety free expression, privacy etc. So what lessons do you think we can learn from your work on press freedom and the right privacy particularly I know you are expert on gender and women and gender divide was also mentioned by Constance by Shamira in the issue brief. Could you please give us your opinion?

Elodie Vialle: Thank you so much, Xianhong, and thanks to the brilliant previous presentation. I think if there’s one lesson that we can learn from a previous conversation on AI and surveillance, and particularly surveillance of journalists and human rights defenders, which is the topic I work on, is that we cannot afford to be reactive in this conversation. The question of governance is not a question for the future, it’s a question for right now. And what I can say as a journalist and as a press freedom defender is that unchecked surveillance is already being used to target, intimidate and silence journalists all over the world. And the problem for democracies is that when people feel they are being watched, they no longer feel free to speak. So there’s a chilling effect of this surveillance and the knowledge that encryption can be broken. So all these journalists I work with all around the globe, and particularly since the scandals and around Pegasus, they feel that they’re afraid to use their phone, unsure if the conversations are safe, uncertain whether they’re putting their sources at risk. And yet governments continue to propose backdoors into encrypted systems, while they should actually ensure in domestic laws the inviolability of journalist communication. So now with quantum technologies, for us as a civil society organisation, it’s a powerful new frontier and new threats, potentially. First because when paired with AI, quantum could be used to… surveillance and breaking encryption and not only for tomorrow but also to some point today because what we fear and in terms of maybe a potential risk assessment is that the conversation of today, the encrypted messages today could be stored and maybe break in the future when these quantum technologies are more available. So that’s why we need to prepare now and of course the global rush we’ve observed in terms of AI governance and the race to set up the AI standards can offer us a critical policy roadmap on how to govern quantum responsibly. So as you mentioned Xianhong, I was earlier this year the reporter also of a group of experts, international expert group working on women and media for UNESCO, the head of the 30th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platforms for Action which is a key international text on women’s rights and basically the main concern of this international expert group is today the tech-facilitated gender-based violence targeting women journalists. I mean intimidation, online threats, gender-based disinformation campaigns. For us this is the most severe and urgent threats for women journalists which is used to discredit their work and to silence them and of course with the quantum technology and as it has been mentioned in the policy brief and the UNESCO report as well, these threats could potentially grow with the possibility to also to create and disseminate at scale false documents. and Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter and over the last few years. And what I’ve learned from that is we don’t always speak the same language as well. So there’s a need to, I would say, close the cultural gap between the quantum science field and the human rights communities also to be able to have this conversation, because we have also to acknowledge this, I would say, knowledge imbalance between civil society organisation and the quantum science field and all stakeholders. And yes, I think that UNESCO can also, as you’ve said in your paper, can be a driver of responsible innovation. And I want to add a plus one, if we can say to what Guilherme said previously, because I also think that it’s a huge mistake to oppose innovation and human rights. We are the one in civil society organisation who’ve pushed a lot over the last few years for innovation in terms of safety by design. Last year, I was at the Trust Consummate in San Francisco. and Ms. Constance Bommelaer.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you. And thank you, Elodie, for making so many very strong recommendations and share so much excellent work on ground you have done. And now I’d like to thank again my wonderful speakers. You have done a great job in such a short time. You made important points. Now I’d like to open the floor to everyone in the room and also online. I’m inviting our colleague Yichen to moderate online to receive your questions, comments and signals to me. And also I’d like to invite Shamira, please give floor to the participants in the room to raise any questions, comments as well. I’d like to say that this can be broader. You can either react to our issue brief on quantum technology. You can either raise questions to any of our speakers. You can also talk broadly what kind of future directions and actions, not only quantum, but any other frontier technologies, our policymaker sphere, the civil society. I mean, all those policymaker leaders here, we should pay attention to because we need to be more forward looking than ever. Thank you very much.

Wolfgang Kleinwachter: Thank you very much. My name is Wolfgang Kleinwächter. I’m a retired professor from the University of Aarhus. I’m not an expert in quantum, but I was interested in the relative new concept which was introduced by the brief on quantum governance. So I think the term governance emerged in the WSIS context related to internet, and the Tunis agenda includes a definition of internet governance. Since then we have seen a growing confusion about governance. We have ICT governance, digital governance, cyber governance, IoT governance. Recently the UN is organising a new global dialogue on AI governance, and my question is how your proposed concept of quantum governance is related to the governance of the internet. That means, is it based on the definition of the Tunis agenda, and how it’s related to the new global dialogue on AI governance? Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you for the question. I think, Shamira, I’d like to collect a round of questions, and then I will come back to our speakers altogether before we end the session, okay? Sure. Any other questions, or remarks, or comments? Yes, go ahead.

Chris Buckridge: Sorry. Hi, I’m Chris Buckridge, also not an expert in quantum by any means. Two things briefly. One I wanted to highlight, we had a really good session in the Internet Governance Forum a couple of weeks ago about emerging technologies. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Elodie Vialle, Mr. Guilherme Canela de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed where people who can’t afford the technology may share with country that have the technology, but how we convince them to participate and share?

Shamira Ahmed: Thank you for the questions. I will try and attempt all of them or give some feedback, and then my panelists can also jump in, Constance as well. So the first question was on the governance aspects of quantum technologies and how it relates to the WSIS process, basically internet governance as a whole. So in terms of the most funding or investments in infrastructure for quantum technologies is what I’d like to think of as quantum information and communications technologies, which is sensing, networking, communications, and also there’s a lot of investments going to developing a quantum internet. So that’s how it directly links to the internet governance processes. And I think at IGF there was a presentation, the Eurodig, on how quantum technologies can be used for sensing, for example. So those are some use cases. There’s also a lot of hype, but in terms of encryption and cybersecurity, like Chris mentioned, those are how it directly relates to the broad internet governance issues. So I think of the emerging applications of quantum technologies are going to be based on ICTs in a broad definition as an enabler for scale. So that’s how they relate to governance issues, the broad internet governance issues. And then your question was on how we, sorry, what is your question? Perhaps it wasn’t much of a question, but it was more how do we ensure parts of our global society are not left behind as we prepare for the impact quantum might have? Yeah, I think… All the panelists mentioned that it depends on cooperation, and UNESCO might be the platform for that. So yeah, I’ll leave it there. And if anyone wants to take the floor, and…

Xianhong Hu: Thank you, Shamira. May I just interrupt? Because I think we have an online speaker who wants to take the floor. So please go ahead quickly. Sure, I’m happy. For the questions or for the responses? Sorry for the questions, because I saw a question about Winnie Nations. Are you going to talk? Hello? It’s okay. Somehow he cannot hear me. Okay, Constance, please go ahead to respond

Constance Bommelaer de Leusse: to the questions. Thank you. I’ll be quick. As I know, we don’t have a lot of time. So thank you for the questions. So Wolfgang’s excellent question about basically quantum governance in relation to traditional internet governance. From my perspective, these are slightly two things, different things. So the internet is one defined technology, quantum governance, quantum, sorry, technology is a separate object for sure. However, I would agree with Shamira. I think some of the fundamental principles that we’ve negotiated and around which we have strong consensus now, the fact that there’s technical community, business, governments, intergovernmental organizations that have to work together on emerging technologies that were agreed in the Tunis agenda. For me, naturally, this consensus should apply to quantum technologies, if we want to have an effective, anticipatory, agile governance system for quantum technology. The second question about IGF, I think maybe what we could propose, Chris, is… Welcome everyone to the IGF Framework Summit. I’m so glad you joined us, and I’m so pleased to be here. I think it’s been a while since we’ve been at a summit, and I’m really looking forward to it. I think the first step is throwing this policy brief into the IGF process and seeing if there’s appetite to build on it as perhaps a basis to maybe could be a policy network, maybe it could be a best practices. I don’t know, but certainly the IGF Framework seems to be emerging technologies. And then in relation to the last question, I think it’s absolutely critical, and I’m sorry I didn’t catch your name, the gentleman basically that pointed to the concerns that can come along with the fact that governance frameworks for quantum technologies today are largely developed behind closed doors, whether of defense entities or institutions. And I think this also comes from the fact that there’s so much focus today on artificial intelligence that topics like quantum seem to not get enough attention. So I think that’s a really important comment. Back to you, Xianghong. Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you, Constance, for tackling so many questions. Actually, before I give the floor to our next speaker, I think I’ll quickly go to a question on the chat. I think Maxime Brionov, the author of the book Global Digital Human Rights in the Implementation of the Global Digital Compact, he asked a question, also how much do you think we need a declaration of global digital human rights? Where to start creating it for human-oriented global governance taking into account quantum technology? So Constance, if you want to add anything on that question, let me know.

Constance Bommelaer de Leusse: I think that this is a really good question, and it’s a question that pops up on a regular basis. I have found that UNESCO has harnessed actually this question pretty well in developing a number of policy frameworks, guidelines. And for me, the Rome Principles that were developed at UNESCO, so rights-based, open, accessible, multi-stakeholder governance, actually is a proposal from the UN to inject human rights at the center of how internet or digital technologies must be governed. So it’s not literally a new human rights digital declaration, but for me, it does the job of addressing how do you ensure that human rights are specifically thought of, respected in developing governance frameworks for emerging technologies. Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: Can I give floor to our speaker, Prof. Zhao, you have quick points to make. Please take the floor.

Jandhyala Prabhakar Rao: Yeah, thank you very much. This is Prof. J. Prabhakar Rao from Hyderabad, India. Just, I want to know, we are now talking about quantum convergence from ethical aspect and we are also, we have all now, all of us are convinced that there is a need to build a local AI to effectively solve local problems. So how do you see, where is the role of culture, especially in the context of

Xianhong Hu: AI quantum convergence? Thank you. Thank you for the good question on the culture and also on the convergence thing. So I’d like to ask our speaker, Prof. Peter Wekmas, and also LOD Vaila, to please tackle the question you’d like to speak about, maybe quickly in two minutes. Everybody, thank you.

Pieter Vermaas: Okay, thank you. Coming back to the question of why should countries share their tech? and Prof. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed For any technology, also quantum, that’s great. And that’s why I think this technology should move out of just the sphere of the countries which develop them. And we should start developing it elsewhere, see what comes out. Yes so good point, I subscribe to that and I would say it’s another argument to ship the technology globally.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you, and also Elodie?

Elodie Vialle: Yes I will just add that it’s very important to bring, as it has been said, diverse voices around the table. And to make sure that what we build is made for those who are mostly impacted by these technologies.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you, thank you for being so brief. We really had a fascinating discussion today. Any other final comments from the room or online? Before I conclude, we are already running late, but if anybody still wants to talk, still have maybe one minute. Otherwise I would like to say that for UNESCO, we also perceive the gap. I mean, ranging, I mean, taking lessons from the internet governance or AI governance. We don’t need to create the new wheels. All those existing United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are still valid. They continue to be able to be applied to frame the ethical principles. We are going to apply to all the new. to enhance the past of the governments and also public civil servants on their digital competence and on their knowledge and the policymaking regarding technology. I think that should be expanded to the future frontier technology. We should keep our governments’ policymakers updated on the new knowledge about whether it’s about AI or it’s about quantum or even about neuroscience, even more emerging technology. We don’t even know the name yet. We should have a really systematic approach to get the policy not so lagged behind but to be really proactive to tackle the human rights and to tackle about the diversity issues we really care about. I think that’s the entire spirit of this WISD plus 20 review. Thank you again and for your participation, please follow us. We will also have a session this afternoon to talk broadly about the harnessing digital public good. Thank you and let’s give a round of applause to all of us for the speakers, for all the participants in the room. Thank you. Thank you. Bye.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder governance is essential for quantum technologies

Speakers

– Shamira Ahmed
– Constance Bommelaer de Leusse
– Elodie Vialle

Arguments

Human rights should be the key enabler for responsible global quantum governance

Need to institutionalize multi-stakeholder participation in multilateral processes

Important to bring diverse voices to the table for those most impacted by technologies

Summary

All speakers agreed that effective quantum governance requires inclusive participation from multiple stakeholders including experts, private sector, academia, civil society, and those most affected by the technology

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Proactive rather than reactive governance approach is necessary

Speakers

– Shamira Ahmed
– Elodie Vialle
– Xianhong Hu

Arguments

Must raise awareness beyond national security discussions to include equity issues

Cannot afford to be reactive in governance conversations – must act now

Need systematic approach to keep policymakers updated on emerging technologies

Summary

Speakers emphasized the critical importance of being proactive in quantum governance rather than waiting to react to problems after they emerge

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Human rights and innovation are complementary, not opposing forces

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi
– Elodie Vialle

Arguments

False dichotomy between innovation and human rights protection must be rejected

Important to bring diverse voices to the table for those most impacted by technologies

Summary

Both speakers rejected the notion that innovation and human rights protection are in conflict, arguing instead that they are mutually reinforcing

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Global cooperation and technology sharing is needed

Speakers

– Pieter Vermaas
– Chris Buckridge
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

Technology should move out of sphere of developing countries and be developed globally

Question of how to convince countries with technology to share with those without

Quantum divide emerges from existing digital divide and could increase global inequalities

Summary

Speakers agreed on the importance of global cooperation and sharing of quantum technologies to prevent further inequalities

Topics

Development | Economic

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognized the dual-use nature of quantum technologies and their complex implications for security and geopolitics

Speakers

– Shamira Ahmed
– Constance Bommelaer de Leusse

Arguments

Quantum technologies create paradoxical opportunities and risks for encryption, privacy, and security

Quantum technologies impact geopolitical order creating a quantum arms race

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasized the importance of connecting quantum governance to existing internet governance frameworks and principles

Speakers

– Constance Bommelaer de Leusse
– Wolfgang Kleinwachter

Arguments

Fundamental principles from Tunis agenda should apply to quantum technologies governance

Need clarification on how quantum governance relates to existing internet and AI governance frameworks

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlighted the importance of addressing gaps and inequities in quantum technology development, whether cultural or gender-based

Speakers

– Elodie Vialle
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

Need to close cultural gap between quantum science field and human rights communities

Gender inequity exists with 79% of quantum companies having no female senior leaders

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Moving beyond dialogue to concrete collaborative action

Speakers

– Pieter Vermaas
– Shamira Ahmed
– Constance Bommelaer de Leusse

Arguments

Should go beyond dialogue to actual collaborative technology development

Four focus areas: infrastructure investments, policy action and awareness, capacity building, and UNESCO’s international year of quantum

Science diplomacy should become mainstream with active participation of experts and civil society

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there was strong consensus that the quantum governance discussion should move beyond theoretical frameworks to practical, collaborative technology development and concrete policy actions

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Cultural and local considerations in quantum governance

Speakers

– Jandhyala Prabhakar Rao
– Elodie Vialle
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

Need to understand role of culture in AI-quantum convergence context

Need to close cultural gap between quantum science field and human rights communities

Must raise awareness beyond national security discussions to include equity issues

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus on the importance of cultural considerations and local contexts in quantum governance, which is often overlooked in technical discussions

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around the need for proactive, multi-stakeholder governance of quantum technologies with human rights at the center, global cooperation to prevent digital divides, and moving beyond theoretical discussions to concrete collaborative action

Consensus level

High level of consensus with no major disagreements identified. The implications suggest a clear path forward for quantum governance that emphasizes inclusivity, proactive policy-making, and international cooperation while maintaining human rights as a foundational principle

Different viewpoints

Approach to quantum governance – dialogue versus action

Speakers

– Shamira Ahmed
– Constance Bommelaer de Leusse
– Pieter Vermaas

Arguments

Human rights should be the key enabler for responsible global quantum governance

Need to institutionalize multi-stakeholder participation in multilateral processes

Should go beyond dialogue to actual collaborative technology development

Summary

While Ahmed and Bommelaer de Leusse focus on establishing governance frameworks and dialogue mechanisms, Vermaas argues for moving beyond dialogue to actual collaborative technology development, suggesting the governance-focused approach may be insufficient

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Technology sharing versus security concerns

Speakers

– Pieter Vermaas
– Chris Buckridge

Arguments

Technology should move out of sphere of developing countries and be developed globally

Question of how to convince countries with technology to share with those without

Summary

Vermaas advocates for global technology sharing and development, while Buckridge raises practical concerns about convincing countries to share their quantum technologies, highlighting the tension between openness and national interests

Topics

Development | Economic

Unexpected differences

Scope and definition of quantum governance

Speakers

– Wolfgang Kleinwachter
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

Need clarification on how quantum governance relates to existing internet and AI governance frameworks

Quantum governance relates to internet governance through quantum information and communications technologies

Explanation

This disagreement was unexpected because it reveals fundamental confusion about what quantum governance actually encompasses and how it fits within existing governance frameworks. Kleinwachter’s concern about ‘growing confusion’ with various governance concepts suggests the field lacks definitional clarity that Ahmed assumes exists

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of direct disagreement, with most conflicts being subtle differences in emphasis and approach rather than fundamental opposition. Main areas of disagreement centered on governance mechanisms (dialogue vs. action), technology sharing approaches, and definitional clarity of quantum governance itself.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The implications are significant because the lack of sharp disagreements may mask underlying conceptual confusion about quantum governance scope and mechanisms. The subtle differences in approach could lead to fragmented implementation if not addressed through continued dialogue and clarification of terms and objectives.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognized the dual-use nature of quantum technologies and their complex implications for security and geopolitics

Speakers

– Shamira Ahmed
– Constance Bommelaer de Leusse

Arguments

Quantum technologies create paradoxical opportunities and risks for encryption, privacy, and security

Quantum technologies impact geopolitical order creating a quantum arms race

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasized the importance of connecting quantum governance to existing internet governance frameworks and principles

Speakers

– Constance Bommelaer de Leusse
– Wolfgang Kleinwachter

Arguments

Fundamental principles from Tunis agenda should apply to quantum technologies governance

Need clarification on how quantum governance relates to existing internet and AI governance frameworks

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlighted the importance of addressing gaps and inequities in quantum technology development, whether cultural or gender-based

Speakers

– Elodie Vialle
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

Need to close cultural gap between quantum science field and human rights communities

Gender inequity exists with 79% of quantum companies having no female senior leaders

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Quantum technologies present three main governance challenges: dual-use risks, emerging quantum divide, and gender inequity in the field

Human rights should serve as the central framework for responsible quantum governance, rejecting the false dichotomy between innovation and human rights protection

Multi-stakeholder participation must be institutionalized in quantum governance processes, including private sector, academia, civil society, and governments

Quantum governance is interconnected with existing internet governance frameworks through quantum information and communications technologies

Proactive rather than reactive governance approaches are essential, as current surveillance technologies already threaten journalists and human rights defenders

International cooperation and technology sharing are crucial to prevent quantum technologies from being developed only behind closed doors by defense entities

Science diplomacy should become mainstream with active participation of experts, academics, and civil society in setting governance agendas

Cultural considerations and local contexts must be incorporated into AI-quantum convergence discussions

Resolutions and action items

UNESCO to continue leadership in quantum governance discussions as part of the UN-declared International Year of Quantum

Integrate quantum governance discussions into existing frameworks like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process

Develop agile and forward-looking governance frameworks that can adapt as quantum technology evolves

Focus on four key areas: infrastructure investments, policy action and awareness, capacity building, and UNESCO’s international quantum initiatives

Leverage public-private partnerships and strengthen digital infrastructure fundamentals

Raise awareness about quantum governance beyond national security discussions to include equity and human rights issues

Close the cultural gap between quantum science communities and human rights advocates through enhanced dialogue

Ensure governments protect journalist communications in domestic laws as quantum surveillance capabilities develop

Unresolved issues

How to convince countries with advanced quantum capabilities to share technology with those without access

Specific mechanisms for institutionalizing multi-stakeholder participation in quantum governance processes

Detailed relationship between quantum governance and existing internet governance definitions from the Tunis Agenda

Role of culture in AI-quantum convergence and how to build locally relevant solutions

How to develop coordinated technical standards for quantum technology interoperability

Specific strategies to address the gender divide in quantum technology fields

Whether a new global digital human rights declaration is needed or if existing frameworks are sufficient

Suggested compromises

Use existing human rights frameworks (like UNESCO’s Rome Principles) rather than creating entirely new digital rights declarations

Apply fundamental principles from the Tunis Agenda on internet governance to quantum technologies while recognizing quantum as a separate technology domain

Move quantum technology development beyond defense-focused closed-door processes while maintaining necessary security considerations

Balance innovation promotion with human rights protection by demonstrating their interdependence rather than treating them as competing priorities

Integrate quantum governance discussions into existing forums like IGF rather than creating entirely separate governance structures

I’m listening in a very worried manner, more and more about a false dichotomy that we would need to choose between innovation and protecting human rights. I think this is wrong and we need to stop this. We need to show that there is no dichotomy here. Those things actually exist. They are interlinked. There is no innovation without human rights.

Speaker

Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi

Reason

This comment challenges a fundamental assumption that often underlies technology governance debates – that innovation and human rights protection are competing priorities. By reframing this as a false dichotomy and arguing that human rights actually enable innovation, Guilherme provides a powerful conceptual foundation for the entire discussion.

Impact

This comment established a key philosophical framework for the session, moving the discussion away from viewing quantum governance as a trade-off between progress and protection toward seeing human rights as essential for sustainable innovation. It influenced subsequent speakers to build on this integrated approach rather than treating ethics as a constraint on development.

The question of governance is not a question for the future, it’s a question for right now… what we fear and in terms of maybe a potential risk assessment is that the conversation of today, the encrypted messages today could be stored and maybe break in the future when these quantum technologies are more available.

Speaker

Elodie Vialle

Reason

This comment introduces the critical concept of ‘harvest now, decrypt later’ attacks, highlighting how quantum threats are not just future concerns but present realities affecting current behavior and security. It brings urgency to what might otherwise be seen as a theoretical discussion.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from abstract future planning to immediate action needs. It demonstrated how quantum technologies create retroactive vulnerabilities, making the governance discussion more concrete and urgent. This perspective influenced the overall tone to emphasize proactive rather than reactive approaches.

I think we should also go beyond that and just do technology together… What I really like of the brief is that there’s a plea for dialogue… but I think we should also go beyond that and just do technology together.

Speaker

Pieter Vermaas

Reason

This comment challenges the sufficiency of dialogue and governance frameworks alone, advocating for collaborative technology development as a governance mechanism itself. It suggests that inclusive development processes are more effective than post-hoc regulation.

Impact

This comment pushed the discussion beyond traditional governance approaches toward more participatory and collaborative models of technology development. It influenced thinking about how governance can be embedded in the development process rather than applied externally, leading to considerations of international research collaboration as a governance tool.

Technological transitions do not happen in a vacuum. The decisions that are made today are developed in the context of existing and equitable science, technology, and innovation ecosystems and institutions. And without concerted efforts, then they will continue to shape tomorrow’s technology landscape.

Speaker

Shamira Ahmed

Reason

This comment provides crucial historical and systemic context, emphasizing how current inequalities will be perpetuated or amplified by quantum technologies unless actively addressed. It moves beyond technical considerations to structural analysis.

Impact

This framing influenced the entire discussion by establishing that quantum governance must address existing systemic inequalities rather than starting from a neutral baseline. It connected quantum governance to broader questions of global digital equity and influenced subsequent discussions about the quantum divide and gender inequity.

I think a new approach, a new dynamic is needed when we think about the multilateral frameworks, governance frameworks… institutionalizing multi-stakeholder participation in multilateral processes… You need experts around the table. You need the private sector, you need academia.

Speaker

Constance Bommelaer de Leusse

Reason

This comment identifies a fundamental gap in current governance approaches and proposes concrete structural reforms. It moves beyond calling for inclusion to suggesting how to institutionalize it within existing multilateral systems.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion toward practical implementation questions and influenced thinking about how to reform existing governance structures rather than creating entirely new ones. It connected quantum governance to broader questions about the evolution of multilateral institutions in the digital age.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a technical discussion about quantum policy into a sophisticated examination of governance innovation itself. Guilherme’s reframing of the innovation-rights relationship provided the philosophical foundation, while Elodie’s urgency argument and Shamira’s systemic analysis grounded the discussion in present realities and historical context. Pieter’s call for collaborative development and Constance’s institutional reform proposals offered concrete pathways forward. Together, these interventions elevated the conversation from reactive policy-making to proactive governance design, emphasizing that quantum governance requires not just new policies but new approaches to how we develop and govern emerging technologies. The comments created a coherent narrative arc from philosophical foundations through current challenges to future institutional innovations.

How is the proposed concept of quantum governance related to the governance of the internet, particularly based on the Tunis agenda definition, and how does it relate to the new global dialogue on AI governance?

Speaker

Wolfgang Kleinwächter

Explanation

This question addresses the need to clarify the relationship between quantum governance and existing governance frameworks, which is important for avoiding confusion and ensuring coherent policy development across emerging technologies.

How can we ensure that parts of global society are not left behind as we prepare for the impact quantum might have, particularly regarding technology sharing between countries that have quantum capabilities and those that don’t?

Speaker

Chris Buckridge

Explanation

This question highlights the critical issue of the quantum divide and the need for mechanisms to ensure equitable access to quantum technologies globally.

How much do we need a declaration of global digital human rights, and where should we start creating it for human-oriented global governance taking into account quantum technology?

Speaker

Maxime Brionov (online participant)

Explanation

This question explores whether new human rights frameworks are needed specifically for digital technologies including quantum, or if existing frameworks can be adapted.

What is the role of culture, especially in the context of AI-quantum convergence, given the need to build local AI to effectively solve local problems?

Speaker

Prof. J. Prabhakar Rao

Explanation

This question addresses the intersection of cultural considerations with emerging technology convergence, which is important for ensuring culturally appropriate and locally relevant technology development.

How can we close the cultural gap between the quantum science field and the human rights communities to enable better dialogue and collaboration?

Speaker

Elodie Vialle

Explanation

This addresses the knowledge imbalance and communication barriers between technical and human rights communities, which is crucial for effective governance of quantum technologies.

How can we develop agile and forward-looking governance frameworks that can adjust as quantum technology evolves, potentially using foresight exercises and scenario planning?

Speaker

Constance Bommelaer de Leusse

Explanation

This explores the need for adaptive governance mechanisms that can keep pace with rapidly evolving quantum technologies.

How can we institutionalize multi-stakeholder participation in multilateral processes for quantum governance, ensuring experts, private sector, and academia help define agendas rather than just being consulted?

Speaker

Constance Bommelaer de Leusse

Explanation

This addresses the structural changes needed in governance processes to ensure meaningful participation from all relevant stakeholders in quantum technology governance.

How can we develop systematic approaches to keep government policymakers updated on new knowledge about emerging technologies like quantum, AI, and neuroscience to ensure proactive rather than reactive policy responses?

Speaker

Xianhong Hu

Explanation

This highlights the need for capacity building mechanisms to ensure policymakers can effectively govern emerging technologies as they develop.