IGF 2023 – Final Report

Highlights 

Just as was the case with the internet, AI is set to impact the entire world, albeit in different ways and at different speeds. And so, setting some form of international governance mechanisms to guide the development and deployment of human-centric, safe and trustworthy AI is essential. The jury is still unsure whether to have international guiding principles, stronger regulations, new agencies, etc.

But there is already a body of work to build upon, from the OECD’s AI principles and the UNESCO recommendation on AI ethics to the G7 Hiroshima AI Process and the EU’s approach to developing voluntary AI guardrails ahead of the AI Act coming into force. Japan’s Prime Minister announced at the start of the IGF that a draft set of guiding principles and a code of conduct for developers of advanced AI is to be put on the table for approval at the upcoming G7 Summit. The texts form part of the Hiroshima AI Process, kickstarted during last May’s G7 Summit.

If the world is to move ahead with some form of global AI governance approach, then this approach needs to be defined in an inclusive manner. There is a tendency for countries and regional blocs with more robust regulatory frameworks to shape governance practices globally, but the voices and interests of smaller and developing countries must be more meaningfully represented and considered.

Take Latin America and Africa, for example: They provide significant raw materials, resources, data, and labour for AI development, but their participation in global processes does not strongly reflect this. Moreover, the discussion on AI harms is still predominantly framed through the Global North lens. To ensure an inclusive and fair AI governance process, reducing regional disparities, strengthening democratic institutions, and promoting transparency and capacity development are essential.

The Brussels effect – where EU regulations made in Brussels become influential worldwide – featured in some discussions. The EU’s AI Act will likely influence regulatory approaches in other jurisdictions globally. However, countries must consider their unique local contexts when designing their regulations and policies to ensure they respond to and reflect local needs and realities. And, of course, this so-called AI localism should also apply when integrating local knowledge systems into AI models. By incorporating this local knowledge, AI models can better address distinct local and regional challenges.

Multistakeholder cooperation in shaping AI governance mechanisms was highlighted as essential. With the private sector driving AI innovation, its involvement in AI governance is inevitable and indispensable. Such an involvement also needs to be transparent, open, and trustworthy. 

But it is not all about laws and regulations. Technical standards also have a role to play in advancing trustworthy AI. Different technical standards are necessary within the AI ecosystem at different levels, encompassing certifications for evaluating quality management systems and ensuring product-level adherence to specific benchmarks and requirements. These standards aim to maintain efficient operations, promote reliability, and foster trust in AI products and services.

It was argued that a balanced mix of voluntary standards and legal frameworks could be the way forward. Here, too, there is a need for actors in developing countries to actively engage in shaping AI standards rather than merely adapting to standards set by external entities.

While we wait for new international regulations to be developed, a wide range of actors could adopt or adapt new or existing voluntary standards for AI. For instance, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) developed a value-based design approach that UNICEF uses. The implementation of AI also requires a deep understanding of established ethical guidelines. To this end, UNESCO has published the first-ever global Guidance on Generative AI in Education and Research, which aims to support countries in implementing immediate actions and planning long-term policies to properly use generative AI tools. 

Aside from laws, regulations, and technical standards, what else could help achieve a human-centric and inclusive approach to AI? Forums and initiatives such as the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI), the Frontier Model Forum, the Partnership on AI, and the MLCommons have a role to play. They can promote the secure and ethical advancement of cutting-edge AI models – by establishing common definitions and understandings of AI system life cycles, creating best practices and standards, and fostering information sharing between policymakers and industry. And states should look into allocating resources to the development of publicly accessible AI technology as a way to ensure wider access to AI technology and its benefits.

Highlights 

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) sparked a lot of interest in official sessions, including one main session, bilateral meetings, and corridor chats, with two underlying issues:

IGF input into GDC drafting: The IGF community would like to see more multistakeholder participation throughout the GDC drafting process. Mimicking the IGF mode of operation is unrealistic, as the GDC will be negotiated under UN General Assembly rules. However, while following the UNGA rules of procedure, the GDC should continue to make every effort to include all stakeholders’ perspectives, as it has in the past. Stakeholders were also encouraged to communicate with their national representatives in order to contribute more to the GDC process. (Bookmark our GDC tracker)

Participation of the IGF in GDC implementation: Several speakers stressed that the IGF should play a prominent role in the development of implementing the GDC. The IGF Leadership Panel, for example, argued that the IGF should play a central role in GDC follow-up processes. The relation between the IGF and a potential Digital Cooperation Forum, as suggested in the UN Secretary-General’s policy brief, was the “elephant in the room” during the IGF in Kyoto.

Inclusion in governance was in focus during the session on the participation of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) in digital governance processes. The debate brought up an interesting paradox. Although SIDS have the formal possibility of participating in the IGF, they often lack the resources to do so effectively. Other small groups from civil society, business, and academia encounter a similar participatory paradox.

Changes in the global architecture may have a two-fold impact on SIDS. Firstly, the proliferation of digital forums could further strain their already stretched participation capacity. Secondly, the GDC may propose new forms of participation reflecting the specificities of small actors with limited resources. For any future digital governance architecture to work, it will be important for SIDS and other small actors, from businesses to civil society, to be able to have stronger voices.

The IGF debates indicated the renewed relevance of the WSIS process ahead of review in 2025. The G77 is particularly keen to base GDC negotiations on the WSIS Tunis Agenda and the Geneva Declaration of Principles, as stated in the recently adopted G77 Havana Declaration. The G77 argued for a triangulation of digital governance structures among Agenda 2030, WSIS, and the GDC. 

Whatever policy outcomes will be reflected in the GDC and the WSIS+20 review, the IGF should be refined, improved, and adapted to the rapidly changing landscape of AI and broader digital developments. More attention should also be given to involving missing communities in IGF debates. The IGF Plus approach was mentioned in discussions in Kyoto. 

In Kyoto, international organisations fueled the race for AI mandates to secure a place in the developing frameworks for handling AI. According to Diplo’s analysis of AI in IOs, almost every UN organisation has some AI initiative in place.

In the emerging AI era, many organisations are faced with existential questions about their future and how to manage new policy issues. The primary task facing the UN system and its member states in the upcoming years will be managing the race to put an AI mechanism in place. Duplication of effort, overlapping mandates, and the inevitable confusion when addressing the impact of AI could impede effective multilateralism.

Highlights 

The IGF has accumulated a vast repository of knowledge generated by the discussions at the annual forum and its communities over the years (e.g. session recordings and reports; documents submitted for public consultation; IGF messages and annual reports; outputs of youth and parliamentary tracks, best practice forums, policy networks, and dynamic coalitions; summaries of MAG meetings; reports from national, regional and youth IGF initiatives). But this is an underutilised resource that could be used to build a sustainable, inclusive, and human-centric digital future.

Diplo and the GIP supported the IGF Secretariat in organising a side session to discuss how to unlock the IGF’s knowledge to gain AI-driven insights for our digital future.

AI can increase the effectiveness of disseminating and utilising the knowledge generated by the IGF. It can also help identify underrepresented and marginalised groups and disciplines in the IGF processes, allowing the IGF to increase its focus on involving them. 

Moreover, AI can assist in managing the busy schedule of IGF sessions by linking them to similar discussions from previous years, aiding in coordinating related themes over time. It can visually represent hours of discussions and extensive content as a knowledge graph, as demonstrated by Diplo’s experiment with AI-enhanced reporting at IGF2023.

Importantly, preserving the IGF’s knowledge and modus operandi can show the relevance and power of respectful engagement with different opinions and views. Since this approach is not automatic in our time, the IGF’s impact could extend beyond internet governance and have a more profound effect on the methodology of global meetings.

Highlights 

Internet fragmentation would pose significant challenges to the global and interconnected nature of the internet. It would hinder communication, stifle innovation, and undermine the intended functioning of the internet. Throughout the week, different sessions tackled these issues and how to reduce the risks of internet fragmentation.

The internet, as we know it, cannot be taken for granted any more. Geopolitical tensions, the weaponisation of the internet, dis- and misinformation, and the pursuit of digital sovereignty through protectionism could potentially fracture the open nature of the internet. The same can be said for restrictions on access to certain services, internet shutdowns, and censorship.

One way of examining the risks is to look at the different dimensions of fragmentation, fragmentation of the user experience, that of the internet’s technical layer, and fragmentation of internet governance and coordination (explained in detail in this background paper), and the consequences each of them carries. 

Policymakers can also use this approach to create a cohesive and comprehensive regulatory approach that does not lead to internet fragmentation (for instance, a layered approach to sanctions can help prevent unintended consequences like hampering internet access). In fact, state control over the public core of the internet and its application layer is a major concern. Different technologies operate at several layers of the internet, and different entities manage those distinct layers.

Disruptions in the application layer could lead to disruptions in the entire internet. Therefore, governance of the public core calls for careful consideration, a clear understanding of these distinctions, and deep technical knowledge. 

International norms are critical to reducing the risk of fragmentation. International dialogue in forums like the IGF is invaluable for inclusive discussions and contributions from diverse stakeholders, including different perspectives about fragmentation between the Global North and Global South.

Countries pursue their policies at the national level, but they also need to be mindful of harmonising with regulatory frameworks with extraterritorial reach. In developing national and regional regulatory frameworks, it is indispensable to elicit multistakeholder input, particularly considering the perspectives of marginalised and vulnerable communities. Public policy functions cannot be entrusted entirely to private corporations (or even governments). The involvement of technical stakeholders in public policy processes is essential for sound, logical, informed decision-making and improved governance that protects the technical infrastructure.

Highlights

As the Main Session: Cybersecurity, Trust & Safety Online, and the session Risks and Opportunities of a new UN Cybercrime Treaty noted, provisions to ensure human rights protection seem blurred. The wide discretion left to states in adopting the provisions related to online content, among others, could leave plenty of wiggle room for authoritarian regimes to target and arbitrarily prosecute activists, journalists, and political opponents. Additionally, retaining personal data from individuals accused of an alleged cybercrime offence could open the door for the misuse and infringement of their right to privacy.

Provisions regarding cybercrime offences need to be clarified, too, as there is no commonly agreed-upon definition of cybercrime. For now, it is clear that we need to separate cyber-dependent serious crimes (like terrorist attacks using autonomous cyberweapons) from cyber-enabled actions (like online speech) that help commit crimes and violate human rights. Additionally, there is a need to overcome cybercrime impunity, especially in cases where states are unwilling or unable to combat it.

International cooperation between states and the private sector is yet another aspect that members have to agree on. Essentially, there is a need to ensure more robust and comprehensive provisions to address capacity development and technical assistance. It was noted that these provisions should facilitate cooperation across different legal jurisdictions and promote relationships with law enforcement agencies.

The role of the private sector is another stumbling stone in the negotiations. The proposed provisions put the private sector in a rather challenging position as they would have to comply with the laws of different jurisdictions. This means that conflicts of laws, including existing international instruments such as the Budapest Convention, would be inevitable and need to be harmonised somehow.

What if states cannot agree on an international treaty? Well, there are still ways to strengthen the fight against cybercrime. Options include establishing a database of cybersecurity experts for knowledge sharing, pooling knowledge for capacity development, expanding the role of organisations like INTERPOL, and encouraging states and businesses to allocate more resources to strengthen their cybersecurity posture.

Has the UN Cybercrime Treaty draft opened Pandora’s box? It always depends on how someone perceives it. What is clear from the sessions discussed is that many challenges need to be addressed as the ‘deadline’ for the UN Cybercrime Treaty approaches.

Highlights

Global tax rules could ameliorate the unfair consequences of tax havens, provide consistent approaches to allocating profits and reducing uncertainty for multinational companies. The OECD/G20 made significant steps in this direction: In 2021, over 130 countries came together to support a new two-pillar solution. This will introduce a 15% effective minimum tax rate in most jurisdictions and will oblige multinationals to pay tax in countries where their users are located (rather than where they have a physical presence). In parallel, the UN Tax Committee revised its UN Model Convention to include a new article on taxing income from digital services.

For these models to be effective, they need to fully counter the scenarios that have, in the past, allowed multinationals to reduce their tax bills. First, multinational corporations have traditionally shifted profits to low-tax jurisdictions, which has deprived countries in the Global South of their fair share of tax revenue. Second, neither of the two frameworks addresses the issue of tax havens directly (although the minimum tax will help mitigate this issue). Third, the OECD and UN models do not fully take into account the power dynamics between countries in the Global North (which has historically been in the lead in international tax policymaking) and the Global South. 

Until recently, countries in the Global South felt these measures alone were insufficient to ensure tax justice. They, therefore, opted to adopt various strategies to tax digital services, including the introduction of digital services taxes (DSTs) that target income from digital services.

Despite the OECD’s recent efforts to accommodate the interests of developing nations, experts from the Global South remain cautious, opining that these countries should carefully consider all implications before signing international tax treaties and perhaps even sign these treaties only after they see their effects play out.

Highlights

The old wisdom that the truth is the first victim of war has been amplified by digital technology. The session Safeguarding the free flow of information amidst conflict explained how disseminating harmful information can exacerbate pre-existing social tensions and grievances, leading to increased violence and violations of humanitarian law. 

The spread of misinformation can cause distress and psychological burdens among individuals living in conflict-affected areas. Misinformation hampers their ability to access potentially life-saving information during emergencies. The distortion of facts and the influence on beliefs and behaviours as a consequence of disseminating harmful information also raise tensions in conflict zones.

In times of peace, experts advocate for a multi-faceted approach to addressing misinformation in conflict zones. In times of war, the immediate concerns focus primarily on ensuring the safety and well-being of civilians. If communication channels are disrupted, the spread of misinformation can be even more dangerous.

In these situations, humanitarian organisations and tech companies must work together to establish secure channels and provide accurate information to those in need. Additionally, efforts should be made to counter cyber threats and protect critical infrastructure. In fact, with the growing reliance on a shared digital infrastructure, civilian entities are more likely to be inadvertently targeted through error or tech failure. The interconnectedness of digital systems means that an attack on one part of the infrastructure can have far-reaching consequences, potentially affecting civilians who are not directly involved in the conflict zone. 

The involvement of international organisations and governments is essential in coordinating these efforts and ensuring that humanitarian principles are upheld. Special consideration should also be given to the safety and protection of those working in the digital infrastructure sector during times of conflict.

Highlights

Data governance plays a critical role in ensuring the effective and responsible use of data, especially in today’s digital age. Discussions during an open forum on public-private partnerships served to identify important measures that can help improve or expand upon existing data governance approaches.

First, clear standards and operating procedures can promote coherence and consistency in data governance. The lack of coherence is one of the main reasons for underwhelming private sector contributions. By defining and implementing robust standards, both the public and private sectors could have a common framework to work upon, facilitating collaboration and maximising the potential for data-driven initiatives.

Second, an enabling environment is essential for effective data governance. This environment requires time, effort, proof-of-concept, trust, and adaptability. Creating such an environment necessitates the involvement of all sectors – public, private, and civil society. 

Third, public-private initiatives are crucial to helping bridge data gaps related to critical issues like climate change, poverty, and inequality. Collaboration between the public and private sectors allows for the pooling of resources, expertise, and knowledge, enabling a more holistic approach to addressing these challenges.

Successful public-private partnerships require investment, time, and trust-building efforts. Parties involved must dedicate time to cultivating relationships and fostering mutual understanding. This may include the participation of dedicated individuals from both the private sector and governmental organisations. Their active presence can facilitate effective communication, coordination, and alignment of goals, leading to fruitful collaborations.

Related to public-private initiatives is the role that intermediaries or brokers have to help bridge the skills and capacity gaps between sectors by combining their expertise and resources to drive collaboration and support the achievement of sustainable development goals.

The sustainability of public-private partnerships also depends on the size and global reach of the involved entities. For instance, large firms with global reach are well-positioned to enable such partnerships. They possess the necessary resources, capabilities, and networks to maintain and nourish relationships, ensuring long-term viability and impact in driving sustainable development. 

Much was also said about Data Free Flow with Trust (DFFT) – a concept first championed by Japan during the G20 summit in 2019 – which aims to strengthen data governance by facilitating the smooth flow of data worldwide while ensuring data security and privacy for users. 
Speakers in High-Level Leaders Session I: Understanding Data Free Flow with Trust (DFFT) emphasised how the DFFT concept can help strengthen data governance in additional ways. It provides a framework for harmonising and aligning the different national or regional perspectives, encourages public-private data partnerships, and promotes using regulatory and operational sandboxes as practical solutions to foster good governance among stakeholders.

Highlights

In the pursuit of universal and meaningful connectivity, precise data tracking emerges as a cornerstone for informed decision-making. Data tracking equips stakeholders with the insights needed to identify areas requiring attention and improvement. Through a blend of quantitative indicators (numerical data and statistical analysis) and a qualitative approach (subjective assessments, such as in-depth case studies), a comprehensive connectivity assessment is achieved, facilitating effective individual country evaluations. 

What needs to be improved? While the efforts of international organisations, especially ITU and UNESCO in data collection are complementary, they are often not perfectly coordinated. Other areas for improvement include the lack of quality data on how communities use the internet, a lack of reliable indicators for safety and security, as well as speed, and reckoning realities that rural regions may not be fully reflected in the data collected.

There are several solutions, from regional collaboration and initiatives to the utilisation of emerging technologies. 

One proposed approach to expanding internet access involves utilising Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites. LEO satellites offer the potential to deliver real-time and reliable internet connectivity to remote or hard-to-reach regions worldwide. Nevertheless, several concerns have surfaced, primarily concerning the cost of accessing such services, their environmental impact, and the technical challenges associated with large-scale LEO satellite deployment.

To make it possible for LEO satellites to be used and deployed effectively, countries need to review their laws, make sure they are in line with international space law, and get involved in international decision-making bodies like ITU and COPUOS to help make policies and rules that support this.

To bridge the digital divide, it is essential to address various factors and develop comprehensive strategies that go beyond connectivity. There is a need for digital solutions customised to fit specific local environments. These strategies must address issues regarding the affordability and availability of devices and technologies and the availability of content and digital skills, as these deficiencies still pose barriers to full internet access.

In the broader context of the digital divide, AI and large language models (LLMs) were highlighted as having the potential to redefine and expand digital skills and literacy. Moreover, including native languages in these models can enable digital interactions, particularly for individuals with lower literacy skills.  

The goal of bridging the digital divide can only be achieved through partnerships and collaborations embodied in regional initiatives. Thus, Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have an important role, particularly in regions that are underserved or have limited access to internet resources.

RIRs often go beyond their narrow mandates in the allocation and registration of internet number resources within a specific region of the world. RIRs have facilitated collaboration and knowledge sharing by adopting a multistakeholder and regional approach, leading to a more connected and equitable internet landscape.

One of the RIRs’ main strengths is building community trust. This trust has been established through their work on regional and local issues such as connectivity and support for community networks and Internet Exchange Points (IXPs). 

The EU’s initiative, the Global Gateway, was identified as a good example of a collaborative effort to bridge the digital divide. Notable efforts under the project involve forging alliances with countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, implementing the Building the Europe Link to Latin America (BELLA) program for fibre optic cables, establishing regional cybersecurity hubs and strengthening the overall digital ecosystem.

Highlights

Data show that digital technologies contribute 1% to 5% of greenhouse gas emissions and consume 5% to 10% of global energy. 

Internet use comes with a hefty energy bill, even for seemingly small things like sending texts – it gobbles up data and power. In fact, the internet’s carbon footprint amounts to 3.7% of global emissions. 

AI, the coolest kid on the block, leaves a significant carbon footprint too: For instance, the training of GPT-3 resulted in 552 metric tons of carbon emissions, equivalent to driving a passenger vehicle over 2 million kilometers. ChatGPT ‘drinks’ a 500ml bottle of fresh water for every simple conversation with about 20 to 50 questions.

The staggering number of devices globally (over 6.2 billion) need frequent charging, contributing to significant energy consumption. Some of these devices also perform demanding computational tasks requiring substantial power, increasing the numbers. Moreover, the rapid pace of electronic device advancement and devices’ increasingly shorter lifespans have exacerbated the e-waste problem. 

In contrast, digital technologies also have the potential to cut emissions by 20% by 2050 in the three highest-emitting sectors – energy, mobility, and materials. 2050 is a bit far away, though, and immediate actions are critically needed to hit the 2030 Agenda targets.

What can we do? To harness the potential benefits of digitalisation and minimise its environmental footprint, we need to raise awareness about our available sustainable sources and establish standards for their use. If we craft and implement policies right from the inception of a new technological direction, we can create awareness among innovators and start-up stakeholders about its carbon footprint to ensure environmentally-conscious design.

Initiatives from organisations such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in setting technology standards and promoting ethical practices, particularly concerning AI and its environmental impact, as well as collaboration among organisations like GIZ, the World Bank, and ITU in developing standards for green data centres, highlight how working together globally is imperative for sustainable practices. 

We can also harmonise measurement standards to track the environmental impacts of digital technologies. This will enable policymakers and stakeholders to develop more effective strategies for mitigating the negative impacts.

We can use satellites and high-altitude connectivity devices to make the internet more sustainable. We can take the internet to far-off places using renewable energy sources, like solar power. 
We can also leverage digital technologies to generate positive impacts. For instance, AI can be used to optimise electrical supply and demand, reduce energy waste and greenhouse gas emissions, and revolutionise the generation and management of renewable energy.

To analyse the discussions at IGF, we first recorded them. The total length of that footage is almost 15 days long: 14 days, 21 hours, 22 minutes, and 30 seconds, to be precise. Talk about a packed programme!

Then we used DiploAI to transcribe IGF2023 discussions verbatim and counted 3,242,715 words spoken. That is nearly three times the length of the longest book in the world – Marcel Proust’s À  la recherche du temps perdu. If an IGF 2023 book of transcripts were published, an average reader, who reads 218 words per minute, would need 217 hours – that’s nine days! – to read it cover to cover.

Using DiploAI, we analysed this text corpus and extracted key points, totalling to 288,364 words. Then DiploAI extracted the essence of discussions and the most important words spoken. The 10 most mentioned words were: AI, internet, data, support, government, importance, technology, issue, regulation, and global. It is interesting to note that the 11th most mentioned word was digital. 

Prefix monitor

Other prefixes followed a similar pattern compared to the previous three years. 

Digital was still the most used prefix, with a total of 8,661 references. This is nearly a 63% increase in frequency compared to IGF 2022, when it was referenced  5,346 times.

Online and cyber took 2nd and 3rd places, respectively, with 3,682 and 3,532 mentions. While cyber remained in third place, there was a 98% increase since last year, when it was mentioned 1,789 times. 

The word tech came in 4th place, as it did last year, a significant decrease compared to 2021, when it held the 2nd spot.

Finally, virtual remained in 5th place, accounting for 2.5% of the analysed prefixes.