IGF2024 Archives | Page 2 of 30 | Digital Watch Observatory

Session at a Glance

Summary

This discussion focused on youth participation in digital governance and policymaking, bringing together parliamentarians and youth leaders. The conversation highlighted the importance of including young people in legislative processes and decision-making regarding digital technologies and artificial intelligence.

Parliamentarians shared various initiatives to engage youth, such as youth parliaments, lowering the age for political participation, and creating mentorship programs. They emphasized the need for inclusive policymaking that considers the perspectives of young people who have grown up with digital technologies.

Youth representatives stressed the importance of genuine participation rather than tokenism. They called for institutionalizing youth involvement through consultative bodies, structured forums, and fair compensation for their contributions. The discussion also touched on the challenges of funding youth political participation and changing cultural perceptions about young politicians.

Several key points emerged, including the need for contextualized legislation that considers local disparities in digital access and literacy, the importance of accountability in protecting digital rights, and the value of intergenerational dialogue in shaping digital policies. Participants also discussed the balance between embracing technological opportunities and addressing potential risks.

The conversation concluded with calls for responsible digital education, mechanisms for youth to directly petition parliaments, and recognition of young people as partners rather than beneficiaries in policymaking. Overall, the discussion underscored the critical role of youth in shaping a more inclusive digital future and the need for sustained efforts to empower their participation in governance processes.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of youth participation in policymaking and digital governance

– Strategies for engaging youth in political processes, like youth parliaments and lowering voting ages

– Challenges in including youth perspectives, such as funding and communication gaps

– The need for responsible digital education and balancing youth engagement with national security concerns

– The unique perspective youth bring to digital issues given their familiarity with technology

Overall purpose:

The goal was to foster dialogue between youth leaders and parliamentarians on priorities for a more inclusive digital future, exploring how young people can effectively contribute to policymaking and legislative procedures related to digital governance.

Tone:

The discussion had a collaborative and constructive tone throughout. There was a sense of mutual respect between the youth representatives and parliamentarians, with both sides acknowledging the importance of youth involvement while also recognizing the need for responsible engagement. The tone became more urgent and action-oriented towards the end as participants made final appeals for concrete steps to increase youth participation.

Speakers

– Keith Andere: Moderator

– Sahar Albazar: Member of Parliament from Egypt

– Ihita Gangavarapu: Coordinator of India Youth IGF

– Duaa Albalawi: Head of Y20 delegation at Y20 summit in Brazil

– Dansa Kourouma: President of the Parliament of the Republic of Guinea

– Tobias Bacherle: Member of Parliament from Germany

Additional speakers:

– Jose Keja: From Ghana African Youth IGF

– Noa Abdubeki: From Egypt

– Srinath Govindarajan: From India

– Matilda Moses Mashauri: Youth participant

– Alpha Abdoulaye Diallo: President of the Economic Affairs and Sustainable Development Commission of the Guinean Parliament

– Alha Jimbo: Member of the Gambia and Pan-African Parliament

– Unnamed Senator from Nigeria

Full session report

Youth Participation in Digital Governance: Insights from the IGF Parliamentary Track

This summary provides an overview of a discussion on youth participation in digital governance and policymaking, held as part of the Internet Governance Forum’s (IGF) parliamentary track. The event brought together parliamentarians and youth leaders from various countries, exploring strategies for engaging young people in legislative processes and decision-making regarding digital technologies and artificial intelligence.

Introduction and Context

The discussion, moderated by a representative from the Inter-Parliamentary Union, aimed to bridge the gap between policymakers and youth in the realm of digital governance. Participants spoke in both English and French, highlighting the international nature of the dialogue.

Key Themes and Contributions

1. Increasing Youth Representation in Politics

Sahar Albazar, a Member of Parliament from Egypt, advocated for lowering voting and candidacy ages to increase youth representation. She highlighted Egypt’s efforts, including the World Youth Forum, which brings together young people from around the globe to discuss pressing issues.

Dansa Kourouma, President of the Parliament of the Republic of Guinea, shared his country’s initiative of creating a National Youth Parliament. This body allows young people to debate issues and present recommendations to the national parliament, fostering direct engagement in the legislative process.

2. Empowering Youth Through Resources and Recognition

Tobias Bacherle, a Member of Parliament from Germany, emphasized the need to provide funding and resources to enable youth political participation. He noted, “We grew up with mobile phones, with smartphones… So many things that seem to be a change for all the colleagues, because they witnessed how media and media usage has changed, is for us rather something that we are completely used to.”

Ihita Gangavarapu, Coordinator of India Youth IGF, stressed the importance of treating youth as partners, not just beneficiaries, in policymaking. She called for institutionalizing youth consultation in legislative processes to ensure consistent and meaningful engagement.

3. Digital Rights and Ethical AI Development

Duaa Albalawi, Head of Y20 delegation at Y20 summit in Brazil, asserted that “Youth participation is not a privilege. It is a God-given right.” She called for building a global ethical framework for AI development and regulation, as well as empowering citizens to protect their data privacy and ownership.

4. Balancing Innovation with Traditional Values

Dansa Kourouma raised an important point about the relationship between technological progress and cultural values: “Do you agree with me that modernity, the race towards innovation and modernity, cannot be decided by the government alone? It is necessary for parliaments and parliamentarians to be convinced that modernity should not be the antipode of traditional values, of human values.”

5. Responsible Digital Citizenship and Security Concerns

The importance of responsible digital education was highlighted by several speakers. Dansa Kourouma emphasized the need to educate youth on the responsible use of technology and social media.

An unnamed Nigerian Senator introduced a note of caution, stating, “Countries are not run on social media. Countries also have, I mean, the youth, as they are doing the engagement, as they are on social media, they must also know that certain things border on national security.” This comment highlighted the need to balance digital engagement with awareness of broader national concerns.

6. Strategies for Youth Engagement

Several practical strategies were proposed to enhance communication and collaboration between young people and policymakers:

– Using social media and digital tools for political communication (Tobias Bacherle)

– Creating mentorship programs connecting youth with parliamentarians (Sahar Albazar)

– Broadcasting parliamentary debates on social media platforms (Dansa Kourouma)

– Establishing mechanisms for youth to directly petition parliaments (mentioned by multiple speakers)

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the critical role of youth in shaping a more inclusive digital future and the need for sustained efforts to empower their participation in governance processes. It highlighted the importance of balancing technological progress with cultural values, security considerations, and responsible use of technology.

The moderator concluded the session by thanking the participants and inviting them to future IGF events, emphasizing the ongoing nature of this important dialogue on youth participation in digital governance.

Session Transcript

Keith Andere: the colleagues 33 seconds to just say their name and one interesting thing about them so that the colleagues can remember who you are and what is interesting about you. So we always talk about future generations and the future is now so as the future generations are the most affected by our global future young people have a leading role in the digital transformation journey in all aspects you know through our dedicated youth track a global network of young people active in the digital sphere has organized workshops across all regions around the theme empowering youth leaders for trusted AI which will culminate into the IGF 2024 youth summit that has already happened for some of you who already followed that and this session just brings together youth leaders and parliamentarians to foster a dialogue on priorities and perspective for a more inclusive digital future so having said that I want to give my able panelists just 30 seconds 33 seconds to say your name and something interesting about yourself thank you maybe I’ll start on my far right

Sahar Albazar: thank you my name is MP Sahar Albazar I’m from Egypt something to remember me with I am one of the young women parliamentarians in Egypt but I will forever be young at heart

Ihita Gangavarapu: hi everyone good afternoon I’m Aihita Gangavarapu the coordinator of India Youth IGF so it’s a pleasure to be here and one interesting thing about me the fact that I belong to one of the most one of the most populous nations and with more than 50% of the population is young people and it’s a privilege to be working with young people in the last seven years

Duaa Albalawi: hi everyone my name is Dua Al-Blouie a fun fact about me is my name is Dua which means prayer in Arabic because I was actually born premature at six months old and my parents thought I was going to pass away a little bit about me and why I’m here today so I actually headed the Y20 delegation at the Y20 summit in Brazil earlier this year so hopefully today I’ll be sharing our collective perspective as G20 countries thank you so much

Keith Andere: thank you Dua and the honorable speaker you have the floor

Dansa Kourouma: merci beaucoup je suis Dansa Kuruman je suis le prÃ©sident du parlement de la RÃ©publique de GuinÃ©e dans la capitale de Conakry et je suis mÃ©decin de formation et avant d’Ãªtre au parlement j’Ã©tais le prÃ©sident du conseil national de la sociÃ©tÃ© civile de la GuinÃ©e donc de l’hÃ´pital Ã la sociÃ©tÃ© civile et aujourd’hui Ã la tÃªte du parlement merci merci beaucoup

Keith Andere: so we’ll go straight to the meat and the flesh of the discussion today and it’s only obvious that we start off with our members of parliament and so I’ll put straight the questions to you from your perspective as members of parliament how can young people most effectively contribute to the policy making and legislative procedures maybe you can provide some concrete examples from your respective countries and parliaments if you may

Sahar Albazar: sure thank you so much for the important question I would start with that young people are not only the future but they are our active contributors and in our present time for policies and legislations I will give few examples in Egypt how we can engage young people in our processes in 2017 for example our president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi launched the World Youth Forum which is a platform where we bring young people from all around the world to come and spend almost a week in Egypt where they come together have voice and this platform yield at the end of the day a collective voice of Egyptian young people who created an entity or a body called the Coordination Committee for parties young leaders and youth leaders and politicians this committee now have in parliament 31 MP and 12 in our senate so we were able to move these young people from only a platform they were just voicing their wishes to be part of the parliament that’s one of the initiatives another thing is which is very close to my heart it’s the simulation of the parliament where we go to schools and the students have simulation for the parliament and after they do the simulation we do a competition and the winner the winning school will have the group of these students come to the parliament itself to live the real parliamentary experience so this is very close to my heart because we are not only trying to empower youth we also include the children in the schools which is very important for the coming generations sorry I thought someone was speaking another thing is mentorship this is also very important because usually when you ask a kid in the school or a young person in a university what would what what do you want to do when you grow up how or where do you see yourself in the future being a politician is not something that is close to the mind so mentoring them and having MPs who are close to their age a little bit it’s very important to to have role models that really can speak to you can use your language understand your issues that you feel comfortable speaking with so mentorship is very very important and I personally always volunteer in my time to mentor African youth and also there are networks for global youth where I spend more time trying to mentor young people another important aspect for me is or tool that we as parliaments and as governments and as countries can use is to reduce and decrease the the running age running for elections age. So, for example, in Egypt in 2014, when we have the constitution change, we changed the age, the minimum age for running from 30 to 25. And in my global advocacy work, we’re trying to push to have the age of having driving license, which is the same age where you can vote, can be the same age where you can run. Because if you are wise enough to choose who to vote for, you’re definitely wise enough to run if you want. And you can find other countries, like in the US, in a state level parliament, like in Vermont, their parliament, all the representatives are starting 18. So this is also an example of how you include and engage young people in the process of decision making and policy making. I will end here, so I can give the rest time to contribute.

Keith Andere: So that sounds very interesting. And I like how you’ve closed it by saying, you know, the importance of making sure, and I think it’s practical in most of our countries, that we can’t run at the age where we start voting. So that is something to point about. But we have another colleague, Honorable Tobias, who is a member of parliament from Germany, who is connected online. But before we come to him, the Honorable Speaker would like to make a statement. So I would like to invite him to share his statement.

Dansa Kourouma: Thank you, Honorable Moderator. For my part, I would like to start by thanking the Saudi authorities and all the organizers of this forum, which is of indisputable relevance. And if you visit Riyadh, you have the obligation to be convinced of a reality, that modernity and the conservation of authentic values are considerable. There is a possibility of having a dialogue between the race towards modernity, while keeping the traditional values, the authentic values. This is the most important observation in Riyadh. So this leads me to develop my thesis on a certain number of considerations, which are both the responsibilities of parliaments, but also the responsibilities of states. Do you agree with me that modernity, the race towards innovation and modernity, cannot be decided by the government alone? It is necessary for parliaments and parliamentarians to be convinced that modernity should not be the antipode of traditional values, of human values. Because my conviction is that any economic, scientific and technical progress that leaves the human value behind is counterproductive. This is why when we talk about artificial intelligence, we talk about robotics, we talk about everything that is considered from a technological point of view today, we must be vigilant that scientific and technological progress does not leave the human being, does not leave human values in the background. This is why parliamentarians are led to legislate while taking into account the aspirations of their people. This is why technological progress is impossible without the adhesion of parliaments, which are the representations of the different diversities that make up the countries. The second consideration that seems to me to be important is that artificial intelligence is a decision-making tool, and it is a decision-making tool that must be made by the government. It is a decision-making tool, and it is a decision-making tool that must be made by the government. It is also an opportunity, but we are responsible as parliamentarians to provide countries with better laws, better policies and programs that enable the use of artificial intelligence to be humanized. But the question of knowing whether we should go towards artificial intelligence is no longer a question. It is a reality, it is an essential perspective. But how to go about it? We must be guaranteed by laws, laws that prevent drift, laws that prevent dehumanization, laws that prevent the recolonization of countries that have not advanced in terms of technology. Because if colonization by man has been difficult to support, technological colonization is even more serious because we are dealing with machines, we are dealing with systems that are not human. So, it is extremely important that national laws are put in line with international laws. This is why national laws alone are not enough to frame, to tame artificial intelligence. Conventions and international laws must be rethought between countries through cooperation between states and the involvement of the United Nations and other organizations and other international bodies. This is what can guarantee the use of artificial intelligence today for the well-being of the population, for social and economic progress. I would like to add a third element from the point of view of consideration. It is education and digital solidarity. As I said earlier in my introduction, if I am present at this meeting to represent my parliament, it is to make the countries that have advanced in terms of technology understand that they will not feel safe unless other countries are at the bottom of the scale. We need solidarity because communication today, the reduction of gaps between nations, between peoples, is a challenge to the current world. This is why we must not accept that the gap grows between countries that have advanced and countries that are poor. If the world is a planetary village, it means that we must communicate with each other, we must help each other. This is why solidarity and digital education, especially for the benefit of youth, is an extremely important alternative for countries. I would like to add one last element. Our young MP earlier referred to the reduction of the age to participate in elections in countries. This is also the responsibility of the parliament. I am giving a consideration. In my country, 75% of young people participate in elections. 70% of the population is under 40, 75% of the population. But there are less than 20% of young people under 40 in parliament. This is a paradox. This is why parliamentarians must be extremely vigilant and that laws must reflect the needs of the population, the needs of society. It should not be dictated by interests, by sovereignty, necessarily. It is the possibility given to the entire population to participate in public governance. For me, this is extremely important. In my country, the age to be a deputy was 25 years. We reduced it in the new constitution to 21 years to allow 75% of the population to participate. And the age for the presidential election, we reduced it to 35 years to allow young people, according to the African Charter of Youth, to also participate in the presidential elections. To conclude my remarks, the Internet, artificial intelligence, is a way to improve democratic governance today, in particular to facilitate the participation of all layers of the population wherever they are in the elections. Artificial intelligence, the digital, allows to reduce the constraints related to the participation of one and the other. But beware, it is also an open door to electoral fraud. If the laws and conventions are not respected and the developed countries do not cooperate with the underdeveloped countries to regulate the use and use of the Internet for the good of the population. I am for the Internet, I am for artificial intelligence, but I am for the responsibility of parliamentarians, the responsibility of states and international institutions so that the Internet does not constitute an uncontrollable monster that dehumanizes the world instead of facilitating prosperity and accelerating growth and global development. Thank you.

Keith Andere: I believe we will resonate with. And for us who come from Africa, some of us will remember the Not Too Young to Run campaign, which was influencing and urging young people to take up this space. So this is a very, very valid conversation. So we will take up Honorable Tobias, who is a member of parliament from Germany. Unfortunately, our display screens are doing the tech thing, so we are not able to see him, but I believe we can hear him. Tobias, if you can hear me, just say hello.

Tobias Bacherle: Hi, good to hear you. At least I can see you as well so. Well, I can promise everyone that you’re handsome. So please go straight to answering the questions. Thank you. Yeah, thank you very much. And first of all, sorry, I cannot be there in person. Maybe that’s a fun fact I have for you. I had to vote on our snap elections yesterday. And since we have plenary tomorrow, again, I was not able to fly over for just half a day. But I’m very sorry for that. I think it’s very interesting to talk about young people in politics, in the field of digitalization. Because, I mean, of course, there is, we already heard about young people playing plenary sessions. And I think this is incredibly important. Young people are our future. They are the future of our democracies, of our parliamentarian systems as well. But besides that, it’s also important to have a different way of communication with them. And I mean, I don’t mean that they should be not taken serious. I don’t don’t mean that. Just talk to them as you would talk to any citizen, of course. But they have different ways of communication. And yeah, many, many older people by now also use WhatsApp and Facebook and Instagram and so on. But I think there’s one very important difference for, and I’m still saying I turned 30 now. So I’m not really young, young, young anymore. But I still would take myself into the younger generation. We grew up with mobile phones, with smartphones, and so on. When I was, I think, 12, the iPhone was introduced. So many things that seem to be a change for all the colleagues, because they witnessed how media and media usage has changed. is for us rather something that we are completely used to, that is the environment we grew up with, that we feel comfortable getting information and also having political debates. And I think this is important to take into account. We see many older colleagues, many very smart politicians that drive their platforms throughout digital communication skills. But I think very often, if we look very closely, there are younger people involved that are actually driving that campaign, that are pushing for those parts in the campaign. But there is also a different or second part in having that perspective on digital communication tools, because I would argue digital communication tools and the platforms that I have mentioned before, and I mean, those are huge companies that have a certain interest making money, but they also provide a critical infrastructure for our political debates. And I think this is something, as much as I value older colleagues and sometimes even envy how much they have experienced and how much they also can recall from their memory, I think what I just described in a matter on how do we communicate to young people also goes for how do we politically approach digital topics? How much value, how much central points do we give to digital communication tools? And what I often experience is that older colleagues, if they don’t understand something, in Europe, we have that when it came to telegram, we had the big demonstrations around the corona. Basically, jump to was like being a bit afraid and deciding to talk about, shall we forbid telegram? How can we shut down that kind of information system? And I think that’s something we should not do. The contrary, and many young people were like, excuse my language, but we’re like, what the fuck are you talking about? First of all, how do you want to do that on technical level? And second of all, this is our information space. We don’t shut down your TV stations or your newspapers as well. And I think having that part within the debate is incredibly powerful. And it again, involves young people also in politics because it’s topics that are very close to their heart and reflect their reality.

Keith Andere: Thanks Tobias. I think what you’re talking about, especially the political communication and the role of digital tools to support political communication is a very big conversation. Now that you’re talking about young people being behind the keyboards, supporting key political players around this and the issue of shutdowns, be it platform shutdown, be it throttling of the internet, are very big and pertinent conversations that I’ve had from various young people and various forums that we are here. And I think it’s important that this has come out from a young parliamentarian from a Global North perspective. So we’ll dive straight to our youth leaders and not to gag you, just maintain three minutes of time so that we are able to flow. I can see already hands coming up and it’s not yet time. So young people are critical voice in digital governance. Do you agree? At least we can agree. As dedicated youth representatives, what would you like members of our parliaments to consider in the legislative procedure? And maybe what are some of the obstacles and further including youth perspectives in digital governance? Over to you. Perfect, three minutes. Okay.

Ihita Gangavarapu: Hi everyone, I’m Aihita. So I’d like to start off with talking about the vision of the internet itself, right? Me personally, as a young person would want the internet to be a truly digital public infrastructure that is secure, safe, reliable, and accessible for all. Now, this is not something that’s possible just by young people or just by lawmakers. It’s a cooperation and collaboration between the both. So that brings us to your question around legislative procedures. And the most important aspect of the legislative procedure is for it to truly empower all of us. And that’s possible if we have an inclusive policymaking and legislative procedure. And when I say that, I’m talking about real youth participation. So youth itself is not a monolith. We, within the young people category, we have different stakeholders from different economies, different cultures, different languages, different understanding of technologies in the societies. So inclusion, especially from the consultations part of it, especially when we have the bills coming out in India, whenever there is a bill, since being the coordinator of Youth IGF, we ensure that whenever there’s a public consultation, young people are made aware, and we as a community of young people make sure our comments and inputs are provided to the consultation on the bills. Similarly, the tokenism aspect, there should not be any tokenism. There has to be real participation. and such that the outcomes are incorporated in the actual outcomes. And when we talk about consultation, there has to be mechanisms to ensure that the young people are drawn towards these consultations. The inputs are provided, they are made to understand why it is important to voice themselves. The second thing with respect to legislation that I talk about is contextualized legislation design. This is important because although legislation could be at the national level, but the adaptation of it is from a local level. So it’s important to understand the local disparities that could be with respect to digital access and digital literacy. And this is where I think a lot of cooperation with grassroots youth initiatives would help. Moving forward, the last point, or maybe rather second last if we have time, is that I want to talk about the accountability aspect in the legislation. So when we, you know, working with young people in the last seven years, cyber fraud, radicalization on the internet, misinformation, cyber safety are among some of the concerns that extensively they talk about. So when we are designing these legislations, we have to ensure that the accountability is present in protecting the digital rights of youth. And the last point, not to rush, is to understand the impact of the legislation. This is the impact assessment. The impact studies and how these laws affect young people, their rights, their societies, their access, as well as their opportunities has to be put together to ensure a holistic framework. Thank you.

Keith Andere: So Keewa, youth participation by design, youth engagement by design. Super. Dua, do you wanna?

Duaa Albalawi: Sure thing, thank you so much, Keith. So I really want to start off by saying that from my experience at the Y20 of this year, there is no one and done approach to policymaking, especially when it comes to digital governance, given that technology has been rapidly evolving at an unprecedented rate that none of us has experienced in the past. Now, when it comes to youth, they’re a key stakeholder in this rapid development of technology. And not only should they be involved, but they should be consulted when it comes to steering our policymaking direction. Now, for example, forums like the G20 Youth Summit occur on an annual basis and provide insights on the youth stance globally on very different topics, including digital governance. And if you allow me, I would really like to take this opportunity to highlight two of the youth policies that emerged in the sphere during our negotiations in Brazil this past August. So when it comes to artificial intelligence, and as His Excellency Danza has mentioned, youth are calling on our leaders to build a global ethical taxonomy for the development of AI. And it’s political security and informational implications by creating, one, AI auditing frameworks for fair, accountable, and most importantly, unbiased AI systems. Two, putting measures in place to ensure a fair transition for workers to ensure that no one is going to be left behind. And lastly, putting in place national commissions that analyze the impact of AI and propose national regulatory frameworks. Now, on the other hand, another topic of discussion when it comes to data and privacy, the youth are really calling on leaders to empower citizens when it comes to their relationship to these platforms and the use of their personal. data. Now, this includes developing ethical standards of data management, but most importantly, sovereignty to enable citizens to actively protect their privacy and examine the feasibility of establishing private ownership over each individual’s personal data. Now, when it comes to your question on obstacles of including youth perspectives in digital governance, my answer might be a bit unconventional, but I truly believe one of the biggest obstacles from both sides, the senior stakeholders and the youth, is the gap in communication. From my experience, I’ve observed a very big disconnect in how the youth and members of Parliament and members of government communicate and share these ideas, where youth, and justifiably so, are typically very forthcoming and relentless in their communication, which can be very hard to receive and digest for senior stakeholders. But this is where the responsibility of senior government stakeholders truly lies in mentoring and guiding these passionate youth to polish and fine-tune their demands. Now, I believe our MP, Sahar, has mentioned a few incredible examples of how youth can participate to address some of these key challenges in the digital governance space, so I might not expand too much on that. But another issue that I really wanted to bring to the table is the point on fair compensation for youth participation. Youth participation is not a privilege. It is a God-given right. And youth have incredibly insightful and creative solutions that sometimes are not recognized or compensated for. So I would really like to highlight an approach that emerged from our Y20 deliberations, where youth are calling on leaders to increase and incentivize youth participation in local, regional, and national governments through establishing diverse and, most importantly, paid engagement initiatives, such as youth parliaments and advisory councils, while leveraging and also facilitating maybe public and private partnerships to try and aid this funding and ensure that youth contributions are conserved in their policymaking efforts. Now, of course, I would just like to close on a very positive note and highlight that the session that we’re in today truly showcases a remarkable effort from members of parliament to empower the voices of youth on the global stage, so I just really want to take the opportunity to thank everybody for giving us the stage today. Thank you so much.

Keith Andere: Thank you, Jo. Already we have had very concrete, you know, recommendation and actions and things that are able to move us forward from where we are sitting because somebody was already talking on tokenism, you know, so these are very concrete, you know, actions that you’re already talking to us. So this next session is, for me, what is most exciting because we’ve been doing the talking and they’ve been doing the listening, and so it’s our turn maybe to listen to them, maybe perhaps answer. So we have a few minutes and I want to see how do I balance these few minutes and donate it to the audience in the room. By way of hand, I will invite a round of questions should we have a few which I can see some hands in the room I want to ask that we do the following we just say our name and we go straight to the point if your question can be in 60 characters we will be more happy because that means that more people are going to take the floor oh yes a tweet kind of question of course not the Elon Musk kind of tweet yeah so I see a hand here I see there was a second hand here and there’s a third hand sorry I see three hands okay oh yeah I see this one and then there’s another one okay so we’ll take those forums please say your name and be straight to the point if you have a question to any of the panelists and then we can all answer so that is for you there was second question here

Audience: yes yeah my name is Jose Keja from Ghana African youth IGF first of all I’d like to comment on honorable MPs especially our West African MPs for doing great work in that open door policy but I’d like to ask questions for all the MPs in the room how can we measure that open consultation with the youth? What kind of strategies are in place that can be measured, that can be quantifiable? Thank you very much.

Keith Andere: That is a powerful tweet. We had a question from a gentleman.

Audience: Thank you, Keith. My name is Noa Abdubeki. My question is to MP Sahar. I’m from Egypt as well. I’ve been in this ecosystem, the internet governance system, for a while, but I feel like I grew up watching the parliament plenary sessions on TV, but I feel like as a citizen, I lost connection with the parliament. I was wondering, we have a lot of experts in Egypt in different fields, especially when it comes to tech, but how to build this connection between those experts and the parliament and rebuild this trust and bond against it? I’m Srinath Govindarajan. I’m from India. I’ll keep my question really short. My question across the panel is, is there a cultural resistance for young politicians to be elected in the sense that our voters are less likely to vote for young politicians, and how do we combat that?

Keith Andere: Thank you. We’ll take this first round of questions. Just like the questions, please make your answer suitable.

Sahar Albazar: Okay, so I’m lucky to have two questions here. The first one is about the children and if exposing them on how the parliament works is a violation for childhood. We’re not going to kindergarten. We’re going to the primary age and people in high school. So they are actually in a few years, in two years, will be voting for the parliament. So they need to understand and be more aware. It’s like civic education so that when it’s time to vote, they can understand the process and they vote for the right person. I’m sorry, I didn’t get your name. So thank you for the question. I’m currently actually working on AI governance bill. And we have a lot of Egyptian experts, as you mentioned. And as a parliamentarian, I have to have round tables to discuss. So I always include everyone. It’s inclusive. I have private sector. I have experts. I have international organizations. I have civil society. Everyone should be included. So that’s how we bridge the knowledge and the expertise with the policymaker. So when you produce and introduce a bill, it’s evidence-based. I hope that answers your question.

Keith Andere: Yeah, those are the two questions that were directly to you. I think there was a general question from a comrade from Ghana. that was speaking to all of members of parliament. Honourable speaker, I don’t know whether you want to answer his question. How can we measure open consultation with young people? If there are any strategies.

Dansa Kourouma: That’s why at home, we broadcast parliamentary debates live on social media. Traditionally, the debate was on the radio and TV. But today, in our parliament in Guinea, parliamentary debates in the plenary and in the commission, you can have them on social media. All the social media that you can imagine, you can connect, ask questions. And the other element that seems very important to me is that we need to create opportunities for young people to be represented in parliament. The best way to do that, instead of young people being beneficiaries, they should be actors. That’s why lowering the age of participation of young people in parliament seems to me to be an extremely important opportunity. But there are obstacles. It’s access to funding. The policy, my brother from Ghana, in African countries, is reserved for the rich. So, to say that you are lowering the age of participation of young people and that young people do not have the means to raise questions and campaign, the gap remains. So, in addition to facilitating the access of young people, which is encouraged by the law, we need to set up funding mechanisms to encourage the participation of young people in the decision-making process. The last contribution is on children. In our countries, there is what we call the Parliament of Children. The Parliament of Children, we consult the Parliament of Children in Guinea on all the laws that apply to children. because they are students from 12 to 18 years old who are very bright, who are very critical. So when the Senior Parliament debates on education, on health, we give the floor to the Children’s Parliament, which is represented throughout the country, so that they can give their point of view. Indeed, the involvement of young people as voters is from the age of 18, but it is also necessary to allow a young person of 18 years old who participates in the vote, by choosing, to also be a candidate, because voting is a responsibility. We cannot create a disparity between the participation, the right to vote and the right to be a candidate. So legislation must lead us today to create a harmony between the age of voting and the age of candidacy for elections, in addition to the assistance that can be provided to young people for access to funds. For me, this is extremely important. Because I conclude, technology benefits young people in relation to the political process. You agree with me, in many countries, the Internet has changed the regime. There are bloggers who have changed the course of understanding the history of their country on a political level, thanks to tweets, thanks to videos on YouTube. They have led to the awareness of young people, who make up almost 70% of African populations, to become aware. So it is important that this awareness is well-parameterized, so that it is not used against the stability of our nations. So there is no miracle solution. We must try, by creating all the conditions so that young people can access, and also be safe in relation to information.

Keith Andere: Thank you so much, Honorable Speaker. I see, Tobias, I can now report authoritatively that the room can see you, and they can confirm what I told them earlier. So if you have any additional response, please let me know. I give you a minute.

Tobias Bacherle: First of all, I completely agree with what the honorable colleague just said. In Germany, in certain areas, we have a passive right to vote that’s 16 that goes for the European election and for local elections and in some parts also for state elections and in some local elections, even an active right. So you are able to run when you’re already 16 for local council and that combined with you have councils where young people vote their own councils and have their own budgets in that council. Then I think that gives to a very important part access. And I think access is the most important thing, because knowing in theory whom to write and where to go is great and knowing what hearing to watch and so on. But there is a lot of let’s be honest, a lot of informal ways to reach your parliamentarians, to reach your decision makers, to reach your teams and so on. And to get to know that the best thing is to get involved. And I think to encourage young people in that, it’s incredibly important. And we have in the German Bundestag, we have a children’s commission, a standing committee that’s only focusing and working on topics that concern children. And a colleague of mine that was chairperson of that committee for half a year, it’s always rotating every half a year. And in her six months, she decided to only invite children. So children all over from the country, they’re invited to the German Bundestag to speak there. And I think that was an adaptation of the multistakeholder or is a little adaptation of the multistakeholder process. That is important because long story short, wherever you have an open forum, wherever you have an open process, where people are able to participate when they want. And then on the second step, you reach out to those whom it might concern, who might be willing to actually participate and try to enable them, maybe through some program that gives them funding to travel to wherever you meet and so on, or to have digital formats as well. Thank you for that possibility today, for example. I think to have that kind of connection would be very, very great to see that in more places and see it in more political fields. And I think the IGF is a great opportunity to experience the multistakeholder process, but also to learn from the multistakeholder process. Don’t have closed doors, have as many open doors as possible and have them so wide open that people can actually step in and be willing and feel allowed to speak out. And if young people feel encouraged to do that and get encouraged, and the possibility when it comes to funding as well, because young people we heard that already don’t have that amount of money necessarily, either their parents have or often they don’t. So if we fund them, I think that gives an incredible opportunity to actually get involved and be part of any kind of political process.

Keith Andere: Thank you. It will be unjust to leave you out without a response. I think there was a gentleman’s question that was not responded to. So very quickly, we could respond to that.

Duaa Albalawi: Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you so much, Keith. I think on your question of are voters less likely to vote for young politicians, maybe the response to that is a bit convoluted. But in my opinion, I think a key driver to rallying support as a young politician really lies in the age demographic that you’re targeting. If you’re in a country where the population is mostly represented by youth, then it’s very apparent that youth would like someone from that same demographic to represent them and call for their needs and really address the challenges that they want to bring to the table. However, maybe if you look at countries such as Japan, where most of the demographic is mostly older generations, they might have different considerations and different challenges that need to be kept in mind. But I really think that’s where the youth’s ability to learn and gain credibility and expertise really comes into play because that evens out the playing field. So I hope that answers your question. Maybe I want to move to Ihida and see if she has anything more to say. That’s actually a very good question, and thank you so much for touching on the demographics aspect. But I also feel like in addition to that, there’s a lot of narrative around this, you know, that we have to change. And it’s just not us, but rather it’s so intergenerational that the older generations we expect very strong support in helping us change the direction of this narrative to ensure that people see young people as, which we are, as very skilled, informed and relevant to this generation and the future as well. So a lot of it also relies on narrative. Thank you.

Keith Andere: Thank you so much. So I see we have less than four minutes left. But because we’re all here for tech, I have asked AI how many parliamentarians are in the room, and it says it’s more than those already who are seated here. So I’ve seen a few parliamentarians from AI and senators from national governments and Pan-African and regional parliaments. So I will take the powers, you know, that I have to allow those who are willing one minute, not to make a huge submission like they do in the house, but one minute of intervention. Maybe I’ll give, because I have three minutes, I can give four or 50 seconds each, and then we’ll come to closing. So are there any who want, any takers? So there’s one here, there’s a senator here. See, AI is right. No bias. There’s another senator here. So those are three and we’ll keep it, and four. Okay, so 50 seconds each. If we have a roving mic, please do share to the four honorable members for 50 seconds. Thank you.

Audience: Start counting now. What I’d like to say to the young people, that parliament is a space that has been given a lot of powers to shape everything that happens, literally everything. It decides what education will happen, how health will look like. So young people must know, must become political in order for their issues to be addressed. So if you just abandon it to parliament because it’s an old people’s boring space, that is the reason why you then end up with bad laws. So every young person must be political in order to shape the quality of business that comes out of parliament. I think also I want to encourage the young people. The first time I was elected, I was 26 years old as a senator. I’m serving possibly my second into third term in the Senate of the Republic of Kenya. To build that confidence, be proactive, be conscious of the nation. Just start it from the grassroot where you are, from the village, from the town, from the city, and be part of it. And then finally, we run what we call open governance program. I know you have heard about the OGP, that is where we give what we call legislative integrity, legislative openness, and integrity and transparency. I thank you.

Keith Andere: Thank you, Senator.

Audience: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Honorable Alha Jimbo from the Gambia and the Pan-African Parliament. What I want to say is exactly what is going on in Guinea, where we have a middle parliament called the National Youth Parliament. We have the same thing in Gambia. It is very good to have, simply because it mirrors the national parliament exactly. Where I sit in parliament in Gambia, that’s the same seat where the young parliamentarian from my constituency also sits. They discuss, they have resolutions, and they have recommendations that they forward to the national parliament. So you see that synergy between the real parliament and the youth parliament. It creates that energy. It actually allows them to see themselves as the future lawmakers of the country. So if you don’t have it, I think it’s good to encourage your parliaments to have such, so that they can see exactly what’s actually happening. You have to be on the table. Don’t allow yourself to be on the menu. Be on the table, know exactly what we are doing, so that when you get there, at any particular time, be it young or old, you are able to do the right things. Thank you. You can see that all the parliamentarians instinctively are standing up to speak. That’s what we do in the parliament. Well, I’m from Nigeria, and I also like to say Nigeria has a youth parliament. Indeed, as I’m a senator, I also have a senator youth that also sits, they also have their own speaker, just like we have the president of the Senate. And second part of it as well, there’s also a gallery that also allows youth to also participate and watch proceedings. And I’m proud to say I started as a student parliamentarian, and I wrote through the ranks, and today I’m a national parliamentarian. The only thing I’d like to emphasize, as we’re emphasizing the responsibility for youth to take more engagement, they must also have responsibility to also maintain the integrity of the country. Countries are not run on social media. Countries also have, I mean, the youth, as they are doing the engagement, as they are on the social media, they must also know that certain things border on national security. So as you want to have more space on the table, that more space on the table also comes with more responsibility. And the conversation will not be complete if you are creating more space on the table without letting them know that being on the table creates responsibility that they also need to be aware of.

Keith Andere: Thank you, honourable members. It seems that you have pressed something because I see two very pressing hands. Maybe they want to challenge that governments are not, you know, run from social media. There was a hand behind there. Is it still up? Yes. So, please make it very short. And then I’ll take the gentleman here.

Audience: Hello? Okay, good afternoon. My name is Matilda Moses Mashauri. Okay, good afternoon. My name is Matilda Moses Mashauri. So my question is, I’ve heard all the explanations. I also want to know what exactly, what strategies we, the youth, should use that will contribute to and lead to the digital transformation journey? What are the key steps and things like that, though? Thank you very much.

Keith Andere: Thank you. There’s a gentleman here. I hope that he will be as brief as the lady behind there.

Audience: Merci beaucoup. Je voudrais faire aussi comme collÃ¨gue parlementaire. Je suis Alpha Abdoulaye Diallo, je suis prÃ©sident de la commission des affaires Ã©conomiques et dÃ©veloppement durable du Parlement GuÃ©nin. Je voudrais fÃ©liciter les panÃ©listes et aussi remercier le prÃ©sident du Parlement GuÃ©nin pour l’opportunitÃ© qu’il nous a offert d’Ãªtre Ã ce forum. Une expÃ©rience que je voudrais ajouter par rapport aux jeunes, c’est qu’il ne faut pas se limiter seulement au Parlement des jeunes et aux sÃ©nateurs jeunes. En RÃ©publique de GuinÃ©e, nous avons une expÃ©rience, ce qu’on appelle les conseils locaux des jeunes au niveau des communes. Dans les communes rurales et dans les communes urbaines, nous avons installÃ© ce qu’on appelle les conseils locaux des jeunes. Et Ã partir de dÃ©jÃ au niveau de la commune, ils commencent Ã apprendre la vie de la citÃ©, c’est-Ã -dire Ã participer Ã la prise de dÃ©cision dans les communes et dans les quartiers. Et ensuite, ils vont progresser vers le conseil, disons le Parlement des jeunes et les sÃ©nateurs de jeunes. Donc je pense que la prise de dÃ©cision d’abord doit commencer au niveau des communes. Ãa permet aux jeunes de se socialiser au niveau de leur quartier, au niveau de leur commune, mais aussi de rÃ©duire beaucoup la dÃ©pendance vis-Ã -vis des technologies. Je vous remercie.

Keith Andere: Thank you so much. Can you make it 10 seconds? Okay, 20. 25.

Audience: Thank you, sir. Thank you to everyone. Quickly, you know, the new generation, I believe, they are not like our generation. They were raised with technology. I remember my son, he was two or three years. I’m professor of computer science. He locked my iPhone. I couldn’t open it. Two, three, really. So, whenever we come to them, even when they talk in the same room, as you know, they use, even they don’t talk, they use technology to, right? So, we cannot, my point is, we cannot always say, no, no, we have to guard them, we have to do this. Of course, we have to protect them, help them with laws and regulations, but doesn’t, we should not, they think we are, I’m sorry, we are ignorant in technology. Yeah, really. So, when I talk to my kids, they say, please stay away, you know, we know what we do. So, always you have to be open up, don’t think, okay, they are ignorant, they know nothing about this. They were raised with technology. They know almost everything better than us. So, we need to protect them. We need to help them, educate them, but also, what can I say? We have to be flexible because they will use technology in all aspects of their lives, despite our will.

Keith Andere: Thank you very much. Thank you so much. You know, you mentioned something, and it reminds me of one parent who was talking about how they were monitoring their children’s communication, and this is a Kenyan parent. And so, when they went to WhatsApp, they found that the child was, you know, using French to speak to other people because they’re using chat GPT and conversing in French. So, literally, the parent didn’t know what to do. But in 30 seconds, in the tutable fashion, I would like us to make very powerful closing remarks. If they forgot everything you said, this is your time. Thank you. So, we’ll start to my extreme right.

Sahar Albazar: Well, thank you again. I think I will underscore what Dua’a said, that the participation of young people is not a privilege. And I would add, it’s not a symbolic act. It’s a necessity for sustainable development and sustainable progress. Because whether we engage young people in structured forums or mentorship programs or directly in the policymaking process, they help us in having inclusive policies and bills and secure the innovative process and ideas. Lastly, I want to thank Saudi Shura Council for hosting us and doing great work in organizing this event. And also IGF for putting the effort and giving us the opportunity to be with the youth in the same room, which for us, it’s very energetic and very inspiring. So thank you so much. Thank you, everyone.

Keith Andere: Thank you. You’ve already met my closing remarks, but thank you. Yes.

Ihita Gangavarapu: All right. So I have four points. The first one is that we need to institutionalize youth participation through consultative bodies, structured forums, and mentorship so that we can make informed decisions and impactful decisions alongside all of you. Point two, that there are certain systemic barriers that, for example, around both digital and cultural, that if we can address, we can also participate. Point three, one something that was very important mentioned earlier was that you should treat young people as partners and not beneficiaries when it comes to policymaking. And last, one of the points that I’ve taken from the floor is that we need to be where we want to see a change. So we need to be at the table, and we are working towards it as young people, but we need your support. Thank you.

Duaa Albalawi: I’m going to keep this very short and sweet. I think we live in very strange times, and things are rapidly changing day in and day out. And the youth’s effort is absolutely crucial to building the future that we would like to experience tomorrow. So I guess that’s it. is my message to all the youth here in the room. Stay hungry. Stay passionate. Do not get discouraged. Rome was not built in a day. And it is very important for us to continue this fight towards shaping our own digital future. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Dansa Kourouma: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I would like to conclude with two words. The first word is participation. And the second is responsibility. Why participation? Because simply bringing a politicized society is not the solution. All citizens are not obliged to be politicized. And an extremely politicized society also has consequences on social and economic progress. No, we need enlightened citizens who participate without complacency. So, the struggle for solutions is the right to petition, a popular veto that allows young people, through a certain number of signatures, to put the Parliament before its responsibilities. Because, Madam, the Parliament must not have a right to live or die over the people. The Parliament represents the people. These actions must be controlled by the citizens. So, I propose to those who do not have the popular veto in their legislation and in their constitution, that citizens, especially young people, must be given the opportunity to gather a certain number of signatures and express their concerns before the Parliament, and that the Parliament be obliged to consider the concerns and proposals of the young people. That is participation. The second element is responsibility. Yes, the Internet, youth were born with the Internet, they grew up with the Internet, but we were not born with responsibility, and we did not grow up with responsibility. Responsibility is acquired by education. So, I plead for a responsible digital education, so that youth can participate and avoid that young people publish on social networks 3D images of a protected military site, with terrorism, with everything that constitutes a threat today to national security.

Keith Andere: Thank you so much, Honourable Speaker, Honourable Tobias, you are the far on my far left. That’s why you’re coming last, not because you’re online.

Tobias Bacherle: No worries. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think, first of all, just see that young people and or it’s their future. It’s our future. Include young people and not as a game, but as people and voters and citizens that speak, think and engage on their own future. And that will be around longer than everyone who is older. And I think that’s important to see and to acknowledge. And the second thing is acknowledge the risks of digital transformation and digital tools. Yes, but embrace the chances, forge them, shape the developments and enable people and young people especially to, well, enable their self-sovereign digital journey and put that in the middle of policymaking. The young people and the people in general, the humans in the middle of our digital policies. I think then we can enable them, as I said, to to make their journey and to engage and to participate.

Keith Andere: Thank you so much, Honourable Tobias. We are three minutes into time. And so as we close, I would like to let the parliamentarians in the room know that a draft, an email has been sent to you that has the draft outcome. Please look at it and give in your comments for the parliamentary track on your emails. We’ll be happy to receive that feedback as early as possible to allow the secretariat and colleagues close on that. Lastly, I just want to thank again, you know, the. Saudi government and all the youth organisers and NADUA was our able coordinator and point person for all the young people from the host government as well as the secretariat. Thank you so much for ensuring that young people have an opportunity to interact with the parliamentarians and of course the parliamentarians, whether it was on your own accord or through the parliament. We hope that we can continue to engage with you. We are inviting you tomorrow at room number six, where the Kenyan delegation will be having a roundtable with members of parliament, so you’re welcome to come. As we close, I was your moderator, Keith Andere, until next time, thank you so much.

Sahar Albazar

Speech speed

135 words per minute

Speech length

953 words

Speech time

422 seconds

Lower voting and candidacy age to increase youth representation

Explanation

Sahar Albazar advocates for reducing the minimum age for voting and running for office. This would allow more young people to participate in the political process and increase youth representation in government.

Evidence

In Egypt, the minimum age for running for office was reduced from 30 to 25 in 2014.

Major Discussion Point

Youth Participation in Politics and Policymaking

Agreed with

Dansa Kourouma

Tobias Bacherle

Ihita Gangavarapu

Duaa Albalawi

Agreed on

Increase youth participation in politics and policymaking

Differed with

Dansa Kourouma

Differed on

Approach to youth engagement in politics

Create mentorship programs to connect youth with parliamentarians

Explanation

Albazar suggests implementing mentorship programs that pair young people with parliamentarians. This provides youth with insights into the political process and helps build relationships between generations.

Evidence

Albazar’s personal involvement in mentoring African youth and global youth networks.

Major Discussion Point

Bridging the Gap Between Youth and Policymakers

Dansa Kourouma

Speech speed

144 words per minute

Speech length

1858 words

Speech time

769 seconds

Create youth parliaments and councils to engage young people

Explanation

Dansa Kourouma suggests establishing youth parliaments and councils to mirror national parliaments. This allows young people to experience the legislative process and contribute their perspectives on issues affecting them.

Evidence

Guinea has a Children’s Parliament that is consulted on laws affecting children.

Major Discussion Point

Youth Participation in Politics and Policymaking

Agreed with

Sahar Albazar

Tobias Bacherle

Ihita Gangavarapu

Duaa Albalawi

Agreed on

Increase youth participation in politics and policymaking

Differed with

Sahar Albazar

Differed on

Approach to youth engagement in politics

Broadcast parliamentary debates on social media platforms

Explanation

Kourouma advocates for broadcasting parliamentary debates on social media. This increases transparency and allows young people to engage with political processes through platforms they are familiar with.

Evidence

In Guinea, parliamentary debates are broadcast live on social media platforms.

Major Discussion Point

Bridging the Gap Between Youth and Policymakers

Agreed with

Tobias Bacherle

Agreed on

Leverage digital tools for youth engagement

Educate youth on responsible use of technology and social media

Explanation

Kourouma emphasizes the importance of educating young people on responsible digital citizenship. This includes understanding the implications of their online actions and the potential impact on national security.

Major Discussion Point

Responsible Digital Citizenship

Tobias Bacherle

Speech speed

144 words per minute

Speech length

1345 words

Speech time

560 seconds

Provide funding and resources to enable youth political participation

Explanation

Bacherle argues for providing financial support to young people interested in politics. This would help level the playing field and allow more diverse youth participation in political processes.

Major Discussion Point

Youth Participation in Politics and Policymaking

Agreed with

Sahar Albazar

Dansa Kourouma

Ihita Gangavarapu

Duaa Albalawi

Agreed on

Increase youth participation in politics and policymaking

Use social media and digital tools to engage youth in political communication

Explanation

Bacherle suggests leveraging social media and digital platforms to engage with young people politically. This recognizes that younger generations are more comfortable with these communication channels.

Evidence

Example of a German Bundestag committee inviting children to speak through digital formats.

Major Discussion Point

Bridging the Gap Between Youth and Policymakers

Agreed with

Dansa Kourouma

Agreed on

Leverage digital tools for youth engagement

Balance embracing digital opportunities with addressing risks

Explanation

Bacherle emphasizes the need to recognize both the opportunities and risks of digital transformation. He advocates for shaping digital policies that put humans, especially young people, at the center.

Major Discussion Point

Digital Governance and Technology

Enable self-sovereign digital journeys for youth

Explanation

Bacherle advocates for policies that allow young people to have control over their digital experiences and identities. This approach empowers youth to navigate the digital world on their own terms.

Major Discussion Point

Responsible Digital Citizenship

Ihita Gangavarapu

Speech speed

166 words per minute

Speech length

699 words

Speech time

251 seconds

Treat youth as partners, not just beneficiaries, in policymaking

Explanation

Gangavarapu argues for recognizing young people as equal partners in the policymaking process. This approach values youth perspectives and experiences in shaping policies that affect them.

Major Discussion Point

Youth Participation in Politics and Policymaking

Agreed with

Sahar Albazar

Dansa Kourouma

Tobias Bacherle

Duaa Albalawi

Agreed on

Increase youth participation in politics and policymaking

Ensure accountability in protecting digital rights of youth

Explanation

Gangavarapu emphasizes the importance of holding policymakers and tech companies accountable for protecting young people’s digital rights. This includes addressing issues like cyber fraud, radicalization, and misinformation.

Major Discussion Point

Digital Governance and Technology

Institutionalize youth consultation in legislative processes

Explanation

Gangavarapu calls for formalizing youth participation in legislative processes through consultative bodies and structured forums. This ensures that youth perspectives are consistently incorporated in policymaking.

Major Discussion Point

Bridging the Gap Between Youth and Policymakers

Duaa Albalawi

Speech speed

174 words per minute

Speech length

1154 words

Speech time

396 seconds

Youth participation is a necessity, not a privilege

Explanation

Albalawi emphasizes that youth involvement in political processes is essential, not optional. This perspective recognizes the unique insights and stakes young people have in shaping their future.

Major Discussion Point

Youth Participation in Politics and Policymaking

Agreed with

Sahar Albazar

Dansa Kourouma

Tobias Bacherle

Ihita Gangavarapu

Agreed on

Increase youth participation in politics and policymaking

Build global ethical framework for AI development and regulation

Explanation

Albalawi calls for the creation of a global ethical framework to guide AI development and regulation. This includes establishing AI auditing frameworks and measures to ensure fair transition for workers.

Evidence

Recommendations from the G20 Youth Summit on AI governance.

Major Discussion Point

Digital Governance and Technology

Empower citizens to protect their data privacy and ownership

Explanation

Albalawi advocates for policies that give citizens more control over their personal data. This includes developing ethical standards for data management and exploring the concept of individual data ownership.

Evidence

Proposals from the Y20 summit on data privacy and sovereignty.

Major Discussion Point

Digital Governance and Technology

Unknown speaker

Speech speed

0 words per minute

Speech length

0 words

Speech time

1 seconds

Recognize youth expertise with technology while still providing guidance

Explanation

This argument acknowledges that young people often have advanced technological skills due to growing up with digital tools. However, it also emphasizes the need for adult guidance on responsible use and potential risks.

Evidence

Anecdote about a young child being able to lock an iPhone that a computer science professor couldn’t unlock.

Major Discussion Point

Digital Governance and Technology

Address cultural barriers to electing young politicians

Explanation

This argument highlights the need to change cultural perceptions that may prevent voters from supporting young political candidates. It suggests that both youth and older generations need to work together to shift this narrative.

Major Discussion Point

Bridging the Gap Between Youth and Policymakers

Balance digital engagement with awareness of national security concerns

Explanation

This argument calls for educating young people about the potential national security implications of their online activities. It emphasizes the need to balance digital engagement with responsible citizenship.

Major Discussion Point

Responsible Digital Citizenship

Encourage youth political engagement while maintaining integrity

Explanation

This argument stresses the importance of youth political participation while also emphasizing the need for responsible engagement. It suggests that increased political involvement should be balanced with an understanding of the responsibilities that come with it.

Major Discussion Point

Responsible Digital Citizenship

Agreements

Agreement Points

Increase youth participation in politics and policymaking

speakers

Sahar Albazar

Dansa Kourouma

Tobias Bacherle

Ihita Gangavarapu

Duaa Albalawi

arguments

Lower voting and candidacy age to increase youth representation

Create youth parliaments and councils to engage young people

Provide funding and resources to enable youth political participation

Treat youth as partners, not just beneficiaries, in policymaking

Youth participation is a necessity, not a privilege

summary

All speakers agreed on the importance of increasing youth participation in politics and policymaking through various means such as lowering voting ages, creating youth councils, and providing resources for engagement.

Leverage digital tools for youth engagement

speakers

Dansa Kourouma

Tobias Bacherle

Recognition of youth expertise in technology

speakers

Dansa Kourouma

Unknown speaker

arguments

Educate youth on responsible use of technology and social media

Recognize youth expertise with technology while still providing guidance

explanation

Despite emphasizing the need for guidance and education, both speakers acknowledged the advanced technological skills of young people, which is somewhat unexpected given the traditional view of older generations as more knowledgeable.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around increasing youth participation in politics, leveraging digital tools for engagement, protecting digital rights, and balancing technological expertise with responsible use.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among speakers on the importance of youth involvement in political processes and digital governance. This strong agreement suggests a growing recognition of the need to empower young people in shaping their digital future, which could lead to more youth-focused policies and initiatives in digital governance.

Differences

Different Viewpoints

Approach to youth engagement in politics

speakers

Sahar Albazar

Dansa Kourouma

arguments

Lower voting and candidacy age to increase youth representation

Create youth parliaments and councils to engage young people

summary

While both speakers advocate for increased youth participation, Albazar focuses on lowering age restrictions for voting and candidacy, while Kourouma emphasizes creating separate youth parliaments and councils.

Unexpected Differences

Approach to youth expertise in technology

speakers

Unknown speaker

Dansa Kourouma

arguments

Recognize youth expertise with technology while still providing guidance

Educate youth on responsible use of technology and social media

explanation

While most speakers emphasized empowering youth through technology, there was an unexpected difference in how youth expertise is viewed. The unknown speaker acknowledges youth’s advanced technological skills, while Kourouma focuses more on the need to educate youth on responsible use, implying a potential gap in their understanding of risks.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement centered around the specific methods for engaging youth in politics, the balance between leveraging digital tools and ensuring responsible use, and the perception of youth expertise in technology.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers was relatively low, with most differences being in approach rather than fundamental goals. This suggests a general consensus on the importance of youth engagement in digital governance, but varied perspectives on implementation strategies. These differences could lead to a more comprehensive approach if integrated effectively, but may also result in challenges when prioritizing specific policies or initiatives.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of using digital platforms to engage youth, but Kourouma emphasizes the need for responsible use and education about potential risks, while Bacherle focuses more on leveraging these tools for engagement.

speakers

Tobias Bacherle

Dansa Kourouma

arguments

Use social media and digital tools to engage youth in political communication

Broadcast parliamentary debates on social media platforms

Educate youth on responsible use of technology and social media

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of protecting digital rights and data privacy for young people and citizens in general.

speakers

Ihita Gangavarapu

Duaa Albalawi

arguments

Ensure accountability in protecting digital rights of youth

Empower citizens to protect their data privacy and ownership

Both speakers stressed the need for educating young people about responsible digital citizenship and the potential national security implications of their online activities.

speakers

Dansa Kourouma

Unknown speaker

arguments

Educate youth on responsible use of technology and social media

Balance digital engagement with awareness of national security concerns

Takeaways

Key Takeaways

Youth participation in politics and policymaking is crucial for sustainable development and progress

Digital governance needs to balance embracing opportunities with addressing risks

There is a need to bridge the gap between youth and policymakers through various engagement mechanisms

Responsible digital citizenship education is important for youth

Resolutions and Action Items

Lower voting and candidacy ages to increase youth political participation

Create youth parliaments and councils at local and national levels

Provide funding and resources to enable youth political engagement

Institutionalize youth consultation in legislative processes

Broadcast parliamentary debates on social media platforms

Develop global ethical framework for AI development and regulation

Empower citizens to protect their data privacy and ownership

Unresolved Issues

How to measure the effectiveness of youth consultation in policymaking

How to address cultural resistance to electing young politicians

How to balance youth digital engagement with national security concerns

Specific mechanisms for compensating youth for their participation and contributions

Suggested Compromises

Treat youth as partners in policymaking while still providing guidance and education on responsible engagement

This comment introduces a note of caution about the limits of digital engagement and the responsibilities that come with increased youth participation.

impact

It added complexity to the discussion, balancing enthusiasm for youth involvement with considerations of national security and responsible engagement.

Overall Assessment

explanation

This question seeks practical guidance for youth to actively participate in and shape digital transformation processes.

Disclaimer: This is not an official record of the session. The DiploAI system automatically generates these resources from the audiovisual recording. Resources are presented in their original format, as provided by the AI (e.g. including any spelling mistakes). The accuracy of these resources cannot be guaranteed.

Closing Ceremony

Session at a Glance

Summary

This transcript covers the closing session of the 19th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The discussion centered on reflecting on the forum’s achievements and outlining future directions for internet governance.

Vint Cerf, chair of the IGF leadership panel, emphasized the need for the IGF to earn permanent status within the UN structure by producing more concrete outputs. He suggested revising key documents and developing metrics to assess internet utility and the implementation of the Global Digital Compact.

Olaf Kolkman from the Internet Society highlighted the importance of multi-stakeholderism in internet governance, praising the IGF’s role in facilitating global discussions and local actions. He stressed the need for an inclusive WSIS review process.

Dr. Angela Sulemana, a medical doctor from Ghana, shared her perspective on the impact of digital technologies in healthcare and emphasized the importance of including diverse voices in shaping the digital future.

Dr. Latifa Al-Abdulkarim outlined five key actions for parliamentarians to take in shaping the digital future, including collaboration, investment in digital capacity, fostering inclusivity, embracing flexibility in lawmaking, and providing oversight.

The discussion also included remarks from Juan Fernández of Cuba, who emphasized the need to address digital inequalities between developed and developing countries. The Norwegian ambassador, Kjersti Tromsdal, invited participants to the next IGF in Oslo in 2025.

The session concluded with a video message from Li Junhua, UN Under-Secretary-General, who reflected on the IGF’s evolution and its alignment with WSIS principles. He emphasized the continued relevance of these principles in addressing current digital challenges and called for ongoing engagement in shaping an inclusive digital future.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Strengthening the IGF’s status and funding within the UN structure

– Preparing for WSIS+20 review and implementing the Global Digital Compact

– Importance of multi-stakeholderism and inclusive participation in Internet governance

– Addressing the digital divide and ensuring equitable access to technology

– Looking ahead to IGF 2025 in Norway and building on progress made

Overall purpose:

The purpose of this closing session was to reflect on the outcomes of IGF 2024, highlight key takeaways and priorities for the future of Internet governance, and transition to the next IGF in 2025.

Tone:

The overall tone was positive and forward-looking. Speakers expressed gratitude to the hosts and participants, emphasized the importance of collaboration, and conveyed optimism about the future of the IGF and its role in shaping digital policy. There was also a sense of urgency about addressing ongoing challenges and preparing for upcoming milestones like WSIS+20.

Speakers

Speakers from the provided list:

– Chengetai Masango: Moderator/host of the session

– Vint Cerf: Chair of the IGF leadership panel

– Olaf Kolkman: Principal Internet Technology Policy and Advocacy Director at ISOC

– Angela Sulemana: Medical Doctor from the Tamil Teaching Hospital in Ghana

– Latifa Al-Abdulkarim: Member of the Shura Council, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

– Juan Fernández: Senior Advisor, Ministry of Communications of the Republic of Cuba

– Kjersti Tromsdal: Ambassador of the Kingdom of Norway to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

– Li Junhua: Undersecretary General of the Economic and Social Affairs, UNDESA

Additional speakers:

– Mieke Van Heesewijk: Deputy Director of SIDN Funds (mentioned but did not speak)

Full session report

Revised Summary of the 19th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Closing Session

The closing session of the 19th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, brought together key figures in internet governance to reflect on the forum’s achievements and chart the course for its future. The discussion centered on several critical themes, including strengthening the IGF’s role, addressing digital inequalities, and navigating the challenges posed by emerging technologies.

Opening Remarks and Video Presentations

The session began with video presentations from the host country and Li Junhua, UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs. Li Junhua emphasized the continued relevance of WSIS principles in addressing current digital challenges and the importance of considering ethical implications in emerging technologies.

IGF’s Future and Structure

Vint Cerf, chair of the IGF leadership panel, set an ambitious tone for the forum’s future by advocating for permanent status within the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) structure. This proposal aims to secure more stable funding and enhance the IGF’s influence. Cerf emphasized the need for the IGF to justify this elevated status by producing more concrete outputs from its meetings and activities.

Cerf suggested several improvements for the IGF, including:

1. Revisiting and revising key documents such as ‘The Internet We Want’ to include concrete metrics and milestones

2. Creating a new document titled “The IGF We Need” to outline necessary improvements

3. Developing metrics to assess internet utility and the implementation of the Global Digital Compact

4. Preparing quickly for IGF 2025 in Oslo

Olaf Kolkman from the Internet Society echoed the importance of the IGF as a primary platform for internet governance discussions. He praised the IGF’s role in facilitating global discussions and local actions through national and regional IGFs. Kolkman emphasized the need for self-assessment and continuous improvement of IGF processes to create tangible benefits for all stakeholders.

Multi-stakeholder Approach and Inclusivity

A recurring theme throughout the session was the critical importance of multi-stakeholderism in internet governance. Speakers unanimously agreed on the need for inclusive dialogue and diverse stakeholder involvement in policymaking.

Dr. Angela Sulemana, a medical doctor from Ghana, provided a unique perspective on the impact of digital technologies in healthcare. She shared her personal experience of how digital tools have transformed her medical practice, emphasizing the importance of including health professionals in digital discussions. Dr. Sulemana stressed the need for diverse voices, particularly from young professionals and various sectors, in shaping the digital future.

Dr. Latifa al-Abdul Karim outlined five key actions for parliamentarians to take in shaping the digital future:

1. Collaboration with diverse stakeholders

2. Investment in digital capacity within parliaments

3. Fostering inclusivity in legislative initiatives

4. Embracing flexibility in lawmaking

5. Providing oversight on digital governance issues

She also emphasized the need for policies that protect children, safeguard the environment, and ensure safety as digital citizens.

Digital Inclusion and Development

Addressing the digital divide and ensuring equitable access to technology emerged as a crucial concern. Juan Fernández of Cuba emphasized the need to address digital inequalities between developed and developing countries, calling for increased efforts to maximize the positive impact of the internet in developing nations. He also highlighted the negative impact of unilateral measures that don’t align with the UN Charter on developing countries.

Emerging Technologies and Governance Challenges

The rapid advancement of technology presents new governance challenges that the IGF must address. Dr. Latifa al-Abdul Karim highlighted the need to tackle AI governance challenges and called for the implementation of anticipatory governance to address future technological shifts, including emerging fields like quantum computing and neurocomputing.

Global Digital Cooperation

The implementation of the Global Digital Compact emerged as a key focus area for future IGF efforts. The importance of international cooperation in digital governance was emphasized by several speakers, including Juan Fernández and Kjersti Tromsdal, the Norwegian ambassador.

Looking Ahead to IGF 2025

Kjersti Tromsdal invited participants to the next IGF in Oslo in June 2025, underscoring the continuity of the forum’s work and the ongoing commitment to strengthening diversity and collaboration in digital governance. A video was shown welcoming participants to IGF 2025, and attendees were advised to book hotels early due to limited capacity.

Conclusion

Chengetai Masango provided closing remarks, noting that the Riyadh IGF messages and other outcome documents would be made available on the web. The overall tone of the session was positive and forward-looking, with speakers expressing gratitude to the hosts and participants, emphasizing the importance of collaboration, and conveying optimism about the future of the IGF and its role in shaping digital policy.

Key takeaways include:

1. The push for permanent status for the IGF within the UN structure

2. The need for more concrete outputs from IGF meetings and activities

3. The critical importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration and inclusivity

4. The ongoing priority of digital inclusion and addressing the digital divide

5. The necessity of addressing governance challenges posed by emerging technologies

6. The focus on global digital cooperation and implementation of the Global Digital Compact

As the IGF community looks ahead to the 2025 forum in Oslo and the WSIS+20 review, there is a clear emphasis on translating discussions into actionable outcomes. However, several challenges remain, including specific mechanisms for achieving permanent IGF status within the UN, concrete plans for increasing IGF outputs, detailed strategies for addressing the digital divide, and specific approaches to AI governance and regulation. These areas will likely form the basis for ongoing discussions and work in the lead-up to IGF 2025 and beyond.

Session Transcript

Chengetai Masango: So now we come to the last session, which is the closing session of this great IGF. And I’ll just wait until we see our first speaker on the screen. Mr. Vint Cerf, the chair of the leadership panel, is going to be our first speaker. Thank you very much. So I would like to introduce Mr. Vint Cerf, the chair of the IGF leadership panel, who is going to be our first speaker for the closing session. Thank you very much. Vint, please take it away.

Vint Cerf: Thank you so much, Chengetai, and once more, thank you to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for an extraordinary hosting of this 19th Internet Governance Forum. I’m hearing a little bit of audio showing up unexpectedly. Based on the discussions among the leadership panel, the MAG, and in the IGF 2024 sessions, I conclude that our objective in the WSIS plus 20 should be permanent status for the IGF within the UN DESA structure. I would also include that the main budget for funding be part of the normal UN practice that the secretariat be supported at the $3 million a year level. To earn this outcome, the IGF and the NRIs must put forward plans for more concrete outputs from the annual and the intersessional meetings. We must earn this enhanced status. UNESCO has proposed a revised set of Internet universality indicators, and these measures might be taken through the NRIs and summarized and reported at the annual IGF. We should look for other metrics of Internet utility. across countries and user groups. The Internet We Want document should be revisited and revised to include concrete metrics and milestones for Internet utility. It’s intended to be a living document, adapting to new applications and needs as the Internet and its applications continue to evolve. We could include in this work metrics for assessing the implementations of the Global Digital Compact, highlighting successes and opportunities for improvement. We should consider preparing another living document, which we might title the IGF We Need, to summarize recommendations for changes and improvements in IGF and NRI execution. Annual review of such a document would be beneficial for informing the IGF and NRI organizers of actions that can be taken to facilitate useful outputs from our efforts. We must prepare quickly for IGF 2025 as it takes place in June in Oslo. Our focus should not only be preparation for WSIS Plus 20, but it should get serious attention in the run-up to and during IGF 2025. WSIS Plus 20 is a major opportunity to examine IGF’s purpose and practices that have evolved over the 20 years since 2006. The collective experience of the participants in IGF and the NRIs is deep and broad and needs to be distilled in forms that others can use for action. Finally, we should not imagine that IGFs can solve all problems. We may be able to identify and characterize them and even make recommendations for solutions, but we should work to deliver these observations to other institutions in the global ecosystem that have capacity and authority to address the problems and the opportunities we have identified. Thank you so much, Chengitai, for the opportunity to intervene. Now back to you.

Chengetai Masango: Okay, yes, thank you very much, Vin. Our next speaker is Ms. Micah Van Heusoek, Deputy Director of SIDN Funds. Please come to the stage. All right, we’ll go to our next speaker then. Dr. Angela Suleimani, Medical Doctor from the Tamil Teaching Hospital in Ghana. Okay, this is interesting. Then I would like to call on Mr. Olof Kalkman, Principal Internet Technology Policy and Advocacy Director at ISOC. I might want to use the microphone.

Olaf Kolkman: Thank you. It’s a little bit closer to my mouth. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, my name is Olof Kalkman. I’m Principal at the Internet Society. I’ve been contributing to the development of the Internet for two and a half decades. This Internet Governance Forum takes place during a very particular moment. The ink on the Global Digital Compact has not dried yet. The pencils are being sharpened for the review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit of the Information Society. As you all know, the IGF is the forum that allows relevant voices to share ideas, shape norms, iron out solutions, address concerns, and take approaches that benefit people no matter where they are and who they are. We are happy to see that the Global Digital Compact recognizes the IGF as the primary multi-stakeholder process platform for discussion of Internet governance issues. However, the IGF is not the only thing that the WSIS has established. WSIS, in addition to defining a set of concrete action lines, acknowledges that multi-stakeholderism, a way of collaborative governance, leads to positive and concrete actions. I actually think of this as a flywheel. Good ideas and approaches are tested at the local level, shared at national and regional IGFs, and lead to inspirations and maybe even informal consensus at the global IGF. Then, these global views percolate downwards to the local level, where people apply them locally while thinking globally. The national and regional IGFs are the cogs of this flywheel. They allow good ideas to bubble up from national to regional to global level, and they enable us to act local while thinking global. We have to remember that multi-stakeholderism is more than just talking. It’s about taking responsibility, fulfilling those action lines. And I know that within the technical community, there are many organizations that work passionately towards connecting people to the Internet, either by funding or sharing their knowledge or build capacity in other ways. At the Internet Society, we have empowered communities to get online and grow their digital literacy so they maintain agency in the digital world. Since 2019, we have invested in projects over 120 countries that are delivering on the WSIS Action Lines. We and other technical community organizations help technical and academic communities to organize themselves and build capacity and skills and have agency. In addition, we built new networks that are so much needed to get stuff done. While connecting to the internet, these communities work within their local governments at municipal level, at regional and national level, often with regulators to achieve their goals. We have seen this model produce results, with people now being connected in the highest speaks from the Himalaya to connecting the most underserved students to their schools in Jacksonville, Florida. The model works from the Canadian Arctic to the Colombian jungle. This, my friends, that’s multistakeholderism in action. Various stakeholder groups getting things done, each within their own role, with their own agency, but in collaboration and in coordination. It’s a model that works, and therefore the Internet Society continues to financially and practically support the IGF at all levels. In 2024 alone, we have supported 67 IGFs, schools of internet governance, and supported youth participation, all that with over half a million dollars U.S. currency, simply because we believe this model to be effective. We put our money where our mouth is. But back to this moment, this peculiar moment after the Global Digital Compact and the WSIS review ahead. Remember, the WSIS Review is a review, and we, collectively, should review which additional actions are needed to address the WSIS action lines and achieve the GDC objectives. We must assess how and where we can evolve the existing processes to make them better and understand where we can apply self-learning to create tangible benefits for all. In order to self-learn, we, all stakeholders, need to be part of the self-assessment itself, so that we collectively grow our approach to Internet governance and digital cooperation. That’s why we call on those that will co-facilitate the WSIS process to make the review inclusive and to not mistake multilateralism with multistakeholderism. The Internet is for everyone, and everyone must have a voice in shaping its future. Thank you very much.

Chengetai Masango: Next I would like to call on Dr. Angela Sulumana from the Tamil Teaching Hospital, Ghana.

Angela Sulemana: Assalamu alaikum, bonjour a tous, hola a todos, esteemed delegates, distinguished guests. My name is Dr. Angela Sulumana. at the Thamaly Teaching Hospital in the northern region of Ghana, currently working in the Department of Surgery and I’m part of Ghana SIG. I stand before you today at the closing ceremony of the 19th IGF hosted by the governments of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh. I am filled with profound sense of gratitude and emotions, and it’s an honor to address you all as member of the youth cohort in this prestigious gathering. You’re probably wondering what a medical doctor is doing here. I get that a lot. Let me tell you what this means to me. This forum and this secretariat enabled me to, for the very first time, I left my homeland Ghana to be in Addis Ababa for the Africa IGF. What a privilege. Now thinking about my life in Ghana, my hospital, my region, one experience stands out. A 15-year-old patient of mine, after morning reviews, asked, Dr. Angela, could you have me do a TikTok trend with you? Could you do this latest trend with me? I smiled because this patient’s CT scan wasn’t even ready for the electric surgery. But then I thought to myself, I said that, but at least social media at this point is mentally helping her in terms of joy and satisfaction. Though she had an upcoming surgery, but she had the solace in social media, and she was comforted. Maybe if you had AI algorithms that could analyze the MRIs, the CT scans, this could have helped accelerate the process. But reality for some people, it’s a bit tricky here. I’ve come to understand that in building our multistakeholder digital future, we cannot leave the health sector and health professionals out of this conversation. And I’m proud to be part of this forum. I stand before you just not as a delegate from the youth cohort, but as a voice representing the hopes, the aspirations, and the concerns of young people around the world. Over the past few days, we have engaged in meaningful dialogue and shared valuable insights on the present issues of our digital landscape. And we’ve explored topics ranging from AI and trust to human rights and sustainability. Digital is indeed impacting our lives in all fronts. However, as we reflect on our conversations, we must acknowledge the challenges that persist. Many young people still face barriers to accessing Internet, including a lack of infrastructures, affordability, digital literacy. This digital divide is not merely statistics. It represents real lives and missed opportunities. It is imperative that we work together to ensure that the youth have the chance to participate fully in the increasingly digital world. As youth delegates, we are not just passive observers, no. We are active participants in shaping the youth and the future of the Internet. As we close the 19th United Nations Internet Governance Forum, together with my young colleagues and friends, I spend wonderful five days with, and I want to say a big thank you to the governments of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Nations, and its IGF Secretariat, organizers, speakers, donors, sponsors, and all participants for cooperating and your support. I will say that as a medical doctor, my work is to save lives. The internet is a life-changing and life-saving tool and the IGF is the operating room where all experts join hands to save our collective future. Thank you Anja, thank you Celine, thank you Fifi, my mentor, for the great opportunity into this year’s Internet Forum and I believe there are more medical professionals who continue to get the opportunity to deliver and enjoy the internet we want in 2025. Happy New Year, As-salamu alaykum, thank you very much.

Chengetai Masango: And next I have the honor to call upon Dr. Latifa al-Abdul Karim, member of the Shura Council, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, who worked tirelessly for our parliamentary track. Thank you very much.

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim: As-salamu alaykum. As-salamu alaykum. Is it working? Perfect. Thanks so much. Excellencies, esteemed parliamentarians, distinguished multi-stakeholders, participants both in person and online, ladies and gentlemen, online, ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much. Thank you for your presence here, thank your insightful questions and your contributions to this important dialogue. These collaborative efforts underscore our central role as digital citizens, we are all at the end digital citizens, and protecting our humanity. in this rapidly evolving digital world. This year has been significant for the IGF parliamentary track in specific with an increased number of parliamentarians actively participating in shaping the various sessions discussions. As we are closing today, I see five actions that parliamentarians should take to shape and impact the digital future by 2025. These actions will definitely will help in paving the way to govern the digital world responsibly, inclusively, and sustainably. Number one, collaborate, collaborate, collaborate. Participate actively in ongoing global discussions about the governance of digital technologies with a human central approach. This is not just only about policy, but also about shaping the future of our digital world. Mark your calendars now. It is not only the global IGF in Norway in June 2025, but the IGF parliamentary track has also introduced good practices to others where they have all invited you to other global events or well-known global events, the AI for Good Summit, the WSIS review meetings, both in July 2025, and the UNESCO Global Forum on AI Ethics, which is going to be in June 2025, so we have a rich summer. Nevertheless, don’t wait to be invited. I highly recommend that the inter-parliamentary union together with the UN to compile a list of relevant global events and training programs to ensure parliamentarians are actively involved in these. conversations. Number two, invest into the future. Build your roadmap to enhance digital capacity and competencies within your Parliament, including capacity of the parliamentarians themselves or the Parliament’s administration team and the institutions of the Parliament. This is not just about training funds. Don’t wait for funds also. It’s about leveraging free resources, promoting knowledge exchanges and creating a culture of continuous learning. Number three, foster inclusivity. The digital world is not just for the tech community. There is always this misunderstanding. Invite parliamentarians from diverse committees to think together. Invite regional and sub-regional parliaments to work together to close this connectivity gap. Open your Parliament doors to stakeholders from academia, from private sector, entrepreneurs, youth and civil societies. Their perspectives are essential in crafting the legislative initiatives. Number four, embrace flexibility, agility, harmonizations and interoperability. Those are the key principles for those innovative regulations to be embedded in our lawmaking processes. Explore opportunities for creating common regulatory frameworks and interoperable legislations that work across national borders. We must work together to close this governance gap this time. Action on AI is needed. not just the AI Act. We must push for policies that encourage brain exchange rather than brain drain. At the same time, we must ensure that our policies protect children, safeguards the environment, and ensure our safety as digital citizens. Access to data must be universal. With data sets available in all languages to promote equity, this is a principle that we should actively advocate for. Implementing anticipatory governance to address the future shifts in technology, including emerging fields like the quantum computing and neurocomputing, to ensure that we are also prepared for the next frontier. Number five, oversight. This is our job. It’s now our responsibility as parliamentarians to work in alignment with executive bodies to prevent any governance gap, whether in AI and data or different sectors, like what we have just heard from the medical fields, ensuring that the digital ecosystem is governed in a way that reflects a global consensus and shared values. And translates, of course, the objectives, principles, and commitment outlines in the Global Digital Compact into practical actions. Finally, I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to all those who were involved in organizing this event. Of course, the UN IGF secretariat team. Celine, who was all the time with us, together with Andy from the IBU, and co-organizing the parliamentary track, the Ministry of IT, the Ministry of Communication and IT, and the Digital Governance Government. authority, they were doing all this hard efforts to make sure that everyone is here, welcomed, and feel home, and like making sure that everything is fully occupied for you. And in my final word, I wish the Norwegian Parliament all the best in hosting the next IDF parliamentary track in 2025, and looking forward for your gathering in just six months. Thank you so much, and shukran.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mr Juan Fernandez, Senior Advisor, Ministry of Communications of the Republic of Cuba.

Juan Fernandez: I’m going to speak in Spanish, so put your . . . Dear colleagues, I would like to start congratulating the authorities of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the city of Riyadh, and to all the support staff for the successful organization of the 19th edition of the IJF-2024. Since its inception that took place in 2006, this forum has been developed, and it’s not only a yearly event, but it has transformed into a system. that celebrates where national forums and regional forums take place in more than 50 countries and also with activities that take place during the whole year. This amplitude together with its unique feature that the issues that are going to be discussed are decided through consultations on the ground makes that these NRIs and the IGF have become a platform that all the stakeholders can carry on a dialogue concerning policies that are not only important for the Internet governance but also to the digital world. This WESIS, which will celebrate its 20th anniversary next year, established in an unequivocal way the link between information technologies and communications and development. In the first phase of this summit, after tough discussions, the representatives of developing countries managed that the digital branch can be recognized as a new dimension of social activities that limit the access to knowledge and information. This summit allowed this subject to come out of the technical sphere and it will become a political subject that is interesting for the international community. Two decades later, it has been demonstrated that the information technologies and communications in general and Internet in particular essential tools for the development of the countries. It has also been confirmed that this positive impact of the Internet has much less importance in the developing countries than in the developed countries. So we also are using unilateral measures that don’t agree with the United Nations Charter and this don’t allow for the social development of the affected countries and undermine the welfare of its citizens. It is compulsory to eliminate these obstacles and the breaches that are generated by inequality when we talk about access to these technologies, and we have to create the skills that can contribute to the application of human rights, civil, political, economic, cultural, social rights for everyone, and the development and application of emerging technologies can be online with commitments made for sustainable development. This is not enough to implement the 2030 Agenda, it needs the support of concrete actions, access to markets, financing in fair conditions, transfer of technology, and cooperation North-South. The implementation of the recently approved Global Digital Pact gave us an opportunity to advance in this direction and reinforce international cooperation, but we have to try to increase the processes of digital governance. because if we don’t increase them, this will affect especially the developing countries. Dear colleagues, this declaration of principles of the first phase of the WSIS established a common vision of building an information society centered on the human being and targeting the development. Unfortunately, that noble purpose is still only an aspiration for a big part of the humanity. So now we have to make that this common vision becomes a reality, a commission that was conceived 20 years ago. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, Juan Fernandez. Next, I have the honor to call from our next host country, Her Excellency, Ms. Kirsty Tromsdale, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Norway to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Kjersti Tromsdal: Excellencies, Members of Parliament, Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen, We have reached the end of the gathering of IGF 2024 here in Riyadh. I will join the voices of others in thanking the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for their heartfelt hospitality and for hosting this event so graciously in this magnificent venue. You have been a fantastic host. This IGF has been a great meeting point for interaction between stakeholders in the global Internet community from all over the world. Together, we have truly been building our multi-stakeholder digital future. The vision that has guided IGF 2024. On behalf of the Norwegian government, I wish you all welcome to the next IGF in Norway in June 2025. The forthcoming IGF marks the forum’s 20th anniversary and it will be an important step on the path to the WSIS plus 20 review and the way forward with the Global Digital Compact. On this note, I can tell you that Oslo is a very popular city in the summertime, so we encourage you to book your hotel early. You can already now visit our host country website, IGF2025.no, and make use of the hotel booking facilities there. The Norwegian government wishes to build upon the outcome from this successful IGF here in Riyadh. We believe in an open internet governed through inclusive dialogue where all the stakeholders shape its future. We wish to use the opportunity in Norway to strengthen the dialogue and to secure IGF’s position as the primary global arena for deliberations of internet governance and digital development. I shall not keep you any longer, and I will finish off by showing you a short welcome video for IGF2025, but before I do that, I will conclude by repeating what our state secretary said in his statement in the opening session on Monday. Together we shall strengthen diversity and collaboration through inclusive, multi-stakeholder digital governance, which is crucial for a vibrant and sustainable digital ecosystem. Let’s meet in Norway in June next year for IGF2025 and shape this future together. Thank you. Shukran.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. Our next speaker is a video from the Undersecretary General of the Economic and Social Affairs, UNDESA. That’s the home institution of the IGF, Mr. Li Junhua.

Li Junhua: Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, as we conclude the 19th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, I extend my heartfelt congratulations to all of you. Thank you for your dedication and collaboration in championing the principles of inclusive and accountable digital governance. On behalf of the United Nations, I extend my profound gratitude to our gracious host, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. By welcoming us to Riyadh, you have marked a historical moment as the IGF is hosted in the Gulf region for the first time. Your leadership and commitment to fostering inclusivity, dialogue, and multi-stakeholder collaboration exemplifies the core values of the IGF. Throughout this week, we explored critical issues under the theme, Building Our Multi-Stakeholder Digital Future. We tackled the challenges and opportunities of the digital age in over 300 sessions. The Riyadh IGF messages reflect the collective wisdom of this forum, distilling the insights and recommendations, and will serve as a guiding light for our shared journey ahead. As we approach the 20-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society, it is evident that the principles established in Geneva and Tunis are as essential today as they were two decades ago. Consider the foundational aspiration articulated in the WSIS Declaration of Principles to build a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. This aspiration remains at the heart of our collective efforts. The ethical dimensions of the information society enshrined in the WSIS Principles emphasize respect for peace, equality, solidarity, and human dignity alongside shared responsibility, justice, and protection of fundamental rights. These principles have never been more relevant. Whether confronting the challenges of artificial intelligence, safeguarding human dignity in an increasingly interconnected world, or ensuring privacy and freedom of thought, these principles provide a steadfast ethical foundation. They remind us to take decisive actions against the harmful uses of technology, including discrimination, violence, and exploitation. Over the past 20 years, the IGF has evolved significantly, embracing and upholding these principles. It has grown into a global platform that not only reflects the values of the WSIS, but it also adapts to the rapidly changing digital landscape. Looking ahead, I am confident that the IGF will continue to thrive as a global space, where diverse voices converge to address the emerging challenges and shape a just, inclusive, and sustainable digital future. As we prepare for the next IGF Annual Meeting, let me express my thanks to our next host, the Government of Norway. I urge you to remain engaged actively. The vibrancy and impact of the IGF depend on your ideas, energy, and continued collaboration. Let us also ensure a successful outcome based on the General Assembly’s review of the WSIS and the IGF’s mandate, building on the progress achieved here in Riyadh. In closing, I thank you all for your contributions, your vision, and your unwavering commitment. Let us carry forward the momentum from REACT as we continue to work together to realize a digital future that leaves no one behind. I wish all of you safe travels and a joyful holiday season. To all stakeholders, on-site and online, thank you very much. I look forward to seeing you next year. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. We will now have a closing video from the host country.

Video: To those who imagined, invented, and shaped the circle that brought the far close and made the difficult simple, thank you. Johannes Gutenberg for preserving the essence of words and ideas. Thomas Edison for lighting our path and every path beyond. Alexander Graham Bell for giving voice and endless reach. To the visionaries who left indelible marks on even the smallest details of our lives, who simplified the complex and erased boundaries in communication, we owe you an immense gratitude. Thank you to those who shifted the compass of our needs and revolutionized our world. Thank you. Pioneers of the internet and technology. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Raja Perlman, Jimmy Wales. Your contributions reshaped humanity. To everyone who has made life better, who has opened doors to knowledge and made connections seamless, thank you. The list stretches on and it’s far from complete. There will always be more innovators to honor, more creators to thank. For a future filled with possibilities, thank you. Your legacy shapes our future. Innovating together, shaping tomorrow.

Chengetai Masango: Okay, thank you very much. Before we conclude, I just want to point out that the IGF Riyadh messages and also all the other outcome documents, like from the parliamentary track from our dynamic coalitions and best practice documents are available now on the web and coming next week as well we’ll also be making sure that everything else is up on the web. So I wish you safe travels and I wish you also happy holidays. Thank you.

Vint Cerf

Speech speed

133 words per minute

Speech length

453 words

Speech time

202 seconds

Permanent status for IGF within UN structure

Explanation

Vint Cerf argues for the IGF to be given permanent status within the UN DESA structure. This would include regular funding and support for the secretariat.

Evidence

Proposed $3 million annual budget for secretariat support

Major Discussion Point

Future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Agreed with

Olaf Kolkman

Kjersti Tromsdal

Li Junhua

Agreed on

Importance of IGF as a global platform for Internet governance discussions

Differed with

Olaf Kolkman

Differed on

Approach to IGF’s future role

Need for concrete outputs from IGF meetings

Explanation

Cerf emphasizes the importance of producing tangible results from IGF meetings. He suggests that this is necessary to justify and earn enhanced status for the IGF.

Evidence

Proposed revising ‘The Internet We Want’ document with concrete metrics and milestones

Major Discussion Point

Future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Need for metrics to assess Internet utility

Explanation

Cerf suggests developing metrics to measure the usefulness and impact of the Internet across different countries and user groups. This would help in assessing progress and identifying areas for improvement.

Evidence

Mentioned UNESCO’s revised Internet universality indicators as a potential tool

Major Discussion Point

Emerging Technologies and Governance Challenges

Implementation of Global Digital Compact

Explanation

Cerf proposes including metrics for assessing the implementation of the Global Digital Compact in the IGF’s work. This would help track progress and identify areas for improvement in global digital cooperation.

Major Discussion Point

Global Digital Cooperation

Olaf Kolkman

Speech speed

111 words per minute

Speech length

713 words

Speech time

382 seconds

IGF as primary platform for Internet governance discussions

Explanation

Kolkman emphasizes the importance of the IGF as the main forum for discussing Internet governance issues. He notes that this role is recognized in the Global Digital Compact.

Evidence

Reference to the Global Digital Compact’s recognition of IGF

Major Discussion Point

Future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Agreed with

Vint Cerf

Kjersti Tromsdal

Li Junhua

Agreed on

Importance of IGF as a global platform for Internet governance discussions

Differed with

Vint Cerf

Differed on

Approach to IGF’s future role

Importance of national and regional IGFs

Explanation

Kolkman highlights the significance of national and regional IGFs in the overall IGF ecosystem. He describes them as crucial for facilitating the exchange of ideas between local, regional, and global levels.

Evidence

Metaphor of IGF as a flywheel, with national and regional IGFs as cogs

Major Discussion Point

Future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Multistakeholderism as collaborative governance

Explanation

Kolkman argues that multistakeholderism is more than just dialogue; it involves taking responsibility and collaborative action. He emphasizes the importance of different stakeholders working together to achieve concrete results.

Evidence

Examples of Internet Society’s projects in over 120 countries delivering on WSIS Action Lines

Major Discussion Point

Multistakeholder Approach to Internet Governance

Agreed with

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

Kjersti Tromsdal

Li Junhua

Agreed on

Need for inclusive and multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance

Angela Sulemana

Speech speed

126 words per minute

Speech length

637 words

Speech time

301 seconds

Addressing digital divide and barriers to Internet access

Explanation

Sulemana highlights the persistent challenges of the digital divide, including lack of infrastructure, affordability issues, and digital literacy gaps. She emphasizes the need to address these barriers to ensure full participation of youth in the digital world.

Evidence

Personal experience as a medical doctor in Ghana, observing the impact of digital technologies on patients

Major Discussion Point

Digital Inclusion and Development

Agreed with

Juan Fernández

Li Junhua

Agreed on

Addressing digital divide and promoting inclusive development

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

Speech speed

99 words per minute

Speech length

783 words

Speech time

472 seconds

Increased parliamentary participation in IGF

Explanation

Al-Abdulkarim notes the growing involvement of parliamentarians in IGF discussions. She emphasizes the importance of continued parliamentary engagement in shaping digital governance.

Evidence

Observation of increased number of parliamentarians participating in IGF sessions

Major Discussion Point

Future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Need for diverse stakeholder involvement in policymaking

Explanation

Al-Abdulkarim advocates for including diverse perspectives in legislative initiatives related to digital governance. She emphasizes the importance of engaging stakeholders from various sectors.

Evidence

Suggestion to invite stakeholders from academia, private sector, entrepreneurs, youth, and civil societies to participate in parliamentary processes

Major Discussion Point

Multistakeholder Approach to Internet Governance

Agreed with

Olaf Kolkman

Kjersti Tromsdal

Li Junhua

Agreed on

Need for inclusive and multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance

Importance of closing connectivity gaps

Explanation

Al-Abdulkarim stresses the need for parliaments to work together to address connectivity gaps. She suggests collaboration between regional and sub-regional parliaments to improve digital access.

Major Discussion Point

Digital Inclusion and Development

Addressing AI governance challenges

Explanation

Al-Abdulkarim calls for action on AI governance, emphasizing the need for policies that go beyond just AI legislation. She highlights the importance of addressing various aspects of AI development and deployment.

Evidence

Mention of the need for policies beyond just the AI Act

Major Discussion Point

Emerging Technologies and Governance Challenges

Juan Fernández

Speech speed

92 words per minute

Speech length

547 words

Speech time

353 seconds

IGF’s evolution into a year-round system

Explanation

Fernández describes how the IGF has developed from an annual event into a comprehensive system. This system now includes national and regional forums in over 50 countries, as well as year-round activities.

Evidence

Reference to national and regional forums in more than 50 countries

Major Discussion Point

Future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Link between ICTs and development

Explanation

Fernández emphasizes the connection between information and communication technologies (ICTs) and development, as established by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). He notes that this link has been proven over the past two decades.

Evidence

Reference to the WSIS establishing the link between ICTs and development 20 years ago

Major Discussion Point

Digital Inclusion and Development

Agreed with

Angela Sulemana

Li Junhua

Agreed on

Addressing digital divide and promoting inclusive development

Importance of international cooperation in digital governance

Explanation

Fernández stresses the need for enhanced international cooperation in digital governance. He argues that this is crucial for implementing the Global Digital Compact and addressing the digital needs of developing countries.

Evidence

Mention of the need for concrete actions, access to markets, fair financing, and technology transfer

Major Discussion Point

Global Digital Cooperation

Kjersti Tromsdal

Speech speed

131 words per minute

Speech length

343 words

Speech time

156 seconds

Strengthening IGF’s position as global arena for Internet governance

Explanation

Tromsdal expresses Norway’s intention to build on the outcomes of the Riyadh IGF and further strengthen the IGF’s role. She emphasizes the goal of securing IGF’s position as the primary global forum for Internet governance discussions.

Major Discussion Point

Future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Agreed with

Vint Cerf

Olaf Kolkman

Li Junhua

Agreed on

Importance of IGF as a global platform for Internet governance discussions

Importance of inclusive dialogue in Internet governance

Explanation

Tromsdal emphasizes Norway’s belief in an open internet governed through inclusive dialogue. She stresses the importance of all stakeholders being involved in shaping the future of the internet.

Major Discussion Point

Multistakeholder Approach to Internet Governance

Agreed with

Olaf Kolkman

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

Li Junhua

Agreed on

Need for inclusive and multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance

Strengthening diversity and collaboration in digital governance

Explanation

Tromsdal highlights the importance of strengthening diversity and collaboration in digital governance. She argues that this is crucial for creating a vibrant and sustainable digital ecosystem.

Major Discussion Point

Global Digital Cooperation

Li Junhua

Speech speed

99 words per minute

Speech length

529 words

Speech time

318 seconds

IGF as platform for multistakeholder dialogue

Explanation

Li Junhua emphasizes the role of the IGF as a global platform for diverse voices to address emerging challenges in digital governance. He highlights the forum’s ability to adapt to the changing digital landscape while upholding WSIS principles.

Evidence

Reference to IGF’s 20-year evolution and adaptation to changing digital landscape

Major Discussion Point

Multistakeholder Approach to Internet Governance

Agreed with

Olaf Kolkman

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

Kjersti Tromsdal

Agreed on

Need for inclusive and multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance

Need for inclusive and development-oriented information society

Explanation

Li Junhua reiterates the WSIS goal of building a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. He emphasizes that this aspiration remains central to current efforts in digital governance.

Evidence

Reference to the WSIS Declaration of Principles and its continued relevance

Major Discussion Point

Digital Inclusion and Development

Agreed with

Angela Sulemana

Juan Fernández

Agreed on

Addressing digital divide and promoting inclusive development

Ethical considerations in emerging technologies

Explanation

Li Junhua highlights the importance of ethical principles in addressing challenges related to emerging technologies. He emphasizes the need to safeguard human dignity, privacy, and fundamental rights in the digital age.

Evidence

Mention of specific challenges such as AI, privacy protection, and freedom of thought

Major Discussion Point

Multiple speakers highlighted the need to address the digital divide and ensure that ICTs contribute to inclusive development across all regions.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of producing tangible results and taking concrete actions through the IGF process, rather than just engaging in dialogue.

Vint Cerf

Olaf Kolkman

Need for concrete outputs from IGF meetings

Multistakeholderism as collaborative governance

Both speakers highlighted the need to address governance challenges related to emerging technologies, particularly AI, with a focus on ethical considerations and human rights.

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

Li Junhua

Addressing AI governance challenges

Ethical considerations in emerging technologies

Unexpected Consensus

Integration of health sector in digital governance discussions

Angela Sulemana

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

Addressing digital divide and barriers to Internet access

Need for diverse stakeholder involvement in policymaking

The inclusion of a medical professional’s perspective (Dr. Sulemana) and the emphasis on involving diverse stakeholders (including health professionals) in digital governance discussions represent an unexpected area of consensus, highlighting the growing recognition of the intersection between healthcare and digital technologies.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agreed on the importance of strengthening the IGF’s role, promoting inclusive multi-stakeholder approaches to Internet governance, addressing the digital divide, and considering ethical implications of emerging technologies.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers on core principles of Internet governance and the role of IGF. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for future collaboration and development of Internet governance frameworks. However, specific implementation strategies and priorities may still require further discussion and negotiation.

Differences

Different Viewpoints

Approach to IGF’s future role

Vint Cerf

Olaf Kolkman

Permanent status for IGF within UN structure

IGF as primary platform for Internet governance discussions

While both speakers emphasize the importance of IGF, Cerf advocates for a more formalized role within the UN structure, while Kolkman focuses on IGF’s role as a discussion platform without explicitly mentioning structural changes.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific role and structure of the IGF, as well as the approaches to achieving concrete outcomes in Internet governance.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers share similar overarching goals for Internet governance and the IGF, with differences primarily in the specific approaches or areas of emphasis. This suggests a generally aligned vision for the future of Internet governance, which is positive for collaborative efforts moving forward.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for more tangible outcomes from IGF processes, but differ in their approach. Cerf emphasizes concrete outputs from meetings, while Al-Abdulkarim focuses on diverse stakeholder involvement in legislative processes.

Vint Cerf

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

Need for concrete outputs from IGF meetings

Need for diverse stakeholder involvement in policymaking

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of producing tangible results and taking concrete actions through the IGF process, rather than just engaging in dialogue.

Vint Cerf

Olaf Kolkman

Need for concrete outputs from IGF meetings

Multistakeholderism as collaborative governance

Both speakers highlighted the need to address governance challenges related to emerging technologies, particularly AI, with a focus on ethical considerations and human rights.

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

Li Junhua

Addressing AI governance challenges

Ethical considerations in emerging technologies

Takeaways

Key Takeaways

The IGF is seeking permanent status within the UN structure and needs to produce more concrete outputs to justify this

Multistakeholder collaboration is crucial for effective Internet governance

Digital inclusion and addressing the digital divide remain key priorities

Emerging technologies like AI present new governance challenges that need to be addressed

Global digital cooperation and implementation of the Global Digital Compact are important focus areas

The IGF has evolved into a year-round system with national and regional forums playing an important role

There is increased parliamentary participation in the IGF process

Resolutions and Action Items

Prepare quickly for IGF 2025 taking place in June in Oslo

Focus on preparation for WSIS Plus 20 review

Revisit and revise the ‘Internet We Want’ document to include concrete metrics and milestones

Consider preparing a new ‘IGF We Need’ document to summarize recommendations for improvements

Parliamentarians to actively participate in global discussions on digital governance

Enhance digital capacity within parliaments

Foster inclusivity by inviting diverse stakeholders to contribute to legislative initiatives

Implement anticipatory governance to address future technological shifts

Unresolved Issues

Specific mechanisms for achieving permanent IGF status within the UN

Concrete plans for increasing IGF outputs and demonstrating impact

Detailed strategies for addressing the digital divide and ensuring universal Internet access

Specific approaches to AI governance and regulation

Methods for translating Global Digital Compact principles into actionable policies

Suggested Compromises

Balancing the need for concrete IGF outputs with maintaining its role as an open forum for discussion

This comment introduces the concept of anticipatory governance and highlights emerging technological frontiers.

impact

It pushed the discussion towards considering future technological developments and how governance should adapt to them.

Overall Assessment

explanation

This is crucial for addressing the digital divide and ensuring equitable development through digital technologies.

Disclaimer: This is not an official session record. DiploAI generates these resources from audiovisual recordings, and they are presented as-is, including potential errors. Due to logistical challenges, such as discrepancies in audio/video or transcripts, names may be misspelled. We strive for accuracy to the best of our ability.

Open Forum #58 Safety of journalists online

Session at a Glance

Summary

This open forum focused on the safety of journalists online, featuring panelists from various regions discussing challenges and potential solutions. The discussion highlighted that journalists worldwide face similar issues, including online harassment, threats, surveillance, and censorship. These problems are particularly acute for women journalists and those from marginalized communities.

Panelists emphasized the need for multi-stakeholder approaches to protect journalists. Key suggestions included implementing stronger legal frameworks, improving platform accountability, providing support systems for victims, and enhancing international collaboration. The importance of digital literacy and ethical reporting was also stressed.

The discussion touched on the evolving definition of journalism in the digital age, with debates around including citizen journalists and content creators in protection measures. Panelists highlighted the role of media organizations in supporting their journalists and the need for better implementation of existing laws.

Positive developments were noted, such as the Council of Europe’s campaign on journalist safety and Switzerland’s National Action Plan. However, participants agreed that more work is needed to raise awareness about the importance of free press in democracies.

The forum concluded with calls for increased trust among stakeholders, better implementation of existing laws, and greater responsibility from tech companies in addressing online attacks against journalists. Overall, the discussion underscored the ongoing challenges in ensuring journalist safety online and the need for continued collaborative efforts to address these issues.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The increasing threats and harassment faced by journalists online, including gender-based targeting

– The need for better legal protections, implementation of existing laws, and accountability for platforms

– The importance of support systems, training, and resources for journalists facing online attacks

– The role of media organizations in protecting their journalists and promoting ethical reporting

– Defining who qualifies as a journalist in the digital age and whether influencers/citizen journalists should be included

The overall purpose of the discussion was to examine the challenges facing journalists’ safety online and explore potential solutions and ways forward to better protect press freedom and journalists’ ability to do their work.

The tone of the discussion was initially somber when describing the serious threats journalists face, but became more constructive and hopeful as participants shared ideas for solutions and positive initiatives already underway. By the end, there was an emphasis on messages of hope and calls to action for various stakeholders to play their part in improving the situation.

Speakers

– Isabelle Lois: Works for the Swiss Federal Office of Communications on safety of journalists

– Bruna Martins dos Santos: Member of Brazilian Civil Society and MAG member

– Giulia Lucchese: Former secretary of Council of Europe expert committees, currently secretary of expert committee on generative AI and co-secretary of steering committee on media and information society

– Gulalai Khan: Policy communication governance and gender practitioner, teaches internet governance and technology policy at Lahore University of Management Sciences, founder of Pakistan Professional Woman Forum

Additional speakers:

– Jorge Cancio: Online moderator

– Audience member from Tanzania

– Dr. Nermeen Saleem: Audience member, Secretary General of Creators Union of Arab

– Alexander Savnin: Audience member, opposition politician from Russia

– Audience member, senior legal advisor with SEAD Foundation from Iraq

– Jolenta Rose Afanwi: Audience member, journalist from Cameroon Radio and Television

Full session report

Safety of Journalists Online: Challenges and Solutions

This open forum brought together experts from various regions to discuss the pressing issue of journalists’ safety online. The panel featured Isabelle Lois from the Swiss Federal Office of Communications, Bruna Martins dos Santos from Brazilian Civil Society, Giulia Lucchese, former secretary of Council of Europe expert committees, and Gulalai Khan, a policy communication governance and gender practitioner from Pakistan. The discussion highlighted the global nature of threats faced by journalists and explored potential solutions to protect press freedom in the digital age.

Current Challenges Facing Journalists Online

The panellists unanimously agreed that online harassment of journalists is a widespread and growing problem. Giulia Lucchese emphasised that journalists face routine tracking, harassment, and threats online, with women journalists being especially targeted based on their gender. This sentiment was echoed by Bruna Martins dos Santos, who highlighted the extensive harassment campaigns faced by journalists on social media in Brazil, particularly those reporting on corruption and elections. She provided specific examples, mentioning journalists like PatrÃcia Campos Melo, Vera MagalhÃ£es, and Juliana Daupiva who have faced severe online attacks.

Gulalai Khan provided insight into the evolving landscape of journalism in Pakistan, noting that digital and online journalists played a key role in reporting on the country’s recent election. This shift towards digital journalism has brought new challenges, as traditional media outlets were perceived as less objective, leading to a loss of trust among the public. Khan also highlighted the unique challenges faced by small, independent digital media platforms, which often lack the resources to adequately protect their journalists.

The discussion also touched on the psychological impacts of online harassment on journalists, an issue that remains largely unaddressed. An audience member from Tanzania, Asha, pointed out that many media houses fail to recognise online harassment as a significant challenge, leaving journalists without adequate support.

Potential Solutions and Initiatives

The panellists shared several initiatives and potential solutions to improve the safety of journalists online:

1. Council of Europe Campaign: Giulia Lucchese detailed the Council of Europe’s Europe-wide campaign on the safety of journalists, which is based on four pillars: prevention, protection, prosecution, and promotion of information. The campaign has made significant progress, with 39 appointed national focal points, 23 national committees, and 8 countries implementing national action plans.

2. Swiss National Action Plan: Isabelle Lois presented Switzerland’s National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists, which includes nine specific measures and four main wishes. The plan focuses on areas such as improving legal protections, enhancing dialogue between stakeholders, and raising public awareness about the importance of press freedom.

3. Platform Accountability: Bruna Martins dos Santos stressed the need for stronger accountability mechanisms for social media platforms, which often serve as the primary venues for harassment campaigns.

4. Legal Protections and Implementation: While many countries have laws protecting journalists, the panellists agreed that better implementation of these existing laws is crucial. Gulalai Khan mentioned Pakistan’s Protection of Journalists and Media Professionals Act 2021 as an example of legal frameworks that exist but require better implementation.

5. Support Systems: The importance of comprehensive support systems for journalists facing harassment was underscored by both Bruna Martins dos Santos and Gulalai Khan. This includes legal protections, organisational backing, and psychological support.

6. Digital Literacy Education: Gulalai Khan emphasised the importance of digital literacy education and curriculum changes to promote responsible online behaviour, potentially reducing instances of harassment.

Role of Different Stakeholders

The discussion highlighted the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to protect journalists effectively:

1. Media Organisations: Gulalai Khan stressed that media organisations should better support their journalists facing online harassment.

2. International Bodies: Bruna Martins dos Santos noted the importance of international collaboration and pressure from bodies like UNESCO, CPJ, and the Inter-American Commission.

3. Human Rights Organisations: The role of human rights organisations in documenting attacks on journalists was highlighted by Bruna Martins dos Santos.

4. Tech Companies: The crucial role of social media companies in addressing online harassment was emphasised, with calls for stronger mechanisms to prevent and respond to abuse targeting journalists.

5. Governments: The need for governmental action, including the implementation of national action plans and better enforcement of existing laws, was a recurring theme.

Emerging Challenges and Debates

The discussion also touched on several emerging challenges and debates in the field of online journalism:

1. Definition of Journalism: There was debate around who qualifies as a journalist in the digital age. Alexander Savnin, an audience member from Russia, questioned the selective protection of journalists, arguing that in less democratic regimes, the definition of a journalist becomes blurred.

2. Role of Influencers: Bruna Martins dos Santos highlighted the dual role of influencers in both perpetrating and combating online attacks, adding complexity to the media landscape.

3. Content Protection: An audience member suggested creating online repositories hosted in Europe for journalists to securely store their work, particularly in countries lacking proper legal frameworks for intellectual property protection.

4. Ethical Reporting: Adnan, an audience member from Iraq, emphasised the need for ethical reporting guidelines, particularly for sensitive topics or vulnerable individuals.

5. Technological Challenges: Giulia Lucchese noted the Council of Europe’s work on AI, including the framework convention on AI and the ongoing examination of generative AI implications for freedom of expression.

6. Psychological Impact: Jolenta Rose Afanwi from Cameroon suggested implementing checkup mechanisms to follow up on the psychological effects of online bullying on journalists.

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the ongoing challenges in ensuring journalist safety online and the need for continued collaborative efforts to address these issues. While positive initiatives like the Council of Europe’s campaign and Switzerland’s National Action Plan offer hope, the panellists agreed that more work is needed to raise awareness about the importance of a free press in democracies. Isabelle Lois mentioned a recent study in Switzerland that showed strong public support for the importance of a free and independent press for democracy.

The forum concluded with calls for increased trust among stakeholders, better implementation of existing laws, and greater responsibility from tech companies in addressing online attacks against journalists. Each panelist offered closing statements that provided a hopeful message for the future of journalist safety online, emphasising the importance of continued collaboration and innovation in addressing these challenges. As the media landscape continues to evolve, protecting journalists’ safety online remains a critical challenge requiring ongoing attention and innovative solutions from all sectors of society.

Session Transcript

Isabelle Lois: So thank you all for attending this open forum on safety of journalists online. My name is Isabelle Lewis, and I work for the Swiss Federal Office of Communications. And one of the topics that I work on is the safety of journalists. And we wanted to take the opportunity here at the IGF to exchange on this important topic with the woman present in the room as my panelists and Jorge here, my colleague as well. Let me take a minute to introduce my panel. So we have Bruna on my right side. She is a member of the Brazilian Civil Society. And she’s also a MAG member. And we have on the other side of the room, Gulalai Khan, who is a policy communication governance and gender practitioner. And she teaches internet governance and technology policy at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, which is Pakistan’s first consolidated university level course on the topic. She’s also the founder of Pakistan Professional Woman Forum, which provides mentorship and networking opportunities for professional women in Pakistan. including female journalists. So very relevant for the topic today. And last but certainly not least, we have online Giulia Lucese. She’s the former secretary of the expert committee who was tasked to draft the Council of Europe’s recommendation on countering the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, and as well the recommendation on combating hate speech. She is currently acting as the secretary of the expert committee on generative AI, implications on freedom of expression, MSI AI, and co-secretary of the steering committee on media and information society, running a Europe-wide campaign for the safety of journalists. So very much an expert on the topic. Welcome to you all. So this session is a moment for us to reflect on the importance of journalism and to share our views on how we can ensure that it can continue to do its important work, especially online. I believe that journalism and media is the fourth pillar of democracies. It helps to keep the public informed and aware of anything important that is happening in our societies. And 2024 has been a very important year on this part. It has been a super election year, as we would call it, with nearly half of the world population voting in their respective countries. And a free press is indispensable in any democracy because it is acting as a watchdog to ensure transparency, accountability, and informed decision-makings. But we have seen more and more problems for journalists with increasingly they’re facing online harassment, threats, surveillance, censorships, and more problems in this sense. So this is a bit the context on which we have planned the session today. It is divided in three parts. So we’re going to start by discussing a bit the problem. And then we’re going to address the potential solutions and a way forward. And then I hope we can have discussions with the people in the room. As you can see, we have an all-female panel. But we have our online moderator, Jorge, who is here to try to balance the gender quota. And so I think, I would hope that we can also take this opportunity to link the gender perspective on these issues. I think it is a very important point to take up. So I hope we can include that. On the technical side, is it possible for maybe us to also be on video for our panelists online? That she can see the room, if it’s possible. Could you please take care of that? I will start with my questions. And my first question is to you, Julia. You have a lot of knowledge with the work you’ve done for the Council of Europe and at the Council of Europe. Could you share some of your perspective on the most pressing issues concerning the safety of journalists online at this moment?

Giulia Lucchese: Yes, good morning, everyone. Can you hear me well? Yes, we can hear you. I do see a little of the room small in the screen. And I’m so sad that I cannot join you in person today. But thank you very much for inviting me on behalf of the Council of Europe. I will be providing an overview of what the organization is working on. And then to start, you did ask me which are the most topical issues at the moment when it comes to the safety of journalists. And I think a very good overview is currently provided by the annual report of the Platform for the Protection of Journalism and the Safety of Journalists. But also from the report on trends in freedom of expression in the Council of Europe member states. Both were published very recently. And very worrisome data do provide this panorama where actually journalists are routinely tracked, harassed and threatened online. and somehow these threats have even been considered some sort of a new normal. So we have some very old kind of threats and issues that actually go hand in hand with even new phenomenon and amongst these I will mention the strategic lawsuits against public participation that we see very well distributed in European member states. These incidents are so common that in several locations they are not even reported which is not just an issue for the journalists but also for the audience, the public at large which risks not being informed, not having access to the information of public interest that it has a right to get to know. And in this scenario women journalists appear to be especially targeted online because of their work but on the basis of their gender. Of course such threats have increasingly a very well an evident chilling effect which causes significant psychological harm but also potentially leads journalists to some sort of a self-censorship. Another issue is that what we have seen is that journalists are also facing including online verbal abuse and smear campaigns by politicians and such attempts by figures in power, figures holding an authority undermine the credibility of journalists themselves, then suffer at least in several countries from low levels of public trust. And in this climate of growing mistrust towards the journalists what happens is then a cycle where the distrust arises and the journalist can even be targeted by physical attacks and very often also online attacks and we have seen these for example. for example, from far-right or far-left groups. Now, I will not get to solutions. I know that you will present the Swiss National Action Plan, but what I want to say is that we are already seeing a change at member states’ level that I hope we will address then later in our conversation.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Giulia. And yes, I hope that we will be able to address that change in our session, how it continues. And thank you for making us a bit aware of the scene and the most pressing issues. I know that you have more of a European perspective, but I guess these issues are reflected elsewhere. And in that sense, I wanted to turn to you, Gulalai, if you could share maybe a bit of your main points that you see in South Asia, or especially in Pakistan, concerning the safety issues for journalists online. I know that you had an election this year, so maybe you could have some insights on that as well.

Gulalai Khan: Yes, so thank you, Isabel, and thank you for your office for arranging this very important session. I was not very surprised when I heard Julia saying all these things about Europe, because I think it’s across the world, especially with the new media coming in, journalism is under threat, journalists are attacked, and online spaces are becoming very toxic for all professionals, especially journalists. When you talk about elections, yes, this has been a super election, a super election year, and we saw a similar election happening in Pakistan also. But there is a slight shift from how it was reported this time. So most of the traditional media, the trusted big names, they were either on one side or the other. So the objectivity for traditional media was lost, which also meant the trust in them was lost. So digital and online journalists, or online even citizen journalists, were the main… content creators, as I would say, for this election. That’s another story that on the election day, the internet went down and people could not connect, but most of the stories coming out on election day of how well or not well the election went was on online spaces. But the threats remain. Threats on how much you can say, what do you say, and then what are the repercussions for journalists online, especially in a very, very highly polarized society like ours, it was very common that even journalists on online spaces were taking their own sides because either due to safety or some other reasons, which again, it comes down to the fact that then people start asking, who do we trust? Who do we trust for factual news sources? And that has become quite a big issue in a country like ours where the government is struggling with big misinformation and disinformation campaigns, hate speech, a society which is highly polarized. So there is a control that needs to be, or is supported because there has to be legislation on hate speech and all, and there’s an other side where the freedom of expression and people know what’s happening. So this has been one of the biggest challenges this year for us, but I just want to go back a little to 2021, where Pakistan made history by passing two very pivotal rules to support and protect journalists. One was the same protection of journalists and the other was Media Protection Act to 2021. These were legislations which the National Assembly passed and these were approved. The only thing that lacks is, and I talked about right to privacy, right to protection for journalists, even right to sources and protection against harassment. But again, as with all laws and policies, we saw that the implementation has been slow, either due to the lack of resources or other challenges. So this is an area that I think in the. and nationally, everybody has to work together on. Sometimes you have the best laws, but then they’re not implemented. We’re still waiting for a commission for the safety of journalists to be set up. So that’s one of the areas. And one point, Isabel, if you allow me, I know the time is limited, but I really want to talk about this new age journalism, which is now being practiced by small media houses and small independent sources where the digital platforms becoming newsworthy and also the main sources of news for people or the public. And these digital platforms have challenges with financing. They have challenges with also sometimes harassment and content creation, because they don’t have as big as robust teams, but they are doing some incredible work. And that is the kind of work that needs to be promoted because they are not just keeping journalism alive. They’re also keeping the hope alive that our online spaces can be used for constructive purposes. So for right now, this, and then we come to solutions later on.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much for also adding a positive spin at the end of this, because I know it can be sometimes a bit depressing when we’re focusing on the issues that we are facing and on the problems that we have. And now I will turn to another region of the world, and I’m happy to have Bruna here who can maybe tell us a bit about the pressing issues in Brazil or in Latin America as a whole. And I’ve heard that there have been some cases of gender-specific targeting or harassment for journalists. Do you think that this is a trend or isolated cases? I would love to hear a bit your opinion on this. Now it’s working.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks. Thanks for the invite. And thanks also to the Swiss government for organizing this open forum, which I think is one of the very few sessions about human rights on the IGF agenda this year. And I think I’ve been saying this for a couple of years, it’s rather sad that we don’t promote. more and more debates on these topics, as the IGF should be the core space for also discussing human rights aspects. So I will focus a little bit on both places, like Brazil and the region too, but I would like to maybe start by saying that it’s the same, like none of what both Julia and Gulalai said are actually new to us, right? The trends, they repeat themselves, the trends are very much similar between the countries, and it’s really indeed a global trend that journalists, actually no, harassment campaigns have been facilitated in order to shut down journalists, and especially the ones responsible for reporting topics such as corruption, elections, and some of the most urgent or the most divisive topics in this space. When I look to Brazil, I’m happy to come from a country where the rights for a free press is in the constitution, it’s enshrined in the constitution, and we also have a rather positive and progressive legal framework that’s very prone to trying to facilitate and convene a free press and the journalism profession in general, but when I was preparing for this session, three names came to my mind, that are PatrÃcia Campos Melo, Vera MagalhÃ£es, and Juliana Daupiva, three of the Brazilian journalists that were extensively harassed on Twitter during the Bolsonaro government and also during the campaign a couple of years ago. PatrÃcia is one of the most prominent ones, she was reporting on a lot of the Bolsonaro government wrongdoings, and by doing so she was a victim of misinformation campaigns, and also subjected to a rather big smear campaign featuring sexualized slurs, false allegations about her professional integrity. and the same happened with both Vera and Juliana. Juliana, after this entire period went through, she even launched a book about the Bolsonaro family and she continues to be one of the targets by Brazilian far-rights online. That leads me to maybe the last part of my, this first intervention, is that when we look to Latin America more broadly, journalists are, as I said, the ones reporting on corruption, organized crime, human rights abuses, elections, they tend to be the highest victims of online violence, such as doxing, targeted disinformation campaigns, and attempts of discrediting their work. But this does not just happen with female journalists, but also with the ones from marginalized communities, such as indigenous communities, quilombolas in the case of Brazil, and also the queer community, where they have been great targets in that sense. And last but not least, I think that for some of those cases, and maybe Mexico is a relevant example, but Brazil still is as well, we do still practice, sadly, a fair amount of political and state-sponsored campaigns, where some of the political actors or governments, they have been implicated in orchestrating these online harassment campaigns, and they often employ gender-specific narratives, as in attempts of claiming that this person is not clever enough, that they came from a different place, they were funded by a different kind of political party, and so on, in order to polarize the public opinion, but also to undermine the credibility of all of those journalists. But maybe I’ll stop here, and then we can continue later.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Bruna, and thank you, all three, to sort of set the scene, and effectively, as I imagine, and as the three of you pointed out, the issues that we’re facing are quite similar in the different regions of the world, and maybe if someone from the audience later would want to share. points on the areas that we have not covered in the missing regions and that would be very interesting to hear. We keep coming back to different contexts but similar similar issues. So in order to not stay in this more sadder part of looking at what is what is wrong or what is not functioning or what could be better, I want to look at what we can do or what we should do. How can we ensure that we have a better protection for journalists online? How can we work with or for media organizations, education institutions, international organizations, states, journalists, I mean all stakeholders that that are active in this area. How can we provide solutions? And I want to give the word first to Giulia who has done a lot of work on this at the Council of Europe and I would love for you to share some of the important work that you have done and maybe some insights that you have gained and that you could share and could be used in different countries or in different areas.

Giulia Lucchese: Yes, thank you. Well I’m really glad to pass to a more positive side of the conversation. So we’re looking into the potential solutions or positive results or what we see advancing. I will again provide a perspective that is that of an international intergovernmental organization. So the first example I can provide which I think it’s already getting a lot of attention and achieving results is that of a campaign, a Europe-wide campaign that was decided to be initiated by the 46 member states of the Council of Europe. It’s a campaign on the safety of journalists which was launched only 14 months ago in October last year and the campaign goal is pretty much translating standards into action and therefore operationalize the good intentions and achieve pragmatic results. How to do this in several different ways. First we have a methodology which is to look into four main pillars of the safety of journalism. and therefore the protection, the prosecution, fighting against impunity, the prevention and the promotion of information education and awareness. Through these four pillars, the goal is to really stimulate the states to do something effective and effectiveness comes from changes in legislation, setting support programs and mechanisms and raising awareness on why it is important to ensure the safety of journalists. It sounds evident, but at so many different levels, it is not. So the most urgent task is of course that to establish effective protections against the physical and online attacks, the misuses of law, the stigmatization and the arbitrary treatment and failures of judicial protection and impunity. Specifically, when it comes to training, the member states should be encouraged to give prominence to the available standards and to educational materials dealing with the issues these address, including gender-specific issues and put forward some tailor-made training for the judiciary, the legal professionals and relevant public authorities, which should take into account the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, which has a very strong and solid case law on freedom of expression issues, but also taking into account the existing procedural tools, the substantive standards and the core values and deontological rules of the profession of journalists. Then when it comes to resources, what is necessary is to ensure a rapid access to a wide range of different support and protective measures, first and foremost against physical protection. but also the provision of support, for example, by relevant actors such as those allocating adequate resources to provide such support. And in order to be effective in practice, it should be considered that the role that can be played by the specific associations of journalists and also tailor the support to the specific need of the victims of an attack online and offline. This range of measures should also ideally be made available for secondary and indirect victims of attacks online. Now, as I said, we’re looking into promising results. Some are already very clear, but we also see how they greatly are different in practice from a state to the other. So the starting point differs very much. So they’re different in nature, in ambition and degree of development. But what we see is that 14 months after the launch of the campaign, we count today 39 appointed national focal points, 23 national committees and eight countries which are currently implementing national action plans. Amongst these, we count Switzerland, but we also have some other very notable models, such as, for example, the Persweilig project in the Netherlands. The campaign insists that it is necessary to have a multi-stakeholder approach. So here really is the encouragement to set up at the national level these committees. And the reason why, for example, as I said, Persweilig is a leading example in this subject is because it has managed to bring together all the relevant actors, which are, of course, the journalists, but also the national police, the public prosecutor’s office, relevant ministries, association of chief editors and media houses. So all of this conversation together can actually translate in effective change at the national level. I will not continue further, because I know you will provide some insights on what is happening at national level in Switzerland, but I want to maybe leave with a positive note, like much is happening, and we will be able to assess the effectiveness of the measures taken during these years, only in some time from now, the campaign lasts until 2027, and possibly we will look into the legacy of the campaign in the years to come.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Giulia, for this overview and also these very positive notions of what is happening, what is being done and the will to actually work on this, and I’m happy to, I look forward to in a couple of years to see how this campaign has affected and hopefully helped the situation. I will take this opportunity to share just a little bit about what we have done in Switzerland on this topic. Last year, on the 3rd of May, which is International Press Freedom Day, Switzerland published its National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists, and just to say a little bit about this action plan, we have nine specific measures that are aimed to raise awareness and focus on prevention, protection and support in cases of violence and threats for journalists, and it also examines the existing legal framework for this protection. So the general aim of this action plan was to put the topic of journalists’ safety in the public agenda, to truly draw attention to the problem that journalists are facing, and to make the society, the politicians at every level aware that there is a central role for the media for a proper functioning of a democracy such as Switzerland. And so this was really the aim of it and every single measure we identified and are trying to put forward goes into this part of putting the topic of journalism in the public agenda. the safety of journalists on the agenda. The four main wishes we have with this national action plan is to one, have a better recognition of the role and the profession of journalists or media actors. We have used the term media actors in the national action plan to have it more than just on the focus of journalists because there are many people involved in this work. The second point is a better protection against online threats and hate speech. The third point is better physical protection. And the fourth is a better understanding of the abusive lawsuits against journalists that are often known as slaps. And this is something where Julia is absolutely an expert. And so these are the four points that we have tried to center our national action plan on. And of course, these points are not specific for online safety, but each measure in its certain way has an online component. We can obviously not talk about harassment without talking about online comments. We can’t talk about lawsuits without the online part of it. So we’re trying to bridge what is happening offline as well as what is happening online. So I won’t go into more detail about this now, but I’m happy to answer any questions that there might be on the different points that we have put in place. And I want to give the microphone to Bruna and maybe she can share what her thoughts on what we can do collectively to promote and improve the safety of journalists online. I know you have a civil society perspective. How can we ensure that all the relevant stakeholders are involved in this discussion?

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks. As we were chatting, I think I was really thinking what’s the role of social media companies in this conversation, right? A lot of these smear slash harassment, gender violence related campaigns, they rely a lot on social media companies and the lack of proper mechanisms either for… quick response either the channels for communicating with the journalists for the cases should be escalated or any other means That users have in general to to you know to complain about this So I see the platform accountability issue as one of the core Aspects of this conversation because we do still need stronger mechanisms to not just detect but also help prevent gendered abuse and hate speech that’s Targeting journalists rights. Nothing of these are no solutions that we can implement whether it’s a strategic litigation or stronger frameworks will work if social media continues to go and Exist as uncontrolled as they have in the last years or if you know Moderate content moderation mechanisms continue to echo hate speech and a lot of those problematic types of speech or tech harms Other than that I would see the role of the judiciary or policy makers in coming up with newer legal protections or new legal frameworks regulatory frameworks to establish enforced laws that can address Specifically online harassment and ensuring that these perpetrators they can face legal action and can face legal consequences in that sense and It’s the sad part about it all is that my country right now is is Reviewing the the civil rights framework for the Internet and we might we might Right arrive in a different stage in the beginning of next year as some of the protections Around the online speech might go elsewhere. But that’s that’s one of the points that I think it’s important to think The last three points would be support systems, right? Above all, it’s really important to have proper mechanisms for the victims the journalists to have some sort of either psychological or legal support to deal with these cases None of these names that I mentioned either Juliana or Vela better or Patricia They would have been able to continue their work if they didn’t have the proper means for for legal protections or anything like that, right? This is an aspect that goes, like online harassment goes beyond just the online world, right, and affects a lot of their ability to speak or to be present in these spaces. So having support systems coming from different stakeholders is really relevant. And last but not least, I would say international collaboration. So efforts by bodies like UNESCO, CPJ, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, and the Inter-American Commission, or the OHCHR in this case, for the global case, are really crucial in helping pressure governments and also platforms in finding ways to address online violence and finding ways to come up with new mechanisms, either from self-regulatory spaces or statutory regulation aspects. But the goal is that we pressure them in order to come up with newer and improved mechanisms to protect journalists effectively. But I’ll stop here. Thanks, Isabelle.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you, Bruna, for all these points, which are very well taken. I have taken notes on these. These are all important things to include at a national or international level and to think about when we are discussing how we can protect journalists more effectively. Gulalai, I wanted to ask you, could you share a bit how you see the way forward to ensure freedom of expression? What work can be done and maybe should be done on this?

Gulalai Khan: Yeah, so I’d like to take, and you’ve said, on the fact that platforms also need to do some work on this, because we have seen that leading platforms and their owner have actually called out journalists, and that does not help with journalism being respected in online spaces. So probably that is something, since you’ve presented the Swiss plan for journalism, and that is one aspect of that. So I think that platform accountability and also their role, because at the end of the day, all the online. threats harassment happens on these platforms and their algorithms sometimes support them and you know make them more viral for their own self so probably that’s number one. You also talked about the fact that most of the online problems but you need to have stronger analog components for digital dividends so very good that you have all those points especially with the word the media actors that you talked about because we cannot actually in the digital ignore these new content creators who are you can call citizen journalists or people who are but they’re not trained enough so probably you need to train them on fact checking the difference between and the debate around citizen journalism versus the mainstream journalism is that probably the fact checking and the training that goes for you to become a journalist is sometimes weaker in those who are on online spaces so if governments can also support this and civil society together that can be really really helpful you then get more fact-checked and authentic content on online spaces. I also want and of course everybody has talked about how academia civil society and everybody come together to support journalists in the very critical work that they do but so some of the journalists come from the traditional backgrounds and when they have these the online platforms the exposure is little so they need to be trained for those platforms they are there new ways to create content there are new ways to disseminate it and they need to be trained on that so I think capacity building is a very very important part part yes and it also saves them from the harassment and the threats because then they also know because digital security is also a critical part of that training that we are talking about. And last but not the least, I think it’s about time that we have a very feminist and a gender-sensitive approach to all the work that we do. The kind of harassment, the kind of wild women journalists face on these platforms, especially in countries like ours, is, I mean, I can’t even describe it.

Giulia Lucchese: And whether you like her or not, but the rape threats is just the beginning, right? So it’s not easy. And I think that the government need to protect women journalists more. They need to be trained how to protect themselves online. We have seen people self-censor themselves just because they’re afraid of the threats. So probably a very, very robust mechanism to support them. I talked about laws being there. So a stronger implementation of those laws is something that I think is the best way forward. You have the best laws on paper. Let’s implement them.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you. OK, yes. Thank you so much for these very important points. And I think all three of you have raised very important aspects that we need to think about when we’re thinking about protection of journalists. I want to quickly break here and see if there are maybe any questions in the room or online. I see a question in the room. Can we maybe get many questions in the room? Can we maybe get a mic?

Audience: Hello. Thank you. I’ve listened to a lot of conversation. By the way, a wonderful insight. I’ve enjoyed it. My name is Asha from Tanzania. And as much as we’ve talked a lot about multi-stakeholderism as in all, I think we need to identify when you’re looking for solutions, there are solutions. which are immediate, it can be done immediately, and those that can be done long-term. And for me, I feel like it’s always important to identify the kind of solutions that are required, because from all these conversations that we’ve been talking about, we were doing an advocacy on technology-facilitated gender-based violence in Tanzania. We have several learnings, but one relevant to this was that the media houses, first, they don’t identify technology-facilitated gender-based violence as a challenge. And then what does it mean when news is covered in their media houses, professional media houses that has been there forever, they put headlines online that amplify abuse to a woman, especially maybe a political leader, somebody in public, that is one of the challenges. But the second one, which is very saddening, when you are a journalist in a media house and you incur this violence online, they don’t care. You know, we isolate violence as an incident, it is not, because the affection is not, the effect is not only online. You go back home, you’re frustrated, people know you, they’ve seen the violence, it is all, it takes, and it depends. Some are digitally resilient, a week, two weeks, they’ll be fine. Others, it will take three months and the job becomes very hard. So I would really like, from all your work, what is the role of media? Are they really playing that factor? Are they intentionally putting in policies in your countries? I would like to know if it is similar with ours. Thank you. Sorry, I’ve taken some moment.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you for your question. I think it’s very good. Maybe we can do more and then go to some answers. Go ahead.

Audience: Thank you for you all. Allow me, this is just a comment and not a question. I’m Dr. Nermeen Saleem. I’m the Secretary General of Creators Union of Arab. It’s a member in United Nations, a Cossack and Social Council. And I think we have a solution, it’s kind of, we have launched in this IGF a platform called intellectual property verification in the digital area. This is targeted audience for this platform is the creator content on the social media and so on. This platform is like give the creator a priority date of his content. And he go to this platform and make a submission for his content, such as article or videos or audios or photos and so on like this before sharing his content via social media. He will get a QR code with IPV and accepted it depends on its technology on AI checking that this article or photos not have a similarity content in the digital area. And when it’s approved that this is the owner of this content, he has a contract on the blockchain to register this is the owner of this article before sharing via social media. This platform help the creator to protect his content before sharing in the social media. And we have negotiations and conversation with the intellectual property organization specialized around the world and this platform is targeted around the world, not only in just region. So I think if you want to know about this platform, it’s our pleasure to visit our booth to explain the technology of this one and the criteria to register your work. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much. That is a very interesting project and I hope I think we will. we’ll probably all go to the booth and hear some more about it. Maybe I can take one more question. I have one here. This side maybe. Let’s go there.

Audience: Okay. I have a question. But also, I think you allow me a little comment from Mr. Neuro. So, why we do select a journalist as a special…

Isabelle Lois: Could you just state your name, please? Could you please just state your name?

Audience: Okay. Alexander Savnin. Opposition politician from Russia. So, why do we state that we need to protect journalists selectively? Maybe in you, in Western countries, journalists have some privilege. But if regime is not very well democratic, the only pro-regime journalists stay clearly journalists. If you are a bit of posing, you become instantly politician, journalist, civil society activist, forever else. But, well, we are talking about protection of journalists. Let me give a few examples, because a lot of… I’m not talking about Russia today, so that’s… They are journalists in your definition, but I would not like to talk about them. But we’re talking about Russian opposition journalists. When it was a bit loose regime, people were gathering, were protecting journalists, were protecting their works. But in return, journalists… For example, the case of Ivan Golunov, who was falsely accused on drug distribution for his work by the government, and the whole society, whole politicians, rised up and said, yes, he needs to be freed, the case has been cancelled. But when the same exactly, the same looking false drug distribution accusations appeared towards political activists, journalists said, no, no, no, we have to investigate this, including Ivan Golunov. We have to investigate, maybe they are really drug dealers. So why, my question, why we should select journalists? In modern world, everyone is a blogger, everyone is civil society… be accepted again in the Western world. I think in Brazil, the situation is also moving toward that. Yeah, I understand you are from Switzerland, you are colleagues of Russian Roscom, not Zorza, they are exactly doing the same things. But my question maybe to all panelists and the audience, why are journalists in such a privileged position?

Isabelle Lois: Thank you for that question. I think we have a few more. We will get to your question.

Audience: Thank you. I think my comment is kind of similar to the comment from the madam here. I think the journalists should also be protected from their work being stolen online, especially through social media platforms. And I think it happens everywhere, especially in countries where there is a lack of proper legal framework. So I would be very happy to hear any solution, aside from technical solution that you mentioned, but any solution in terms of policy making anywhere in the world. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much. And I apologize, I know you’ve been raising your hands on this side of the room for quite a while.

Audience: Thank you so much, everyone. I will try to make it very quick. I wanted to talk about ethical reporting, actually, because a lot of time when we… Okay, sorry. My name is Adnan. I’m senior legal advisor with SEAD Foundation from Iraq. I wanted to talk about ethical reporting, because when we talk about journalist protections, some risks come from how they interact with what they will be reporting online. So my organization as well, we have developed some guidelines and also trained some journalists in my country, how they are reporting women survivors, for example. because they are putting their own life at risk when they disclose information and also others’ life as well. That was just an example. And the other question is, I know that nowadays the online platform made it very easy for everyone to be a journalist and to write, but in the meantime there is no authority journalists actually, because they are like an army and part of the risks comes from them, because they are directed to attack the other journalists. Do you think that we really need to work on solidarity to bring all the journalists and people who write online on those platforms, that we have these ethics that we need to follow instead of working this way? Thank you so much. The briefest comment then I’ll pass on to my friend there. More like if someone’s maintaining a bucket list, you know one of the problems that journalists being persecuted often face, even before an arrest or a case, is digital devices being seized, which leads to a lot of loss of work, loss of employment, sources and there’s, you know, tech savvy journalists now try to create their personal online repositories that are maintained on a server that is not their home country, things like that. But if there can be some investment into this, you know, especially having some online repositories hosted in Europe that, you know, that individual journalists can access, upload their work to ensure that journalists who are persecuted don’t lose all their work immediately. Just a brief. There are, I know, for-profit solutions but, you know, if there can be something more public for this, that’s it. Thank you. Thank you very much for the opportunity. It’s been some beautiful insights. I am called Jolenta Rose Afanwi. I’m a journalist from Cameroon. I work with the Cameroon Radio and Television. a worry, let me just go back with it into my country. We have laws protecting journalists, but which are not effective. And we’ve come to a place in Cameroon where you have it that if a journalist has been bullied online, or any of this is happening online, we just give it that. OK, after two weeks, the information will die down, and maybe the person’s image would be redeemed by itself. But now we don’t have those checkup mechanisms to follow up to ensure that. But how is this person’s psychology playing as far as this bullying and these effects goes with you as an individual, and even with your family? I think, is there a checkup mechanism that can be put in place to ensure that countries actually stay within this line? Because even some of the governments also bring up this bullying on journalists. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, all of you, for all of the great questions. I might just turn quickly. Is there any questions online that we should look at? It doesn’t seem to be the case. Now we can try comments and questions, which are very interesting. We just start on one point on the definition of journalists or media professional, because it’s something that we in Switzerland have thought a lot about when we decided to have the National Action if it should be focused exclusively on journalists or a bit broader. And we decided to include in our plan a vision that not the people working the media are more than just a journalist writing or reporting. And it’s also maybe the cameraman and the people who are editing and their media chain. And so this was the vision that we had to enlarge not just journalists, but have all of the media professionals. We did not include in that the content creators on social media, as the Swiss legal system is quite clearly making a distinction of traditional media and non-traditional media, and so to make it fit within our legal system, we had to make that distinction. But we are working on tracking safety in Switzerland for media professionals, and in this study that we are currently doing, the users, or let’s say the citizens journalists, as I was saying, are also included in that study. So we will have hopefully numbers quite soon on how that situation is. This is the answer we found for our country that fits, but of course it is a bigger question on how do you define journalist, who would be included, where do you put the limit, where do you put the line. We would love to know from our panelists, is there someone who wants to answer one of the questions?

Bruna Martins dos Santos: I don’t want to put you on the spot. No, just two things. On the influencers bit, or who is actually part of the media, I do think that for the Brazilian landscape, the role of influencers was really pivotal, right? Because they were also part of the folks that were responsible for the attacks, and responsible for fostering violence against journalists, against female politicians, and they were part of these campaigns, right? Brazil until last year, a year ago, was very much dominated by this kind of speech that came, and it was like a much bigger scheme of things, right? It was the president himself, his sons, their supporters, they were all part of a bigger kind of way, and maybe metal language kind of thing online, that’s where the whole goal was to suppress and cut off all of these people from existing online. So it’s really important to see what could be the role of influencers. because although they might not be seen as traditional media, they can also play this very concerning role in fostering the attacks and so on. My last point was about reporting mechanisms, and I do believe that that’s one of the aspects, right? Normally, when those cases take place and so on, it’s really a role for human rights organizations and human rights defenders to continue raising them, documenting and putting the word forward on what’s the relevance of protecting journalists online. So I do see the work of organizations, let’s say like Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and many others as a core work in the broader protection of not just journalists but activists online, especially in light of those attacks. So just putting these things.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much. Giulia , maybe you want to bring a few points here.

Giulia Lucchese: Yes, thank you very much. I really enjoyed listening to both questions and observations. It does provide an idea that this subject is actually so much more articulated than what we would like to think, and it is really important to look at every single perspective and layer also of the issue. Too much has been said, but at least two points I wanted to address. I heard about the concerns related to the challenges arising from the technology developments when it comes to the safety of journalists, but also to the entire media ecosystem. And I think there is an absolute necessity to somehow strengthen the legal frameworks, not only looking into the standards that are already available, but also continue looking, studying, analyzing and understanding the effects of what technology is bringing to the discussion. And this can be risks, this can be potentials, there can be… a lot of there also to ensure a better safety.

Isabelle Lois: I think we have a slight connection issue. Okay, in waiting until Julia gets back online, maybe, Lulay, I’ll let you.

Giulia Lucchese: I think there was a very important point about the role of media organizations to support and to protect their own journalists when they are being harassed. They need to have capacity building programs as well because traditional media houses, they are using digital to earn a lot of money and get relevance back from how irrelevant they became because of the fact that people have… But this is, again, a reason being… And number two, most of these journalists who are part of traditional media houses as journalists, as anchors, or proper journalists, they also have their own social media channels. So sometimes they’re working independently. Not speaking for the entire world, but they’re also working independently of the media houses. So the argument sometimes is that that’s their own channel, so that harassment or that comes from their own work rather than being associated with the media house. However, there are incidences, especially with women journalists, where being associated and even sometimes injured due to the harassment on site, the media houses have not reported it or not dealt with it as they should have been. So yes, that can be a part of it. I don’t know if there is a legal solution to it, but there has to be more pressure groups and more advocacy around it for media houses because they are at the end of the day commercial bodies and they need to be just more supportive of their workers.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, and I think you’re very right that the advocacy is essential. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to make sure that everyone understands the role that media, journalists, or even social media users play in our world. There was a study recently in Switzerland that talked about the perspective of the people on media, and I think about half of the Swiss population believe that it’s essential to have a free and independent press for democracy. But that means that the other half is either not sure or does not believe that. And I think that these numbers are a bit scary to hear, because we’re in a country that is usually seen and I believe very democratic, where there is a lot of work on ensuring that democracy is played out in the best way possible. And so if we in such a country are struggling to see the importance of a strong press, of a press that can talk and deal with the different issues, how does that reflect in maybe other spaces? I think it is an important part on advocacy, which goes beyond the laws and the rules.

Giulia Lucchese: One more point, I think that when we talk about online harassment, of course it begins with a powerful figure just harassing somebody or talking about it. But generally then everybody else joins in. So the general population and citizens, there should be an information literacy or a digital literacy and what the do’s and the don’ts on online platforms is also an important part of work and that can also be included in curriculum. Like I said, I know that the multi-stakeholder approach doesn’t work all the time, but bringing in academia at a certain point is important because it has to go into curriculum on the fact that what abuse online looks like, what abuse does to people online. you know, when you do that, what are the psychological, I mean, it doesn’t just make stronger citizens, but also citizens who are responsible online. So, internet for people who want to be there and not just comment recklessly.

Isabelle Lois: Absolutely. I see that Julia is back online, maybe you can finish the point you were trying to make. Can we unmute her mic? Yes. And put her on the screen. Yes, I think we can hear you, Julia.

Giulia Lucchese: I’m so sorry, I got disconnected, but I’ll be very short. I heard about the technology challenges. I think it’s really important to look into those. It’s issues that are developing daily, we may say, so it’s really important to understand them before making focused proposals. But I’m glad to say that at the Council of Europe level, much is happening. We had a framework convention on AI, which was adopted and opened for signature already this year. We’re currently looking from the freedom of expression side into the implications of generative AI applications for freedom of expression. And then there was another point which concerned more the hateful comments online, but also how the media somehow can even amplify these messages, and therefore I wanted to go back to the recommendation of the Council of Europe on combating hate speech, which in fact addresses the media as specific actors which should take effective measures in order to actually not only prevent, but also encouraging to combat hate speech and to put forward a message that is not an hateful one, while avoiding any stereotypes and hateful narrative. And with this, I close because I see we are really heading towards the end of this very interesting session, and I thank the organisers for inviting the Council of Europe.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Giulia. and it’s been a pleasure to have you, and it’s always a pleasure to work with you. I will take the opportunity to say that. Yes, indeed, we have, I think, two minutes left, so very little time. I want to thank you all for participating. Maybe we can have one line per speaker to sum up this session, and I would love to continue the conversation at some other point. Bruna, please.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: The same line as before. I would like to see big tech companies owning the responsibility they play in online attacks and NGBV and, you know, attacks against the queer community and journalists in that sense.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you.

Gulalai Khan: I would like to see the laws already being implemented effectively. That will sort out most of our problems, especially on online spaces as well.

Isabelle Lois: Giulia, do you have a last one-liner for us?

Giulia Lucchese: Because we are expressing hopes, I would like to see more trust in the role that every respective actor can play in order to actually reach an effective safeguard of journalist safety.

Isabelle Lois: I really like these last lines being sort of a message of hope, and I will just add that I hope that we can continue having these important conversations and making these spaces available. So thank you all so much for participating. Thank you so much for everyone who asked questions and made comments. This is something that’s very important for us, that the IGF sessions are collaborative. The knowledge is not just with the panel but with everyone in the room, so I’m very happy to have been able to share that with everyone. Thank you.

Giulia Lucchese

Speech speed

143 words per minute

Speech length

2148 words

Speech time

897 seconds

Journalists face routine tracking, harassment and threats online

Explanation

Giulia Lucchese highlights that journalists are regularly subjected to online tracking, harassment, and threats. This has become so common that it’s considered a new normal in many places.

Evidence

Data from the annual report of the Platform for the Protection of Journalism and the Safety of Journalists, and the report on trends in freedom of expression in the Council of Europe member states.

Major Discussion Point

Current challenges facing journalists online

Agreed with

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Agreed on

Online harassment of journalists is a widespread issue

Women journalists are especially targeted based on their gender

Explanation

Lucchese points out that female journalists are particularly vulnerable to online attacks. These attacks are often based on their gender rather than their work.

Major Discussion Point

Current challenges facing journalists online

Agreed with

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Agreed on

Women journalists face heightened risks online

Council of Europe launched a Europe-wide campaign on safety of journalists

Explanation

Lucchese describes a campaign initiated by the Council of Europe to improve journalist safety. The campaign aims to translate standards into action and achieve practical results.

Evidence

The campaign was launched 14 months ago and focuses on four pillars: protection, prosecution, prevention, and promotion of information education and awareness.

Major Discussion Point

Potential solutions to improve safety of journalists online

Gulalai Khan

Speech speed

164 words per minute

Speech length

1138 words

Speech time

413 seconds

Digital and online journalists played a key role in reporting on Pakistan’s recent election

Explanation

Khan highlights the significant role of digital and online journalists in covering Pakistan’s recent election. This shift occurred as traditional media lost objectivity and public trust.

Evidence

Most election day reporting came from online spaces, as traditional media was seen as biased.

Major Discussion Point

Current challenges facing journalists online

Agreed with

Giulia Lucchese

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Agreed on

Online harassment of journalists is a widespread issue

Need for better implementation of existing laws protecting journalists

Explanation

Khan emphasizes the importance of effectively implementing existing laws that protect journalists. She argues that many countries have good laws on paper, but lack proper enforcement.

Evidence

Pakistan passed two laws in 2021 to protect journalists, but implementation has been slow due to lack of resources and other challenges.

Major Discussion Point

Potential solutions to improve safety of journalists online

Agreed with

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Agreed on

Need for better implementation and enforcement of existing laws

Media organizations should better support their journalists facing online harassment

Explanation

Khan argues that media houses need to provide more support to their journalists who face online harassment. This includes both traditional journalists and those working independently on social media.

Evidence

Some media houses have not adequately addressed harassment of their journalists, especially women journalists.

Major Discussion Point

Role of different stakeholders in protecting journalists

Agreed with

Giulia Lucchese

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Agreed on

Women journalists face heightened risks online

Importance of digital literacy education on responsible online behavior

Explanation

Khan stresses the need for digital literacy education to promote responsible online behavior. This education should cover what constitutes online abuse and its impacts.

Evidence

Suggests including this education in curriculum to create stronger, more responsible citizens online.

Major Discussion Point

Emerging challenges related to technology and online media

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Speech speed

160 words per minute

Speech length

1453 words

Speech time

544 seconds

Journalists in Brazil face extensive harassment campaigns on social media

Explanation

Santos describes widespread harassment of journalists on social media in Brazil. These campaigns often involve sexualized slurs and false allegations about professional integrity.

Evidence

Cites cases of Brazilian journalists PatrÃcia Campos Melo, Vera MagalhÃ£es, and Juliana Daupiva who faced extensive harassment on Twitter.

Major Discussion Point

Current challenges facing journalists online

Agreed with

Giulia Lucchese

Gulalai Khan

Agreed on

Women journalists face heightened risks online

Journalists reporting on corruption and elections are frequent targets of online violence in Latin America

Explanation

Santos points out that in Latin America, journalists covering sensitive topics like corruption and elections are often targeted with online violence. This includes doxing and disinformation campaigns.

Evidence

Mentions that journalists from marginalized communities, such as indigenous and queer communities, are particularly vulnerable.

Major Discussion Point

Current challenges facing journalists online

Need for stronger accountability mechanisms for social media platforms

Explanation

Isabelle Lois

Speech speed

165 words per minute

Speech length

2716 words

Speech time

982 seconds

Switzerland published a National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists

Explanation

Lois describes Switzerland’s National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists. The plan includes nine specific measures aimed at raising awareness and focusing on prevention, protection, and support for journalists facing violence and threats.

Evidence

The plan was published on May 3rd, International Press Freedom Day, and aims to put the topic of journalists’ safety on the public agenda.

Major Discussion Point

Potential solutions to improve safety of journalists online

Differed with

Alexander Savnin

Differed on

Definition and scope of journalists to be protected

Unknown speaker

Speech speed

0 words per minute

Speech length

0 words

Speech time

1 seconds

Need to address challenges arising from new technologies

Explanation

This argument emphasizes the importance of understanding and addressing the challenges that new technologies pose to journalist safety. It suggests the need for ongoing analysis and focused proposals to deal with these rapidly evolving issues.

Evidence

Mentions the Council of Europe’s framework convention on AI and ongoing work on the implications of generative AI for freedom of expression.

Major Discussion Point

Emerging challenges related to technology and online media

Concerns about protection of journalists’ work/content online

Explanation

This argument raises concerns about the protection of journalists’ work and content in the online environment. It highlights the need for solutions, both technical and policy-based, to safeguard journalists’ intellectual property.

Major Discussion Point

Both speakers emphasized the importance of effectively implementing and enforcing existing laws and mechanisms to protect journalists.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers stressed the need for comprehensive support systems, including legal and organizational backing, for journalists facing online harassment.

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Importance of support systems and legal protections for journalists facing harassment

Media organizations should better support their journalists facing online harassment

Both speakers highlighted the importance of addressing the role of online actors (general public and influencers) in either perpetuating or combating online harassment of journalists.

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Importance of digital literacy education on responsible online behavior

Role of influencers in both perpetrating and combating online attacks

Unexpected Consensus

Role of non-traditional media actors in journalism

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Isabelle Lois

Digital and online journalists played a key role in reporting on Pakistan’s recent election

Role of influencers in both perpetrating and combating online attacks

Switzerland published a National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists

There was an unexpected consensus on the importance of recognizing and addressing the role of non-traditional media actors, such as digital journalists and influencers, in the current media landscape. This consensus spans across different regions and contexts, indicating a global shift in understanding the evolving nature of journalism.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the widespread nature of online harassment of journalists, the heightened risks faced by women journalists, the need for better implementation of existing laws, and the importance of comprehensive support systems for journalists. There was also consensus on the evolving nature of journalism and the role of non-traditional media actors.

Consensus level

The level of consensus among the speakers was high, particularly on the core issues facing journalists online. This strong agreement across different regions and contexts underscores the global nature of these challenges and the need for coordinated, multi-stakeholder efforts to address them. The consensus also highlights the urgency of implementing effective measures to protect journalists and preserve press freedom in the digital age.

Differences

Different Viewpoints

Definition and scope of journalists to be protected

Isabelle Lois

Alexander Savnin

Switzerland published a National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists

Why do we state that we need to protect journalists selectively?

While Isabelle Lois presented Switzerland’s National Action Plan focused on protecting traditional journalists and media professionals, Alexander Savnin questioned the selective protection of journalists, arguing that in less democratic regimes, the definition of a journalist becomes blurred.

Unexpected Differences

Role of influencers in online journalism

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Gulalai Khan

Role of influencers in both perpetrating and combating online attacks

Digital and online journalists played a key role in reporting on Pakistan’s recent election

While Santos highlights the dual role of influencers in both perpetrating and combating online attacks, Khan focuses on the positive role of digital and online journalists in election reporting. This unexpected difference in perspective on non-traditional media actors is significant in understanding the evolving landscape of online journalism.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the definition of journalists to be protected, the role of different stakeholders in ensuring journalist safety, and the approach to addressing online harassment and attacks.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low, with most differences stemming from varying regional perspectives and focuses rather than fundamental disagreements. This suggests a general consensus on the importance of protecting journalists online, but with differing emphases on implementation strategies based on local contexts.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for better protection of journalists online, but they focus on different actors: Santos emphasizes the role of social media platforms, while Khan highlights the responsibility of media organizations.

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Gulalai Khan

Need for stronger accountability mechanisms for social media platforms

Media organizations should better support their journalists facing online harassment

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers stressed the need for comprehensive support systems, including legal and organizational backing, for journalists facing online harassment.

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Importance of support systems and legal protections for journalists facing harassment

Media organizations should better support their journalists facing online harassment

Both speakers highlighted the importance of addressing the role of online actors (general public and influencers) in either perpetuating or combating online harassment of journalists.

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Importance of digital literacy education on responsible online behavior

Role of influencers in both perpetrating and combating online attacks

Takeaways

Key Takeaways

Journalists face significant online harassment and threats, with women journalists especially targeted

Digital and online journalists are playing an increasingly important role in reporting, especially in countries with less press freedom

Multi-stakeholder approaches involving governments, media organizations, tech companies, and civil society are needed to improve journalist safety online

Existing laws and protections for journalists need to be better implemented in many countries

New challenges are emerging related to technology, including the role of social media platforms and influencers

Resolutions and Action Items

Council of Europe launched a Europe-wide campaign on safety of journalists

Switzerland published a National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists

Continued work on understanding and addressing implications of new technologies like AI on freedom of expression

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively hold social media platforms accountable for their role in online harassment

How to define and protect ‘journalists’ in the digital age when many act as independent content creators

How to address the psychological impacts of online harassment on journalists

Bruna Martins dos Santos

reason

This comment brought attention to the crucial role of social media companies in addressing online harassment of journalists, a perspective that hadn’t been deeply explored earlier in the discussion.

impact

It led to a broader discussion about platform accountability and the need for stronger mechanisms to prevent and respond to online abuse targeting journalists.

Overall Assessment

Speakers

Knowledge Graph

In-depth Analysis

Session at a Glance

Summary

This discussion focused on the applications and implications of blockchain technology across various sectors, particularly in conjunction with other emerging technologies. The session, part of the Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Assurance and Standardization at the IGF, featured experts presenting on different aspects of blockchain use.

The potential of blockchain and other emerging technologies to transform global healthcare was briefly discussed, presenting several projects aimed at improving healthcare accessibility, efficiency, and personalization.

Overall, the discussion highlighted the diverse applications of blockchain technology and its potential to address complex challenges across various sectors, while emphasizing the need for robust governance, standardization, and ethical considerations in its implementation.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The impact of quantum computing on blockchain and cryptography, and the need for quantum-resistant systems

– The potential of blockchain and decentralized technologies to transform healthcare and enable precision medicine

– The importance of decentralized identity systems for privacy, security and user control

– Using AI, blockchain and other emerging technologies to address global health challenges

– The need for governance frameworks and standards for blockchain and AI implementations

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to explore how blockchain and other emerging technologies like AI and quantum computing can be applied to create more trustworthy, secure and equitable systems, particularly in areas like healthcare, identity management and governance.

Tone:

The overall tone was optimistic and forward-looking. Speakers were enthusiastic about the potential of these technologies to solve major global challenges, while also acknowledging the need for proper governance and ethical considerations. The tone remained consistently positive and solution-oriented throughout the discussion.

Speakers

Speakers from the provided list:

– Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Chief Information Officer of the United Nations Pension Fund

– Malak Trabelsi-Loeb: CEO of Trabelsi-Loeb Legal Consultants, Founder of Vernwell

– Dr. Adel Elmessiry: Professor, American University in Cairo

– Sari Qasim: Middle East region leader for Government Blockchain Association, Chief Strategy Officer of iBlockchain in Bahrain

– Heather Leigh Flannery: Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer at AI Mind Systems Foundation

– Priya Guliani: CEO of EarthID, Regional Director of Government Blockchain Association for Europe, Middle East, and Africa

Additional speakers:

– Audience member (unnamed): CEO of Innovation Network Canada

Full session report

Revised Summary of Blockchain Technology Discussion

This summary outlines a discussion on blockchain technology and its applications across various sectors, particularly in conjunction with other emerging technologies. The session, part of the Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Assurance and Standardisation at the IGF, featured experts presenting on different aspects of blockchain use, its potential impacts, and the need for governance and standardisation.

Introduction and Context

Dino Cataldo DellAccio, co-leader of the dynamic coalition on blockchain assurance and standardisation, introduced the session and its objectives. He emphasized the importance of developing standards and governance frameworks for blockchain technology to ensure its responsible adoption and implementation across various sectors.

Sari Qasim highlighted that blockchain technology extends beyond cryptocurrency, emphasizing its broader applications and potential impacts across various sectors. He stated, “Blockchain is not only about crypto. It’s about many other things.”

Quantum Computing and Blockchain Security

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb introduced a quantum governance model to address the potential threats quantum computing poses to current blockchain and cryptographic systems. She emphasized the need for adaptable, scalable, and ethical governance frameworks that can proactively manage disruptive technologies. Trabelsi-Loeb argued for the development of quantum-resilient cryptography and governance frameworks, stating, “The quantum governance model, it’s, it’s feasible and actionable framework, it is it is resting on adaptability. So we adapt and we don’t react.”

Blockchain in Healthcare and Life Sciences

Heather Leigh Flannery discussed the transformative potential of blockchain and decentralized AI in healthcare and life sciences. She highlighted the possibility of creating equitable, sustainable, and privacy-preserving global health infrastructures, emphasizing the importance of public-private partnerships and evidence-based scaling of solutions. Flannery painted a visionary picture, stating, “Imagine a world where every individual person on earth was able to engage in an active and dynamic precision health, digital first healthcare and life sciences infrastructure.”

Flannery also discussed the potential for blockchain to enable decentralized clinical trials and research, stating, “We’re able to do decentralized clinical trials, decentralized research, and we’re able to do that in a way that protects privacy.” She emphasized the importance of the blockchain maturity model developed by the Government Blockchain Association and the Blockchain Assurance and Standardisation Dynamic Coalition for realizing this vision.

AI Value Protocol

Dr. Adel Elmessiry presented the Artificial Intelligence Value Protocol, a framework designed to verify and certify AI projects using blockchain technology. This system aims to create a value-based AI marketplace and promote ethical AI use, particularly in healthcare settings. Elmessiry explained, “The protocol addresses the need for discovering, creating immutable records for, and promoting ethical use of the many AI systems being developed.” He highlighted how this protocol could incentivize the development of beneficial AI projects and ensure their proper validation and certification.

Healthcare Without Borders Initiative

An audience member, identified as the CEO of Innovation Network Canada, discussed the potential of blockchain and other emerging technologies to transform global healthcare. They presented several projects aimed at improving healthcare accessibility, efficiency, and personalization, highlighting the potential for AI and blockchain to address global health challenges. The speaker mentioned initiatives such as “Healthcare Without Borders” and specific projects like “Project Nightingale” for sleep apnea detection and “Project Amber” for breast cancer screening using thermal imaging and AI.

Decentralized Identity and Trust

Priya Guliani spoke about decentralized identity as a foundation for trust in the digital world. She explained how this approach could empower individuals, enhance security, and address challenges posed by emerging technologies like AI and quantum computing. Guliani emphasized, “Decentralized identity represents a paradigm shift in the realization of digital human rights as well,” highlighting the potential for blockchain-based identity systems to empower marginalized groups and enhance privacy and security for all users.

Guliani also discussed the concept of “self-sovereign identity” and how blockchain can enable individuals to have greater control over their personal data. She stated, “It’s about giving power back to the individual, allowing them to control their own data and decide who has access to it.”

Conclusion

The discussion showcased the diverse applications of blockchain technology and its potential to address complex challenges across various sectors, while emphasizing the need for robust governance, standardization, and ethical considerations in its implementation. Due to time constraints, the session concluded with a brief acknowledgment of the rich content presented and the potential for further discussions on these topics.

Session Transcript

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: you you okay so good afternoon to the audience here in a rehab good morning and good evening for those who are connecting remotely and online welcome to the session of the dynamic coalition on blockchain assurance and standardization my name is Dino DeLattro I’m the chief information officer of the United Nations Pension Fund and here within the IGF I’m co-leading with Gerard Dachet the president of the government blockchain association this dynamic coalition so today I have the privilege to be joined by distinguished subject matter expert that they will be presenting real case and real expertise on specific use cases of blockchain you will hear about blockchain and quantum blockchain artificial intelligence blockchain and digital health blockchain in digital identity I have an on-site moderator as well as an online moderator. We have three speakers on site and two speakers online and I’m now going to pass the floor to them to make a brief introduction about who they are and about who they represent and which field are they working on. We will start with Malak Trabelsi.

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb: Thank you very much. It’s an honor to be here today. My name is Malak Trabelsi-Loeb. I’m the CEO of Trabelsi-Loeb Legal Consultants and the founder of a group of companies, Vernwell, and my practice when it comes to law, it’s related to international business law, space, tech, and national security law. So when we talk about being here and what I’m presenting, it’s related to the blockchain and quantum computing and a governance model which we are proud to present for the first time ever. Thank you.

Dr. Adel El-Mesiri: Good morning, everybody. My name is Dr. Adel El-Mesiri. I have a PhD in machine learning, artificial intelligence, and trust networks, which is blockchain. So my focal point is the use of blockchain and AI, especially in healthcare. I supervise students at the medical group, as I have a bunch of companies, most notably is AlphaFin with Tim Draper and AIVP, which is the AI value protocol and health reasoning, which uses AI in the healthcare sector. I’m more than happy to be here with you. I’m also a member in the GBA and in the coalition. Thank you.

Audience: Hi, everyone. I’m CEO of Innovation Network Canada. I have also worked before as CTO at Deep Tech Canada and led business development at the Quantum Algorithm Institute. I’ve also found SAPIUS, which provides personalized health information system that are sustainable and responsible. And I’m very happy to be here and with you to talk about health care.

Sari Qasim: Thank you. Sari. Yeah. So thank you, Dino. Thank you so much for this introduction. My name is Sari Qasim, and I am from the Government Blockchain Association. I lead the Middle East region, and I’m also the Chief Strategy Officer of iBlockchain in Bahrain. As Mr. Dino alluded about blockchain assurance and standardization dynamic collision, this is quite a very important subject that we make this dynamic collision to make sure that any blockchain projects come on the ground will be trusted by the government and will be a project that people can trust as well. Before I go back to Heather and online, I would like to add one more point about blockchain assurance. Ladies and gentlemen, blockchain is not crypto. This is one point to be cleared for everyone. We are here to talk about blockchain real use cases in a subject to help the people of Earth. And crypto is something different. It’s just a use case. Some of it is good, some of it. But this is just to clear the umbrella that we are working as a dynamic collision here with the United Nations. With that, I go to Heather Flannery, if you would like to introduce yourself, please.

Heather Lee Flannery: Thank you so much. Hello, everyone. My name is Heather Lee Flannery. I am the Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer at AI Mind Systems Foundation, where we are focused on the convergence of blockchain and Web3, decentralized AI, and privacy enhancing technologies in order to radically empower individuals to participate equitably in the digital world. in a massively AI-driven and digital environment. Our very specific focus is on enabling systems of governance and collaboration that can prioritize underserved and vulnerable populations first and create alternative capital structures and resource distribution models that can address unintended consequences of previous generations of exponential technology. It’s an honor to be here, and it’s also an honor to serve as the chair for the Healthcare and Life Sciences Working Group at the Government Blockchain Association, and to be a member of the IGF Dynamic Coalition for Blockchain Assurance and Standardization. I’m looking forward to this event, and thank you very much for including me.

Sari Qasim: Our honor, our honor, Heather. With that, Goen-Gib, would you like to introduce yourself? Goen-Gib, you are in mute. There you go.

Priya Guliani: Hi, everyone. I’m Priya Guliani, CEO of EarthID, a multi-award-winning decentralized identity platform. At EarthID, we specialize in cutting-edge identity wallets and privacy-preserving verifications. I truly believe in the transformative potential of digital identity, and I’m a really passionate advocate for it. I’m going to be talking more about identity today. I am also the regional director of Government Blockchain Association for Europe, Middle East, and Africa. Absolutely honored and delighted to be here, and looking forward to contributing to this conversation today. Thanks.

Sari Qasim: Thank you so much. Okay, now we will share the presentation, if you please, and we will start with Malek. Malek, if you would like to enrich us.

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb: Hello. Good afternoon again, and I would like to have the slides shared, please. So, today we’re going to, you’re going to dive with me briefly into quantum impact, securing blockchain trust in the quantum era. And I have one question for you. Next slide, please. The question is, what makes you trust? What makes you trust? Trust systems, people, or technology? And this is a question for the audience. Expert opinion. Good one. Should we say it is consistency or reliability or transparency? Maybe all of them. That’s what is blockchain about. So if we move to the next slide, we’re going to see an eye opener. What happens when trust faces its greatest challenge? And this challenge, you could see it if you surf on the internet, what quantum computing poses as threat to our blockchain systems. Are you familiar about quantum computing? Yes? Anyone is a physicist here? Anyone is a computer scientist here? Computer scientist, can you tell us what you know about quantum computing and what threat it can pose to blockchain systems or to cryptography? As we see here, different news papers, clips and other saying, for example, crypto apocalypse soon. Is it soon?

Dr. Adel El-Mesiri: Not really. But you asked about what’s quantum computing and quickly in a nutshell, basically traditional computing depends on. 0 and 1, so it’s a binary state. So in any problem that you need to work with, you have to solve it serially with a 0 and 1. However, in real life, problems have a vast majority between 0 and 1, like infinite number of different states it can be in. That’s what quantum computing is all about. Quantum computing, the state could be in any of those there. And it uses something called qubits. So to bring it all home, when you are trying to solve a problem with traditional computing, you have to go through billions of operations to find the right solution sequentially. However, in quantum computing, you solve the billion computes at the same time, hence the power.

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb: Thank you so much for this. So we’re talking about qubits with quantum computing. We’re talking about different possibilities at the same time, which is different than the computational power that we have today. And the state of quantum computing today is not that what we are waiting for, to have a very cryptographically relevant quantum computing that will break the cryptography that we have today. So we see so many misinformation, disinformation going on. It’s like saying that Google’s quantum computing chips put Bitcoin at risk. And other, they say, there is a possibility of, or Chinese scientists, they broke military-grade cryptography. And it took the internet by storm. But actually, what is true, they did only two bits, and this with D-wave computing for now. And this is a great alarm to say that quantum computing is coming, and we need to be ready for. What is the purpose here? I’m not here to speak about the technology behind quantum computing, because it’s not my field. I have experts that are doing that in Vernoil. And we are working on different activities related to that. And even with the cryptography, and we are researching on the different possibilities on the transition for cryptography, that it is resilient against the risk of quantum computing, which will happen in the future. But what is important today, how to be ready and the governance. Actually, when we talk about governance, and I will take you a little bit back to my expertise, which is related to space law. And my thesis was about the problems is related to international law gaps pertaining space or new space activities. And the problem in that we find out that the current legal systems or the current international law is not appropriately prepared for new space activities and the entrance of commercial space actors into that. And we have big problems with sustainability, we have big problems with environmental issues, and my drive with how can we find a legal system or actually a governance format or system that can regroup all this in one single way or model that can govern disruptions and can govern disruptive technologies. So if we go to the next slide, please. So the thing is like the foundations that we have today, the foundation of our cryptographic systems of internet, the internet of trust that we want to have, and the risk that is going to be coming into the future. So we find that the cryptography with the blockchain is based on SHA-256 for mining, and that is supposed to have a risk with cryptographically. relevant quantum computing which is in the future to be with a timeline of we say 2030-2035 but that it is disrupted will be disrupted by quantum computing and the impact will be huge. Can you imagine that if they say it will be or they predicted it will be around 1 trillion of losses yearly because of probably financial and institutions they will not be ready for this kind of or this disruption that it is in the future. So how can we do this? We’re not going to sit down and say well it’s not going to come soon because actually the migration and working into migrating as per NIST to the quantum relevant cryptography and and it’s it’s it’s not it will not be done overnight. It will need time to do that and actually we have the timelines and we need to follow what’s happening and what is what experts are saying in terms of the migration and all the stock intake of what is in our system in terms of cryptography. So if we go to the next step please. So actually what what is the main point here? We try or we want not try because we will do it and this is a resting on all of us. We will build an internet of trust based on safeguard protect blockchain with quantum resilient systems and the second one is how we can do it because it needs collaboration and the collaboration will be fostering global partnerships for shared innovation. Then how can we adapt? So we need to evolve governance framework for emergent challenges and and this needs education because it’s one of the layering basis in all what we are doing is education and education. It’s involved formal and formal education, awareness of the public, and also formal education and training to this experts who are in into different or coming from different backgrounds. So next one, please. So the quantum governance model, and this is like, like I said, based on my thesis, it was social legal analysis of the existing way how we govern space activities, then being involved in different policymaking with governments and other strategy with with different other governments. And this, I seen that we have our way of making our governance, it’s always static. And it’s, it’s, it’s reactive, it’s not going and taken further in order to make a model, which is proactive. And it’s, it’s, it’s making a preparation for the disruption that is happening. So we have different policy makers, and they are working on AI, we have different policy makers, they are trying to work on on quantum, because it’s a new field. Relatively, you have we have others, they are working on blockchain systems, and so forth. And the idea is, how can we have a governance, a governance model, that it is applicable on all this and use disruptions, because we call these disruptive technologies to use these disruptions to disrupt? How can we do that? And because actually, it’s not easy also to come and say, well, we have a different governance model that it is relaying upon technology itself. So the the quantum governance model, it’s, it’s feasible and actionable framework, it is it is resting on adaptability. So we adapt and we don’t react. And we saw that based on the way how COVID-19 was happening. And we were on on on a shock mode, and we did not know how to utilize the resources that we have very fast in order to be prepared. And the preparation, we saw it. It was relatively good in certain countries. In others, they’re not. So the other point is scalability. So it needs to be scalable. And we need to add different solutions based on different technologies. And we will speak about the technologies in a minute. So also, it is based on ethics at scale. Now we put the ethics at the end. We work on the technology, then the ethic comes later. And ethicists, they come to say that here are, there is red lines and things like that. So this one is ethics is at scale, and I will tell you how. And what is very, very important is what are the technologies, and this model will be done. Can I have the next slide, please? Thank you. So using disruption to govern disruption. It’s that way. And that’s why I told Sari yesterday, I love disruption. Because actually, I find a way in it. So turning disruption into opportunity. And this is how we use disruptive technologies in order to find a solution. So I found that AI can be used for foresight. And it is done, but it’s in silo. Always it’s done in different mode. So predict risks and evaluate governance outcome. And quantum simulations is used to test policies under complex scenario. The other one is blockchain transparency to ensure accountability and collaborative governance. The other one is safe quantum solutions. Of course, it’s like moving into secure systems against quantum threats. And global collaboration platforms. Unite stakeholders for proactive solutions. And we talk about… We talk about… Hello. Yes, and we talk about coalitions. So this is what it is done for. So next slide, please. And the framework in action, how can we do it? Actually, some, she’s crazy, probably. She’s coming with something. Always I come with something new and crazy. I’ve been driving with my entities, the quantum revolution in the region since 2020. And when I brought quantum into the region, they say, she’s crazy. This will never work. There’s no quantum computing relevant. Today, we see nations, how they are moving very, very fast in order who has the supremacy to harness the quantum technologies for their nations because it became a national security prerogative. So how to make this governance model operational? Operational. It’s using governance sandbox, dynamic regulations frameworks based on what I was presenting earlier. Collaborative decision-making platforms and ethical oversight system. And this one is using AI. And I spoke with Dr. Adel earlier and he told me, actually, they work on something like that. So actually, when we look at different entities, they have these in silos. And the point is how to bring these together in one platform. And the other one is empowering stakeholders to lead the future because empowerment is education. It’s also preparing the future generation and digital twin models. So I think I finish. So to finish this one, just to present what we are doing, like I said, been driving the quantum revolution in the area. So from making or creating different opportunities and having the first quantum lab for education in the region, which was at Abu Dhabi University. and we opened that quantum lab. The other one is working on a consortium, which is bringing the main companies worldwide to work on the quantum adoption program, our initiative, and this one we launched challenges in order to create different solution to problems that we have worldwide, not only in the region. And we have also launched the Quantum Innovation Summit, which is not an event, it is a platform that creates partnerships and brought the different stakeholders worldwide. And the next one will be working on policymaking also or proposing policies. Thank you so much.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Thank you so much, Heather. Thank you for this really opening eye presentation. I wish your frame of work governance is going to see the light in a higher levels. It’s really promising. And for the audience, if you have any questions, it will be at the end of the session. Now we go next to Priya. Heather, Heather, you have the mic now, if you would like to share the presentation with us.

Heather Lee Flannery: Thank you very much for the introduction. I am not using slides today.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Okay, so Priya, you have the slides for?

Priya Guliani: So yes, yeah, I’ll put them up. Just a second.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Okay. Heather, you would like also to introduce like two minutes of, yeah, the presentation, but Priya have the presentation. Okay. You can go ahead. So Heather, are you going first?

Priya Guliani: Yeah, Heather will go first.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Heather will go first, okay.

Heather Lee Flannery: Okay, so then we can unshare that slide. Thank you, Priya. I am so honored to speak with you today about the subject of healthcare and life sciences and the implications of blockchain and decentralized AI in this field. What I would like to ask you to do or challenge you to do first is to question your predefined notions of the art of the possible. Imagine a world where every individual person on earth was able to engage in an active and dynamic precision health, digital first healthcare and life sciences infrastructure. Imagine if that capability were able to be brought equitably to all people in the world and to be able to be sustainably financed and to operate in an environmentally sustainable manner with transparency, accountability, fairness, safety, and privacy preservation as key principles for those capabilities for all people in the world. That is the reality that is now no longer science fiction, but available to us as humanity if we are able to coordinate our actions effectively. The Sustainable Development Goals 17 dealing with partnerships for the achievement of all of the other goals is the heart of what we can accomplish together by organizing and delivering assurance and trust to incorporate blockchain infrastructures, blockchain applications, and the principles of what is referred to as Web3 that empower the sovereignty, agency, dignity, and privacy of all people. The ability to organize public-private partnerships, which are the part of SDG 17 is the single largest breakthrough that could have an exponential force multiplying effect across all global efforts for SDGs 1 through 16. There have been significant pieces of progress on SDG 17. We have seen improved allocation of capital into emerging economies. We have seen advancements in private sector participation, including in global health scenarios. But we have had major blockers to the actual affecting of operational public-private partnerships. What we have managed to do so far is to improve the execution and build capacity for individual siloed attempts, each with their own capital flows, their own allocation of resources. We have the opportunity to move those individual siloed activities occurring in jurisdictions all around the world and introduce the creation of timelines while improving data integrity and scientific integrity through the incorporation of blockchain and web3 technologies and the exponential technologies with which it is converging, including ethical and responsible decentralized AI and the use of extensive and advanced privacy enhancing technologies to protect the agency and dignity of all people. We believe, and I believe in my work, that blockchain technologies must be the foundation of the envisioned public-private partnerships to move those to collective action that can span multiple jurisdictions with jurisdiction-specific compliance and cultural sensitivity. We have major opportunities that are enabled by blockchain, such as the advancement of precision health, including precision population health, using digital twins, the combination of personal AI agents that can be trustworthy and incorporate proof of humanity, all the way to the ability to identify, verify, and authenticate every single data-driven transaction that happens in a massively n-dimensional, multifactorial, multi-party computing environment. Until we are able to collaboratively compute across the many sectors and stakeholders involved in fulfilling public-private partnerships for global health and social services and health equity aims, we will not be able to have capital-efficient, transparent, and globally scalable outcomes. We have the radical potential to decentralize clinical research, driving diversity and inclusion in research subjects, the field of decentralized science, meeting decentralized finance, meeting decentralized physical infrastructure, and those, that capabilities stack being brought into public and private partnerships is extremely powerful. And then the capability to network access to public health, protected health information, including very, very sensitive information, such as genomic data, biometric data, in a way that does not require that data to be moved, exposed, centralized, taken out of the boundary from within which it was organized. This means that in these new infrastructures, we can have completely cryptographic. verifiable, real-world, real-time evidence so that humanity can address our emergencies, our inequities, and realize our vision of faster miracles for all people who are currently suffering from many, many diseases and many profound health disparities. The Government Blockchain Association and the Blockchain Assurance and Standardization Dynamic Coalition’s blockchain maturity model is absolutely fundamental to realizing this vision. While the adoption of blockchain and Web3 technologies, primitives, ethics is necessary, it is not sufficient. Simply utilizing those technologies generally, absent any system that the world can trust about the degree of trustworthiness, legitimacy, technological and operational and governance fairness is a non-starter. So, our work in this dynamic coalition is to not only drive to practical real-world adoption, but to do so within systems of assurance, trust, and standardization that can annul an exponential scaling effect to occur, not at the end of our lifetimes or in generations to follow, but in the next five years. The, we have a remarkable opportunity here to move from processes of stakeholder engagement and consensus building, which is very important, into the resource allocation of large-scale transnational public-private partnerships that will execute pilot programs. An important element of this is not simply to operationalize the use of these technologies, it is also critical to select those technologies. technologies that have been through the blockchain maturity model assessment process, and that will enable all of us to fund parallel, rigorous scientific research, not only technical validation, but clinical validation is absolutely necessary that we can demonstrate the population health and health equity and other endpoints that are so vital to the future of humanity. Those that scientific research needs to have an assertive and continuous publication of peer reviewed evidence. And we have a tremendous opportunity to move from to move from, let’s say an advocacy basis for the adoption of technology to instead a translational mindset for evidence based policy and evidence based scaling of solutions. Together working in this dynamic coalition, we can form the capital structure, the transparent governance processes to bring SDG 17 to a full state of revitalization and a realization of the true intent of active collaboration using collaborative governance technology that can only be brought about. So with that, I thank you very much and thank you to consider supporting moving to production and funding the research necessary to do this in an evidence based way. Thank you.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Thank you. Amazing, amazing insights from Heather from the United States, really a very good points that lighting our day. Before going to Priya, I would like to go to Adil for his presentation as the order. So if you would like, please control to have the presentation back for Dr. Adil.

Dr. Adel El-Mesiri: Yes, thank you very much. get the clicker and one advantage of Speaking a lot is knowing how to condense your talk. So I’m gonna try to do it in less than 10 minutes So that to wake you up So I am also not only a member of the GBE but I’m also board member in the Nashville Entrepreneur Center 14,000 entrepreneurs 400 million in revenue that went through and And one thing that I learned out of those is the creating the community the value of creating a vibrant community That allows you to work together. So today I’m going to present to you a framework that allows us not only to Help usher a new age in AI But also how do we could the need govern and work through it in a manner that is actual set and actual Applicable systems, so If you can how do you go back How’d you go back Okay, perfect so You have to ask yourself with every new technology Yeah, I am with every new technology. You have to ask yourself How With every new technology you have to ask yourself, where is the value I have been Talking at the World Economic Forum in the West for years and with every new technology, you always get this wave of People hyping it and then getting to rename it An anecdote of that is that there is a company change their name from the tea company in the tea blockchain company and their stock Tripled. So how do we combat that in? AI as it’s starting to grow. That’s what gave a rise to the artificial intelligence value protocol So So today, in recent years, you have all been familiar with the rise of AI and how it is prevalent through our everyday life. And me, as being a PhD in AI, I can’t be more ecstatic to see all of this event happening here. And His Excellency, the Minister of Education, dedicated his entire presentation in the opening to AI and how we bring AI. Worldwide, there are today 70,000 companies that actually are incorporated to work on AI. If you think that’s a lot, just wait a few more years. This will be 700,000 companies working on it. Estimates of the impact of AI on the global GDP is somewhere between $15 and $20 trillion of new added value to the international GDP. But this does not come without its own problems. So there are a lot of things that we need to take care of, things like ethical use of AI. How do we avoid biases that happen in AI? Because AI is created by data. Data shapes how the AI thinks. So if we have our own biases within the data that we feed AI, the AI will have the same biases in those. Things like the fraudulent practices, companies claiming that they have a new AI, but they are basically creating a wrapper around Chad GPT and such, so you don’t know how it is fitting to your actual need. And where is the incentivization for all of them to work together? So that’s one important piece that the AI value protocol is trying to address. And taking a page from the GBA BMM model, the AIVP is basically designed so that it can perform two major tasks. One is technical verification and financial certification, each one of them with three levels. And all of that stuff is backed to a blockchain network, allowing the immutability of the transactions that happen there, meaning that if you are an AI project and you register on the platform, now we can track all your value that you provide, as well as verify your systems, both financially and technically. And once that all is set up on an immutable blockchain, we’ll be able of creating a value-based AI marketplace, meaning a marketplace that allows you to discover AI, invest in AI, work in an AI, engage in AI, all governed by the use of a blockchain. So how is that possible? Well, it’s possible by creating a tokenomics underneath it. What does that have to do with it? It’s just like what His Excellency mentioned about signal-to-noise ratio. So we put a certain barrier to remove the noise in the market. AI projects claim that they have delivered value. We ask them to provide that value and pay a fee for that. And that’s then used to power the tokenomics underneath the protocol itself. And then, on top of that, we have created something called proof-of-stake verifiers that has not one, but three published academically peer-reviewed papers on it, which basically, in a nutshell, ensures that there are validators that validate the AI project, not based on the project’s data by itself, but also pair the client’s data. So if you are a client looking to use an AI, you can provide your data set to the verifiers. We have a consensus mechanism, so at least three or more have to pick it up. And then they test it, they write a report on it, and get in consensus. What’s in it for the verifiers? Well, that verification request is usually associated with. a monetary reward so they do the work in order for them to receive the rewards for the verification but at the back end you as the user will be able of getting an unbiased independent report of the AI before you actually use it which is a critical part of what we are trying to create here. So and we have also added into the system the ability for it to have arbitration requests meaning if you think your work is right but others colluded together you can file for an AR in the system to allow it to be re-examined. So in all of that what I am trying to say here is that we are stepping into a new brave world that will have not tens of different AIs but hundreds of thousands of different AIs. We are getting into a world that will utilize asianic swarms which is little agents that work on different smaller systems like phones and laptops and so forth that are trying to work together and it is quintessential that we would create a framework that allows us to be able of discovering those creating an immutable record for them and help them to work together so that we can promote the good ethical use of AI versus unethical use of AI or having it rampant as the wild wild west. So with that I’d like to thank you for listening to me and note on the record that I only took eight minutes in my presentation.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Thank you so much Dr. Adel. Yeah with that this is very informative Dr. Adel. Thank you so much. We have the questions for you afterward. Now I will go to Priya. Sorry Priya we’ll go back to you finally. So Priya if you would like to share your screen and before Priya please let me let me just introduce Dr. Anne. Dr. Anne I don’t have words to talk about you. If you would like just to jump in and introduce yourself for us. If you can hear us Dr. Anne. She’s not in the zoom. Okay not in the zoom call now. Priya you go ahead.

Priya Guliani: Perfect, can you hear me?

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Yes.

Priya Guliani: Hello, everyone, once again, it’s an absolute honor to speak at the IGF today on such a critical and timely theme, the internet we want and can trust. And I’m going to talk about the role of identity in it. Identity is central to trust, but trust is the cornerstone of the internet we envision for the future, yet we find ourselves in an age of rising data breaches, identity theft and privacy concern that erode this trust. The question before us is not just how to rebuild this trust, but how to empower each individual and organization to sustain it. And I believe the answer lies in identity, but not as we know it today. So the role of identity in a trust for the internet is really fundamental to almost every interaction online, whether we are accessing a service, making a transaction or even expressing an opinion, our identities form the bridge of trust between us and the digital world. However, the current centralized models of identity management have left us vulnerable. Our personal data is scattered across platforms often without our knowledge or even control, leading to exploitation, breaches and mistrust. Compounding all of these vulnerabilities, emerging technologies like AI and the looming challenge of quantum computing threaten to reshape the landscape of identity risk. Malak already talked about Willow and AI driven cyber attacks are becoming more sophisticated, integrating centralized databases with precision and exploiting gaps in security to commit large scale identity frauds. Meanwhile, quantum computing could render current encryption methods obsolete, exposing identity systems to unprecedented vulnerability. And to address all of these challenges, the Internet, we must build on the system designed to withstand these future threats. Systems where identity is decentralized, encrypted, safeguarded against both today’s as well as tomorrow’s adversaries. So when we look at it, decentralized identity would become the foundation of such a system combining user empowerment with cutting edge technology like blockchain to create trust in a rapidly evolving digital world. And with that, we’re going to explore decentralized identity a little bit more in detail. I call it the future of trust. Decentralized identity, the future of trust. It reimagines the way we own, control, and share our data. Built on decentralized technologies, it places individuals at the center, allowing them to own their identity, control access to their data, and decide when, how, and with whom we want to share that data. It eliminates reliance on intermediaries, enhancing security, privacy, and user agency. Decentralized identity represents a paradigm shift in the realization of digital human rights as well. If you think about it, by putting individuals at the center of their identity journey, it empowers them to reclaim control over their personal data, ensuring it is used only with their informed consent. This is particularly transformative for historically marginalized groups. So if we think about it, decentralized identity could be particularly transformative for historically marginalized groups, such as unbanked populations, refugees, and those underserved communities, as it provides them with digital tools to participate in the global economy and access the essential services that we all need. Also, the decentralized model directly addresses the challenges posed by emerging threats like AI and quantum computing. The decentralized identity system leverages advanced cryptography and privacy-preserving techniques to ensure that identity data remains secure and inaccessible to unauthorized entities, even in the face of AI-powered attacks. Now if we think about it, with the integration of quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms, decentralized solutions could be built to withstand the quantum computing era, ensuring long-term protection. And all we are looking at is how do we move beyond the vulnerabilities of centralized systems, build a framework where trust is distributed, privacy is protected, and individuals regain control. So if we summarize, this isn’t just a technological leap, it’s a foundational shift and internet that we can trust, which is resilient, again, present, as well as future threats. If I can talk about Earth IDEA a little bit now, we’ve taken this vision a step further. We are proud to be the first and the only decentralized identity or an identity company which has been assessed by blockchain maturity model.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Okay, Bria, if you can hear me, we have only five minutes remaining of this session through all the audience, but I would like to thank you so much for your presentation. It was really impressive. And as you say, blockchain is an infrastructure technology, and we need a lot of regulation to do this, such kind of identity, decentralized identity management. With that, I would like to go to Mai. This is our last presentation, just five minutes. Mai, go ahead, please, if you please can share your presentation. Thank you so much, Bria.

Audience: Hi, everyone. Sorry, the session is running late. I want to talk to you today about how blockchain and emerging technologies can really transform the landscape of global wellness. We tried to go really fast. So I’ll talk about that through our Innovation Network Canada flagship initiative that we call Healthcare Without Borders, or Innovation Without Borders, through Innovation Without Borders. We’re just very quickly about the organization. We’re all about taking a holistic approach, taking a holistic approach to innovation and solving. We’re focused on solving pressing global challenges using holistic innovation right now and with measurable impact using responsible and ethical solutions, interdisciplinary solutions. So a little bit about healthcare right now. It’s quite concerning. These are just some of the stats that tell you a little bit about the current state of healthcare on a global level. The demand for healthcare is skyrocketing. Supply is not catching up to this. Meanwhile, we have lives that are lost and costs skyrocketing. Some stats, half the global deaths are preventable, according to WHO. And 50% of the population do not have access to healthcare. 100 million people every single year are pushed to extreme poverty because of healthcare costs. And finally, inefficiencies in healthcare just in the U.S. cost a trillion dollars every single year. So we’re focused on exactly addressing these challenges using transformative tech. such as blockchain, AI, and quantum computing. These are our projects within the initiative are focused on prevention, personalization, inclusivity, and efficiency. Very quickly, these are the top five projects that we’re working on right now. Blockchain is an essential part of these projects. One of them is providing primary care everywhere in the world, leaving no one behind using economic and effective seamless solutions. Virtual hospital beds, since this is a global problem, a lot of hospitals are running out of beds. Project number three is focused on using quantum-inspired algorithms along with smart textiles to address the global crisis and heart disease. So how can we prevent heart disease, which contributes to 30% of the global deaths every single year, and heart disease is mostly preventable. Number four is developing, using quantum biology, diabetes treatments for, and in this project, we’re working with one of the First Nations in British Columbia, Canada, who, this is an indigenous community. People there do not make it past the age of 60 years old because of diabetes, and we’re not able to address this issue at this point for some reason. So we’re developing, in partnership with the Quantum Biology Institute, therapeutic for diabetes, and blockchain, again, here is an essential part because indigenous communities in Canada have, they’re very particular with data privacy as their data previously gotten misused. Finally, we’re developing a personalized health information system, and I’m gonna talk about it a little bit more. So, call it HealthONE. So this is an AI-based system and blockchain-enabled system. personalized health information system that has a few aspects. One of them is operationally eliminates wasted resources and so on, clinical decision support to empower both patients and consumers with their health. And sorry, some of the slides are not coming properly here. Telehealth and IoT and wearables. And you can see from how these technologies, how much the potential for saving here. So AI and quantum tools that we have, they have the potential to save $1.5 trillion plus millions of lives every year. Blockchain can allow us to aggregate data in one spot, give people data, power over ownership for their data, and the ability to decide who can use the data and so on. Saving billions, and it will allow us to save billions in data breaches and interoperability. Telehealth will allow us to save, handle 71% of hospital visits, doctor visits, saving $200 billion. IoT and wearables actually will have the potential of saving $2.1 trillion for remote monitoring. So I just wanna give you a very quickly here an example, just a use case study of, imagine this, somebody lives in a remote community, they’re wearing smart clothing. When I say smart clothing, it’s simply a shirt or undershirt or chest band and anomalies get detected without them even knowing. So by the way, about half the population, they get cardiac events without even knowing. Some of them become serious, some don’t. So your phone will detect anomalies. Then some questions will pop up on your phone, ask you, provide a diagnosis based on what you’re saying and the biometrics that are being sent, a report, go to your doctor, you get seen using telehealth and so on.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: This is what it is, May.

Audience: All right.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Thank you, everyone. Thank you. If you want to get involved in anything, please send me an email. Thank you so much, May. You’re already on time, but the organizers asked us to finish. Do you have any time for questions or no? No questions for the audience? Nothing? That’s it. All right. Thank you so much for being with us. Thank you, the guys online, Gerard and the team. We appreciate this opportunity to be speaking with you on the IJF. If you have any questions, we’ll take it offline. Thank you.

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb

Speech speed

133 words per minute

Speech length

1957 words

Speech time

877 seconds

Quantum computing poses potential threat to blockchain cryptography

Explanation

Quantum computing is seen as a future threat to current blockchain cryptography systems. This could potentially disrupt the security of blockchain networks and lead to significant financial losses.

Evidence

Predicted timeline of 2030-2035 for cryptographically relevant quantum computing. Estimated potential losses of 1 trillion dollars yearly due to financial institutions not being prepared.

Major Discussion Point

Blockchain and Quantum Computing

Need for quantum-resilient cryptography and governance frameworks

Explanation

There is a pressing need to develop cryptography that can withstand quantum computing threats. Additionally, new governance frameworks are required to address the challenges posed by emerging technologies.

Evidence

Mention of NIST guidelines for migration to quantum-relevant cryptography. Reference to the speaker’s thesis on space law and governance gaps for new technologies.

Major Discussion Point

Blockchain and Quantum Computing

Differed with

Priya Guliani

Differed on

Approach to addressing quantum computing threats

Quantum governance model using AI, blockchain, and quantum simulations

Explanation

A proposed governance model that incorporates AI, blockchain, and quantum simulations to address emerging technological challenges. This model aims to be proactive and adaptable to disruptive technologies.

Evidence

Description of the quantum governance model components: AI for foresight, quantum simulations for policy testing, blockchain for transparency, and global collaboration platforms.

Major Discussion Point

Blockchain and Quantum Computing

Heather Leigh Flannery

Speech speed

115 words per minute

Speech length

1235 words

Speech time

644 seconds

Blockchain enables decentralized clinical research and health data sharing

Explanation

Blockchain technology can facilitate decentralized clinical research and secure sharing of health data. This can lead to more diverse research subjects and improved collaboration in healthcare.

Evidence

Mention of decentralized science meeting decentralized finance and physical infrastructure in healthcare.

Major Discussion Point

Blockchain in Healthcare

Agreed with

Audience

Dr. Adel Elmessiry

Agreed on

Blockchain technology has transformative potential in healthcare

Blockchain maturity model essential for trustworthy adoption

Explanation

The blockchain maturity model is crucial for ensuring the trustworthy adoption of blockchain technologies. It provides a system for assessing the legitimacy and fairness of blockchain projects.

Evidence

Reference to the Government Blockchain Association and the Blockchain Assurance and Standardization Dynamic Coalition’s blockchain maturity model.

Major Discussion Point

Blockchain Standardization and Governance

Agreed with

Dino Cataldo DellAccio

Agreed on

Need for standardization and governance in blockchain adoption

Audience

Speech speed

126 words per minute

Speech length

830 words

Speech time

393 seconds

AI and blockchain can transform global wellness and healthcare delivery

Explanation

The integration of AI and blockchain technologies has the potential to revolutionize global wellness and healthcare delivery. These technologies can address current challenges in healthcare access and efficiency.

Evidence

Statistics on global healthcare challenges, such as preventable deaths and lack of access to healthcare for 50% of the population.

Major Discussion Point

Blockchain in Healthcare

Agreed with

Heather Leigh Flannery

Dr. Adel Elmessiry

Agreed on

Blockchain technology has transformative potential in healthcare

Blockchain-enabled personalized health information systems

Explanation

Blockchain technology can enable the development of personalized health information systems. These systems can improve clinical decision support and empower patients with control over their health data.

Evidence

Description of the HealthONE system, which combines AI and blockchain for personalized health information management.

Major Discussion Point

Blockchain in Healthcare

Dr. Adel Elmessiry

Speech speed

152 words per minute

Speech length

1372 words

Speech time

540 seconds

AI value protocol for verifying and incentivizing AI projects in healthcare

Explanation

The AI value protocol is designed to verify and incentivize AI projects in healthcare. It uses blockchain to create a transparent and immutable record of AI project performance and value.

Evidence

Description of the AI value protocol’s technical verification and financial certification processes, backed by blockchain technology.

Major Discussion Point

Blockchain in Healthcare

Agreed with

Heather Leigh Flannery

Audience

Agreed on

Blockchain technology has transformative potential in healthcare

Priya Guliani

Speech speed

133 words per minute

Speech length

801 words

Speech time

361 seconds

Decentralized identity as foundation for internet trust

Explanation

Decentralized identity is proposed as a fundamental element for building trust on the internet. It allows individuals to own and control their personal data, enhancing privacy and security.

Evidence

Discussion of current centralized identity management vulnerabilities and the potential of decentralized identity to address these issues.

Major Discussion Point

Decentralized Identity

Blockchain-based identity systems enhance security and privacy

Explanation

Identity systems built on blockchain technology can significantly improve security and privacy. These systems use advanced cryptography and privacy-preserving techniques to protect identity data.

Evidence

Mention of decentralized identity systems’ resilience against AI-powered attacks and potential to withstand quantum computing threats.

Major Discussion Point

Decentralized Identity

Differed with

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb

Differed on

Approach to addressing quantum computing threats

Decentralized identity empowers marginalized groups

Explanation

Decentralized identity systems have the potential to empower historically marginalized groups. By providing digital tools for identity management, these systems can improve access to essential services and economic opportunities.

Evidence

Examples of how decentralized identity could benefit unbanked populations, refugees, and underserved communities.

Major Discussion Point

Decentralized Identity

Dino Cataldo DellAccio

Speech speed

141 words per minute

Speech length

654 words

Speech time

276 seconds

Dynamic coalition on blockchain assurance and standardization

Explanation

The speaker introduces a dynamic coalition focused on blockchain assurance and standardization. This coalition aims to ensure the trustworthiness and standardization of blockchain projects.

Major Discussion Point

Blockchain Standardization and Governance

Agreed with

Heather Leigh Flannery

Agreed on

Need for standardization and governance in blockchain adoption

Need for regulation in decentralized identity management

Explanation

The speaker emphasizes the importance of regulation in the field of decentralized identity management. This suggests that while blockchain offers technological solutions, proper regulatory frameworks are necessary for widespread adoption.

Major Discussion Point

Decentralized Identity

Sari Qasim

Speech speed

148 words per minute

Speech length

255 words

Speech time

103 seconds

Blockchain is not just cryptocurrency

Explanation

The speaker emphasizes that blockchain technology is not limited to cryptocurrencies. This distinction is important for understanding the broader applications and potential of blockchain technology.

Major Discussion Point

Blockchain Standardization and Governance

Agreements

Agreement Points

Blockchain technology has transformative potential in healthcare

Heather Leigh Flannery

Audience

Dr. Adel Elmessiry

Blockchain enables decentralized clinical research and health data sharing

AI and blockchain can transform global wellness and healthcare delivery

AI value protocol for verifying and incentivizing AI projects in healthcare

Multiple speakers emphasized the potential of blockchain to revolutionize healthcare through improved data sharing, research, and AI integration.

Need for standardization and governance in blockchain adoption

Heather Leigh Flannery

Dino Cataldo DellAccio

Blockchain maturity model essential for trustworthy adoption

Dynamic coalition on blockchain assurance and standardization

Speakers agreed on the importance of standardization and governance frameworks for ensuring trustworthy adoption of blockchain technologies.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the need for advanced cryptography and governance frameworks to address future security challenges, including quantum computing threats.

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb

Priya Guliani

Need for quantum-resilient cryptography and governance frameworks

Blockchain-based identity systems enhance security and privacy

Unexpected Consensus

Blockchain’s potential to empower marginalized groups

Priya Guliani

Heather Leigh Flannery

Decentralized identity empowers marginalized groups

Blockchain enables decentralized clinical research and health data sharing

While focusing on different aspects (identity and healthcare), both speakers highlighted blockchain’s potential to empower underserved populations, showing an unexpected consensus on the technology’s social impact.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included blockchain’s transformative potential in healthcare, the need for standardization and governance in blockchain adoption, and the importance of addressing future security challenges.

Consensus level

Moderate consensus was observed among speakers, particularly on the potential benefits of blockchain technology in various sectors. This level of agreement suggests a growing recognition of blockchain’s importance across different fields, which could accelerate its development and adoption. However, the diversity of specific use cases and approaches discussed indicates that the field is still evolving, with room for multiple perspectives and solutions.

Differences

Different Viewpoints

Approach to addressing quantum computing threats

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb

Priya Guliani

Need for quantum-resilient cryptography and governance frameworks

Blockchain-based identity systems enhance security and privacy

While both speakers acknowledge the threat of quantum computing, Malak emphasizes the need for new cryptography and governance frameworks, while Priya focuses on blockchain-based identity systems as a solution.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific applications and priorities of blockchain technology in various sectors, particularly in addressing quantum computing threats and healthcare innovations.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is relatively low. Most speakers present complementary rather than conflicting views, focusing on different aspects of blockchain applications. This suggests a multifaceted approach to blockchain implementation across various sectors, which could lead to more comprehensive solutions but may also require careful integration of different perspectives in policy-making and standardization efforts.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the potential of blockchain in healthcare, but Heather focuses on decentralized research and data sharing, while Adel emphasizes AI project verification and incentivization.

Heather Leigh Flannery

Dr. Adel Elmessiry

Blockchain enables decentralized clinical research and health data sharing

AI value protocol for verifying and incentivizing AI projects in healthcare

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the need for advanced cryptography and governance frameworks to address future security challenges, including quantum computing threats.

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb

Priya Guliani

Need for quantum-resilient cryptography and governance frameworks

Blockchain-based identity systems enhance security and privacy

Takeaways

Key Takeaways

Blockchain technology is seen as foundational for building trust in various domains including healthcare, identity management, and AI governance

Quantum computing poses potential threats to current blockchain cryptography, necessitating quantum-resilient solutions

Decentralized identity systems powered by blockchain can enhance security, privacy and empower marginalized groups

Blockchain and AI have significant potential to transform healthcare delivery and improve global wellness

Standardization and governance frameworks are crucial for responsible adoption of blockchain and emerging technologies

Resolutions and Action Items

Develop and implement a quantum governance model using AI, blockchain and quantum simulations

Utilize the blockchain maturity model for assessing trustworthiness of blockchain projects

Create a value-based AI marketplace governed by blockchain for verifying and incentivizing AI projects

Implement decentralized identity solutions to enhance trust in digital interactions

Unresolved Issues

Specific regulatory frameworks needed for decentralized identity management

Detailed implementation plans for the proposed quantum governance model

Concrete steps for global adoption of blockchain-based healthcare solutions

Addressing potential ethical concerns in AI and blockchain convergence

Suggested Compromises

impact

It elevated the conversation to consider the broader societal implications of blockchain technology, particularly for marginalized groups.

Overall Assessment

explanation

This research is important for developing innovative solutions to improve global health outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.

NRI Main Session: Evolving Role of NRIs in Multistakeholder Digital Governance

Session at a Glance

Summary

This discussion focused on the role and impact of National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) in shaping internet governance and the multi-stakeholder model. Panelists from various regions shared their experiences and challenges in implementing NRIs. Key themes included the importance of capacity building, inclusivity, and addressing region-specific issues.

Speakers highlighted the diversity of NRIs across regions, from the MENA region’s focus on basic infrastructure to Europe’s emphasis on consensus-building. The African continent was noted for its vibrant youth engagement and capacity-building efforts. The Asia-Pacific region stressed the need for inclusivity and representation of diverse stakeholders.

Challenges discussed included financial sustainability, government engagement, and adapting to local contexts. The importance of multilingualism and addressing the needs of small island developing states was emphasized. Participants also noted the role of NRIs in informing national policies and contributing to global discussions.

The discussion touched on the upcoming WSIS+20 review and the Global Digital Compact, with many emphasizing the need to strengthen the multi-stakeholder model and secure a longer-term mandate for the IGF. Speakers stressed the importance of NRIs in localizing global principles and providing grassroots input to international processes.

Overall, the session underscored the critical role of NRIs in fostering inclusive dialogue, building capacity, and addressing local and regional internet governance challenges while contributing to the global internet governance ecosystem.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of national and regional Internet Governance Forum (IGF) initiatives in bringing local issues and perspectives to the global level

– Challenges faced by IGF initiatives, including funding, sustainability, and engaging all stakeholders (especially governments)

– The role of IGFs in capacity building, especially for youth and underrepresented groups

– How IGFs can contribute to the Global Digital Compact and WSIS+20 review process

– The need to strengthen and evolve the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance

The overall purpose of this discussion was to highlight the crucial role that national, regional and youth IGF initiatives play in the Internet governance ecosystem. It aimed to showcase the diversity of these initiatives around the world and how they contribute to shaping Internet policy discussions at all levels.

The tone of the discussion was largely positive and collaborative, with participants enthusiastically sharing their experiences and achievements. There was also a sense of urgency in addressing challenges and strengthening the IGF model for the future. The tone became more forward-looking towards the end, with calls to action for the upcoming WSIS+20 review process.

Speakers

– Jennifer Chung: Secretary of the Forum of Asia and Africa, Moderator

– Chafic Chaya: Chair of the Lebanon IGF, part of Arab IGF

– Giacomo Mazzone: Part of European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG) and Italian IGF, Secretary General of Eurovision

– Lillian Nalwoga: From the African IGF

– Amrita Choudhury: Part of India IGF, Chair of APR IGF Multistakeholder Steering Group

– Charles Noir: From CIRA and part of Canada IGF

– Lilian Chamorro Rojas: From IGF (region not specified)

– Pedro Lana: Online moderator

Additional speakers:

– Bertrand de La Chapelle: Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network, Co-initiator of EuroDIG and French IGF

– Phyo Thiri L.: Co-coordinator of YIGF Myanmar and South Asia YIGF

– Andrew Molivurae: Representing regulators office in Vanuatu, Chair of Pacific IGF

– Jasmine Ko: From Hong Kong YIGF

– Nigel Hickson: Member of the UK IGF

– Ahmed Farag: Chair of the North African IGF

– Mery Henrica: IGF fellow from Timor-Leste

– Nazar Nicholas Kirama: From Tanzania IGF

– Sumeet Bhoite: Online participant

– Annalise Williams: 2024 Chair of the Australian Internet Governance Forum

Full session report

Revised Summary of National and Regional Internet Governance Forum (NRIs) Initiatives Discussion

Evolution of Internet Governance and Multi-stakeholder Model

The discussion highlighted the transformation of internet governance towards a multi-stakeholder model across various regions. Chafic Chaya noted this shift in the MENA region, while Giacomo Mazzone emphasized European institutions’ promotion of consensus-building and multi-stakeholder approaches. Lillian Nalwoga highlighted capacity building initiatives driving multi-stakeholder engagement in Africa. Amrita Choudhury stressed the need for diverse stakeholder inclusion in the Asia-Pacific region, given its vast diversity. Charles Noir underscored the model’s crucial role in the internet’s technical operation, while Lilian Chamorro Rojas emphasized local and regional IGFs’ contributions to global internet governance.

Challenges and Opportunities for NRIs

Several challenges and opportunities for NRIs were identified:

1. Financial Sustainability: Ahmed Farag highlighted significant financial obstacles in sustaining NRI operations.

2. Stakeholder Engagement: Jasmine Ko reported difficulties in engaging government stakeholders, contrasting with Charles Noir’s perspective on NRIs’ value in informing national policymaking.

3. Regional Specific Challenges: Andrew Molivurae emphasized the need for disaster response policy frameworks, while the Phyo Thiri L. noted challenges in fostering youth collaboration across South Asia.

4. Outcome Tracking: Lillian Nalwoga stressed the importance of tracking outcomes from NRI meetings to demonstrate their impact.

5. Multilingualism: Amrita Choudhury highlighted the challenge of addressing multiple languages in internet governance discussions.

Regional Perspectives

The discussion showcased diverse regional perspectives:

1. MENA Region: Chafic Chaya noted the establishment of the Saudi Arabia IGF as a new initiative.

2. Africa: Lillian Nalwoga emphasized the importance of involving legislators and parliamentarians in discussions.

3. Asia-Pacific: Amrita Choudhury highlighted the region’s vast diversity and its impact on internet governance approaches.

4. Pacific Islands: Andrew Molivurae discussed the Pacific IGF’s theme of “strengthening digital governance, resilience and resilience” and the use of Starlink technology in disaster response.

5. Europe: Giacomo Mazzone highlighted the promotion of consensus-building and multi-stakeholder approaches by European institutions.

Capacity Building and Schools of Internet Governance

Multiple speakers emphasized the importance of capacity building initiatives and schools of internet governance in fostering understanding and participation in internet governance processes. These efforts were seen as crucial for developing informed stakeholders and promoting inclusive dialogue across regions.

Future of the IGF and Internet Governance

The discussion looked towards the future of the IGF and internet governance:

1. Global Digital Compact: Giacomo Mazzone suggested that the IGF should support its implementation.

2. WSIS+20 Review: Speakers viewed this as an opportunity to strengthen the IGF mandate and renew commitment to multi-stakeholderism. The Australian IGF’s position statement on WSIS+20 was highlighted as an example of NRI input.

3. IGF Mandate: Nigel Hickson called for a longer mandate for the UN IGF, beyond 10-20 years.

4. Role of IGF: The IGF was highlighted as a key platform for discussing digital policy issues beyond WSIS.

5. NRI Formalization: Andrew Molivurae suggested formalizing NRIs to align with the global IGF.

Key Takeaways and Action Items

1. Strengthen the multi-stakeholder model for effective internet governance.

2. Better integrate NRIs into global processes.

3. Address capacity building and inclusivity challenges, especially in developing regions.

4. Tackle financial sustainability concerns for NRI initiatives.

5. Leverage the WSIS+20 review to reinforce commitment to multi-stakeholderism and the IGF.

6. Engage NRIs in consultation on the future institutional structure of the IGF.

7. Recognize and formalize NRIs in the WSIS+20 resolution.

8. Develop mechanisms to track outcomes from NRI meetings.

9. Increase support for policy frameworks on disaster response in Pacific islands.

10. Improve the capacity of the IGF secretariat, as suggested by Wisdom Donkor.

11. Address the challenge of multilingualism in internet governance discussions.

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the crucial role of NRIs in the internet governance ecosystem, highlighting their importance in bringing local perspectives to global discussions, building capacity, and informing policy. While challenges remain, particularly in terms of financial sustainability and stakeholder engagement, there is a strong consensus on the value of the multi-stakeholder model and the need to strengthen and evolve it for the future of internet governance. The diverse regional perspectives and experiences shared during the discussion demonstrate the richness and complexity of the global internet governance landscape, emphasizing the need for continued dialogue and collaboration across all stakeholder groups.

Session Transcript

Jennifer Chung: Hello and welcome everyone. Here is the latest initiative on youth, the growing role of the IRN. My name is Jennifer Chung. I am the secretary of the Forum of Asia and Africa. I have the honor of moderating this session, the development and evolution of Internet governance and the multiparty model has been marked by important processes and initiatives such as the World Net and the World Digital Pact. All these efforts have played a crucial role in the definition of Internet and digital governance in general, by promoting collaboration between the various parties and by promoting the multiparty model. At the local level, our essential for the overall effectiveness and continuous adaptation and improvement and evolution in the multistakeholder practices as we know it. Through exchanges in the community, we have gathered over 174 national regional initiatives. This panel will address the pivotal discourse that happen at these local grassroots level and how this has shaped the evolution of Internet governance and the multistakeholder model. We have with us here an illustrious panel and more online and in the room as well who will bring you through all of the good discourses by each region, by each initiative. A little bit of housekeeping. Of course, with the diversity of our panelists and also speakers, please do remember to use your headset. I will now turn to our first esteemed speaker. I will give you a moment to put on your headset. From the home region that we are here, in the MENA region, I am honored to introduce Mr. Chafic Chaya, chair of the Lebanon IGF and also part of Arab IGF. In the 20 years of WSIS, where do we stand with respect to Internet governance processes and the multistakeholder approach?

Chafic Chaya: Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you. Good afternoon. So, I speak in Arabic. Peace be upon you. I’m honored to be part of this discussion today and to share with you the important role played by the National Regional Initiatives, NRIs, in discussing intergovernance in the MENA region. This is not just a narrative about governance. It is a transformational story and development story, while the MENA region is witnessing a notable transformation from conventional governance into multi-stakeholder governance model should focus on the conclusiveness and flexibility and cooperation. The global OASIS has laid the foundation through the governance principles of multi-stakeholder and the different national initiatives and regional initiatives has localized these principles and harmonized it to fit with the needs of the region. This region is not just atop these frameworks, rather it has innovated to cope and to amend it according to the needs of our communities. What really inspires us today is that how this dealing between the conventional models and the multi-stakeholder model became a major feature of such transformation, such increasing momentum within these governance processes and the United Nations to achieve the balance between two approaches, encourage the stakeholders to adopt innovative governance models with such powers that are not competing anymore. They are integrating and complementing each other. These national initiatives and regional initiatives became major pillars in this process, whereby it plays the bridge which links between the different dialogues. multi-stakeholder dialogues and the high-level decision-making process. This initiative contributes to empower the stakeholders, including the governments, technical community, private sector, academia, civil society, to work effectively to address the national priorities and regional priorities and to achieve the joint and the common goals. The increasing amount of these national and regional initiatives in this region, such as Lebanon Internet Governance Forum and the Arab Governance Forum, or North Africa Internet Governance Forum, and many others, reflects the concern by the stakeholders to promote comprehensive and cooperative governance. Today they will come, including the Saudi Internet Governance Forum, as a new national initiative, which gives more momentum to these different initiatives and promote and push forward the common regional priorities forward. However, such initiatives, national initiatives and regional initiatives, do not work in isolation or in silos. They are complementing initiatives from different stakeholders, such as the activities by the tech community, which is represented by the RICC, ICANN and ISOC. For example, a group of network operators in the MENOC, and we have the Middle East School for MESEC, and we have meetings, roundtable meetings, government roundtable meetings, and the programs designed for the countries according to their needs, and many other initiatives. All brings together the stakeholders to build the capacities through providing the technical expertise and exchange of knowledge. Such activities ensures the integration of technical aspects and personal aspects of the Internet within the global… the global wide discussion about the Internet Governance which promote the ecosystem of the Internet. At the end, while we are looking forward within the 20 years since the organization of the first OASIS, we can today see the progress achieved so far. However, we are still at the beginning of the road to build a framework for the Internet Governance that will be flexible, resilient, inclusive, and ready for the requirements of our digital future. Thank you so much, Jennifer.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much, Shafiq. It is so heartening to know that we have now the Saudi Arabia IGF and so much more coming in this MENA region. I think it’s doing a lot to bring the discourse together, bringing the framework together collaboratively, and of course, congratulations again for that. It’s so important for us to remember this is a region that has a lot to offer, a lot of knowledge, a lot of expertise, and the issues crucial to this region can be solved with all these discussions in a multi-stakeholder manner, and going forward inside that kind of framework as well. I’d like to turn now to the Europe region. It’s my honour to introduce Mr Giacomo Mazzone, part of the European Dialogue on Internet Governance, EuroDIG, and also Italian IGF. I know currently we have an ongoing targeted consultation on internet governance targeted by the European Commission. In that context, do you think that the multi-stakeholder approach can pave the way for inclusiveness and internet resilience in times of crisis?

Giacomo Mazzone: Thank you for giving me the floor. I’m a member of the board of EuroDIG, I’m collaborating with the Italian IGF, and I’m Secretary General of Eurovision. All roles that are part of this dialogue that we are constantly doing in Europe. In Europe, after the lesson of the war, we have understood that we cannot go by a single nation, but we need to go through a permanent dialogue. And so we have created two institutions that are pivotal for us. One is the European Union that embraces 27 countries, the other one is the Council of Europe that covers all of Europe. through these two institutions we have learned in the last 60 years that we have to go through consensus and trying to reach common positions. This started in a multilateral way but then since 40 years this has been enlarged by both institutions to civil society, to academia, to industry, to all the components of society because most of the process need to be built on consensus. Thanks to that we are trying to tackle as was the question that how we can, if this help to build internet resilience in time of crisis, for instance we had the European elections in June this year and we were all afraid that could have an impact for the use of the artificial intelligence as a support for disinformation and trying to undermine the credibility of the elections. Then has been put in place a certain number of actions that have been able to give us the possibility to go through this election without so much impact. For instance there is a regulation that says that the platform need to enforce as soon as possible the things when they are signaled that there is something going wrong. So hard regulation is in place. Then there is moral suasion regulation and co-regulation that is the code of practice has been put in place with the platform signed with the European Commission that means that the platform even if there is not a crime that is going on on the platform but there is something that could be harmful they have to behave and cooperate and then there are this is not made by a ministry of truth. but is made in cooperation with fact-checkers that are grassroots organizations and the traditional media that signal when there is a problem and the problem then could be solved. This proved to be an efficient way to work and in fact the attack, there has been many attacks, but there’s been under control and they didn’t harm too much the election. This now currently just to show you one of the model, how it works, the model, we have now to decide as European what will be the European position and the nation that are part of the European Union and the nation that are part of the Council of Europe position in the UN next year for the renewal of the mandate of the IGF and the WSS forum. So, what the Commission has made, there was an initial position of the Council that says we need to have a common position and this principle need to be defended, the multi-stakeholderism, the integration, the cooperation, the non-fragmentation of the Internet, etc. Then a consultation has been launched just three weeks ago and will end mid of January. This consultation is open to all society, all components of society. So at the end of this consultation, the position of the stakeholders will be integrated in a background paper. This paper will be brought to the attention of the institution and then it will be the basis for what the European Union and the single members will vote in the General Assembly. This is the best way we are trying to do in order to be multi-stakeholder and to embrace all voices of the society.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much, Giacomo, for giving us the overview. of what the European Commission and also the European community is trying to do, I really like that your emphasis really is to go for consensus and common positions to defend multistakeholderism in the really crucial year ahead when we’re looking towards WSIS plus 20 review. Now I’d like to turn over to the Africa region, always a young and vibrant region. It’s my pleasure to introduce Ms Lillian Nalwoga from the African IGF. With the continent’s point of view, how can internet governance be more useful to all stakeholders so that they identify national regional spaces as a key venue for advocacy? Lillian.

Lillian Nalwoga: Thank you so much Jennifer, it’s a pleasure to be here and to speak about our vibrant continent. Just what I would like to first highlight is, yes the vibrancy comes in the number of initiatives that the continent has been able to achieve. To date we have approximately 36 national initiatives and we have five regional initiatives representing the north, the east, the west, central and south. In all these processes we are seeing the vibrancy of the community, we are seeing the multistakeholder approach coming into play. We are also seeing capacity building. So when we are looking at how can we make stakeholders, how can we utilise internet governance as a space for NRIs to be doing advocacy, I would say this comes from the vibrancy that we are seeing in the communities. But the one thing that has been able to be identified is the need for capacity building. building, and what we’ve seen is we’ve seen quite a number of regional schools, national schools, and continental schools. I think at the regional level, every regional IGF within Africa has a school on internet governance, and if we’re, that is the beginning point. At the continental level, we do have the Africa school on internet governance, and this has used, has been a space for building capacity of different stakeholders, and it’s not limiting to, say, civil society or academia or private sector or government. It is inclusive, and it follows a bottom-up approach, and what I can say, I’m a beneficiary of the Africa, of the AFRICIC, when it launched in 2013, so you can see where I am today, and we’ve seen quite a number of different stakeholders from government. So, for us to say how can we use this space, first we are looking at capacity building, but the most recent initiative where we saw a gap was in how do we get our legislators to pass inclusive policies and understand, you know, issues on internet governance, and hence the Africa Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance was introduced, and I’m sure there’s quite a big delegation from members of parliament from Africa who have benefited from this. So the approach here we are taking is we need to look at this at all, you know, from different angles. If we are to say that internet governance, the entire ecosystem, how do we start with policy, we build the capacity of the stakeholders, the legislators, but also try to open it up in 4D. different actors. The other thing that I would like to mention is we need to be able to develop and track outcomes. Because when we started many years ago, the internet governance space was looked at as a talk shop where we come and talk things. But recently, we’ve been able to, every meeting produces a key outcome document. I think the next step right now is to be able to track and see how these are being implemented at country level, at regional level. And this will be able to use this space as a key place for advocacy for the different stakeholders in the NRIs. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much, Lillian. I think you’re doing my job for me, because it’s a beautiful, perfect segue. I really like your emphasis on capacity building. Africa as a continent is young and vibrant. And we need to bring the young people with us. We need to bring other stakeholders who need to be in this space, in the internet governance discussion spaces, digital process discussion spaces, to be able to understand, first, the concerns and the issues from the community, and also what internet governance is all about. Now I’d like to turn over to my home region, Asia Pacific. It’s my honor to introduce Ms. Amrita Choudhury, part of the India IGF and also chair of the APR IGF, Multistakeholder Steering Group. In the APAC context, which voices should be in the model at the national, regional, and I guess local level as well? And how can they be effectively brought in?

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you, Jennifer. And APAC is very huge and diverse, not only in terms of countries, cultures, languages, economies, but also the level of adoption of technology. So if you ask me the question, my first response would be everyone but if I drill it down a bit more I would say every relevant stakeholder who matters for that discussion. So you know I’ll just take a step back and I’ll talk about what APR IGF has been doing is one not just working as the focal point for regional IGF but also to build capacity. For example bringing in more youth. Our fellowship is such that we try to have a better gender balance wherein we have more women coming in because we want and especially from economies which are unrepresented. It could be the Pacifics it could be many many countries from where we can bring. Do note that some countries like Afghanistan we do try to bring out but it’s difficult because of sanctions. We do have some more countries of that kind. We also try the other thing which is important is to assist the national IGFs or youth IGFs in the country and that’s something which we feel is important because you could not only have the discussions at a national level but also get some essence of what is important for that region which can feed in when we decide things especially in APAC in our APR IGFs themes and sub themes and also drill down the important things because for example many times the national IGF for example may not know what the contemporary internet governance discussions globally are which for example the Asia-Pacific regional IGF can know like what’s happening in the GDC which edition of the text is going on what is concerning so we try to demystify those pass it on to the community members who are already involved because we believe the more information you pass on to the communities they would be in a better position to decide. We ask them for inputs. We also, you know, it is also important to encourage the schools of internet governance because that is where people can build their capacity. It’s important that people understand the various nuances. Many times you’ll find the, especially the younger generation, take everything for granted because they’ve got internet technologies on their platter. But what goes behind it is something which they need to know and once people know that why it matters, they start raising their voices. So I think those things are important to increase the reach, create opportunities where they can come and participate, like, for example, giving them the young voices a chance to come and participate and share their views with people who may have been in the community for long without any prejudice or hesitation. I think that’s important. And also disseminating information, just like Lillian was saying, we have, you know, the outcome document which comes out from APRIG, the synthesis document, which we try to circulate to all the economies, hopefully if some regulator, etc., kind of pick it up, and also to build capacity amongst different groups, like it could be parliamentarians, it could be others who actually need to build capacity on these things. So I’ll stop at this. Thanks, Jen.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much, Amrita. I think Lillian has started and Amrita has also emphasised the crucial role that schools of Internet governance play as well in order to bring information, build up capacity, impart knowledge, particularly I think I’m going to go back to one small point that’s actually not a small point, a very important point, that Lillian has raised about bringing in the legislators, the parliamentarians, and I know there was a parliamentarian legislator’s track here in Riyadh as well, to have those who are creating policy, making legislation, to make sure that they create inclusive policies, inclusive legislations. And of course, imparting with what Amrita has also… mentioned to create opportunities for every voice that needs to be here at the table. Now I’m going to move to another region, the North America region. It’s my honor to introduce Mr. Charles Noir, CIRA and also part of Canada IGF. How is Internet governance and the multi-stakeholder model evolving from your regional point of view? Charles, please.

Charles Noir: Thank you, Jennifer. First of all, great to be here and with you all in Saudi Arabia and thank you to the hosts for a wonderful meeting. CIRA, for those of you that don’t know, is the Canadian Internet Registration Authority and we’re best known for running the cctld.ca. We do other things, but I won’t get into it. And we have been the main sponsor and secretariat for the Canadian IGF since its beginning in 2019. So I’m sitting on this stage today and coming to you from a technical operator perspective, but talking about the IGF in Canada, of course, it’s multi-stakeholder and that’s where I want to start. It’s really about a community engagement in Canada as it is elsewhere and we’re hearing on the stage. We focus on critical issues that affect the Internet or that the Internet is producing and generally we do that to identify, hopefully, some shared policy positions that we might take away from and at times to understand where different points of view are coming from. There’s very critical discussions going on in Canada as well as in other countries, of course, around the world and globally. We speak about a number of those, cybersecurity, for example, online harms was this year’s focus as well, misinformation, connectivity, all of the topics that we’re covering here, including artificial intelligence, were certainly points that we cover within the IGF space in Canada. And we believe that we’re at an inflection point more generally within the… global internet governance space because of the WSIS Plus 20, because of GDC. Also within Canada, we’re seeing for the first time a whole suite of regulation that will affect the internet. And so we’re really engaging the community across the country from every stakeholder group to try to bring us together to inform and support our policymakers in their decision-making, both within the domestic space but also globally in meetings like this, but also in negotiations like the WSIS Plus 20 and what we’re seeing in GDC. So Canada’s been a proud, huge supporter of the multi-stakeholder model, both as an internet community, collectively all stakeholders, and I believe in our government. We see the WSIS Plus 20 as an opportunity to reinforce and dedicate for the next, hopefully, next 10 years, a commitment to multi-stakeholderism, including, obviously, the IGF. Sure, there’s room for improvement. We want to recognize that the multi-stakeholder governance model today, and the IGF, CIGF being part of that, is the reason why we have an internet that works like it does today from a technical operating perspective. Yes, there are difficulties, we’re encountering them, we’re discussing them, we need to address them, but the reason why I can call someone on the other side of the world and instantaneously connect is because we have the multi-stakeholder model in action governing the technical layer of the internet. We see the CIGF and regional NRIs as really important in terms of supporting governments, national governments. When we see governments engage in internet policy, we believe that the Canadian IGF, for example, will be a source of information, a source of advice and guidance for policymakers making decisions about… these important and crucial next steps in the phase of the Internet and how it’s governed. And from that we really see an opportunity to develop unified policy positions where we can all agree as all stakeholders, academic, private sector, technical community, etc. coming together so that we can focus on what we believe our priorities should be and what our government’s priorities should be in these spaces, particularly within the context of UN decision-making and domestic legislation. I would also like to add that we also see an opportunity within the technical community to organize as a community. The technical community, for example, like all stakeholder communities, is very diverse and we’ve worked with about 29 other technical operators around the world in every continent in coming together in a coalition called the Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism, TCCM, and again we see that as an opportunity to coordinate globally and it brings roots out of the IGF spirit and out of the notion that we’re coming together as a stakeholder group to represent common positions that we believe should be considered in global negotiations. Some of that was exemplified in our input within the GDC context and we will be very active in the WSIS context as well as we move into the WSIS plus 20. In terms, again, I’d like to just focus on the idea that multistakeholderism, the IGF, the regional initiatives really have contributed, I want to leave with this note, really have contributed and are the reason why we have the internet we have today. Again, we have issues, we’re exploring them, we’re discussing them, but fundamentally as a base idea and a base form of governance, this is what we want to see continue, this is what we want to see evolve. The Canadian IGF is committed. that, and certainly we are as a TCCM, as a technical operator.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much, Charles. Thank you for also highlighting the crucial role that the technical community plays in actually keeping the Internet on so we can have these discussions. It’s the foundation where we build on all of these myriad of issues when we talk about Internet governance without the Internet actually working. I don’t think we have so much to talk about, right, at this point. For the technical community as well, it is really crucial for them to focus on keeping that the Internet remains open and free, global and secure, resilient, and interoperable, so we can have all of these discussions that we are having right now. And last but not least, I’d like to go to our region, GRULAC region. It’s my honor to introduce Ms. Lillian Chamorro from the IGF. I’ll give everybody a little moment to put on their headsets. So Lillian, what is the impact of NetMundial Plus 10, WSIS Plus 20, and the global digital compact process on Internet governance and the multi-stakeholder model, and how can we use all these principles to advance them?

Lilian Chamorro Rojas: Hola. Bueno, muchas gracias. Thank you. I’m going to speak in Spanish. Thank you so much for the invitation. Thanks Jennifer. Thanks to the Secretariat and all my colleagues present here. We see that WSIS is something we have been talking about lately. Next year in this space, we will define the mandate for the IGF in the next years to come, and we believe that from our point of view in Latin America, we see a real opportunity in front of us because the IGF is a platform that’s allowing us to do follow-ups and a review of all the objectives of the GDC and the action items of the WSIS. And we consider that these two, together with the structures that are being created for the Internet governance in the next few years, can be leveraged to discuss and assess the implementation of the agreements, both in the national and the regional context, as well as global. Having all this clear structure of all the initiatives of governance, right? So we also want to share this experience, this very valuable experience of inviting all the stakeholders to the conversation. The GDC has presented some actionable steps that we can see in the local realities, in the regional and national levels, and when we talk about youth and other communities that are also having the dialogue regarding governance and always focus on the needs of certain communities. And so we are looking at the NRIs, and we’ve seen an increase in the activity in these NRIs, in terms of number of initiatives and number of people who are participating, and we’ve seen this going up and increasing a lot. And we already mentioned this before, and my colleagues also mentioned this, that these contribute for the capacity building, but also in the creation of forums for dialogue and conversation, and also to localize and see what are the needs in every different space, according to different needs and contexts. We think that these spaces contribute also to the deployment. of technologies, because this is when we can see how these technologies are implemented, how they are transformed, how they influence the lives of people, both in a regional and national level, and, of course, also with the focus of the multi-stakeholder approach. We’re not having a bias from one point of view, but we see different points of view. The diversity of initiatives, I think, is something that is very beautiful to see. I see this group of people here in front of me, and all the people who have been sharing space in this IGF, and I really see the beauty in these encounters, in all of us talking about all these transcendental topics, that it’s not only the NRIs, but also having youth as being part of it, the Portuguese speakers, the forum in the Caribbean, that is one of the forums that has been working for the longest, and the commitments to follow the GDC initiatives like in data governance or AI, and other topics related to environment, migration, and other topics that are very related to our context, and these structures are shaped according to the diversity of territories and different communities, so we should appreciate them and leverage them as they are, as a diversity they present. IGFs are a valuable space to have common dialogue, like the WCs and the GDC. We were invited to be creative and find new frameworks, so I want to talk about new world dialogues that are inviting us to have new governance. models and taking this multi-stakeholder models and then having a dialogue so that we create the open collaborative open Internet that we want. These dialogues can be the basis for experimental collaboration and also have this governance framework that can allow us to have a better decision-making, make more concrete proposals and create action steps to advance to the Internet we want and we can overcome the current challenges we face.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much Lillian, I think your ending was actually very perfect. To have common dialogue and to celebrate the diversity of inputs we bring from across the entire globe with all of the regions included. Now I started off the session by saying this network, this NRI network is 174 initiatives and counting. There are many in this room, there are many online. We would love to hear from you. So I think we have actually roaming mics in the room, technical persons please indicate if that’s possible, but we would like to open the floor to people who have reactions and also can share what their region, their national initiative is actually doing right now. The impacts of multi-stakeholder processes, dialogue is happening at the local and grassroots level, what they are hoping to achieve especially in terms of input into the WSIS plus 20 review process next year. I think we heard in every single session almost in this Riyadh meeting that there is need to have dialogue, there’s need to have common positions to defend multi-stakeholder processes when we’re talking about internet governance, when we’re talking about digital governance as well. I would like to also introduce, we have our online moderator, Pedro Llana. Pedro will be the person who will be looking at all of our online participants who are probably very involved with the national, regional, and youth initiatives in their home economies as well. So please, Pedro, let me know if there is anything online as well from this NRI network from the greater communities that go to these different meetings, go to these initiatives, or even just tuning in remotely all across the globe to this meeting here in Riyadh. Are we able to hear Pedro? If we’re not able to hear Pedro, I will come back to him, and I’ll actually drill down a little more on what we’ve heard so far on our panelists. Maybe this will inspire more input from those who are actually thinking about what their meetings in their home countries, in their home economies, are actually having. I think that there’s a lot of local issues, a lot of regional issues that are discussed in NRI meetings that sometimes do not make their way all the way to the global IGF at the annual meeting. Of course, it’s always competitive when you’re looking at the scheduling, but is there something that is very unique to your region, perhaps, that you think is very important to bring up to the global level that hasn’t had an opportunity quite yet, especially when we’re looking into WSIS 20 review next year, and also impacting the evolution of how we’re discussing? I don’t know if any of our panelists up here would like to take a stab. Chafic, please.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you, Jennifer. First, thank you for Saudi Arabia and for hosting this IGF in Riyadh. in this region, this is a very important step and this very important initiative to get the IGF to our region to share with the global IGF what the challenges we are facing. As you know, each region has its own challenge. And while the European or the Western countries, they are now looking after AI and looking after in terms of things and smart cities, we are still having some countries in this region, they don’t have the basic infrastructure to connect people. So our priority is to give the connectivity to these people to connect. We know from the ITU that there is still 2.6 billion unconnected people, and most of them are in Africa, which is the region nearby. So the importance of having these events in this region is to get the voices of these countries up to the global level so they can be taken in consideration. Because once again, our challenges is totally different from other countries or other region challenges. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Chafic. I know that you’ve highlighted that there is still 2.6 billion unconnected. That is a sheer number that, of course, is really also central to the Africa region and also Asia-Pacific region. I don’t know if Amrita would like to expand a little more on that challenge as well when we’re looking at Asia-Pacific.

Amrita Choudhury: Yes, thank you, Jen. I think one beauty of the NRIs is that while there are many issues which may be very endemic to a country or region, but there are challenges in most of the region in some context or form of those. For example, as Shafiq mentioned, access is one. Basic infrastructure, for example, there are countries even, as I mentioned in my initial remark, Asia-Pacific is very diverse. You have extremely developed countries and you have countries where the networks have still not Are not working or cannot work due to sanctions, etc As in they are working but not, you know, and we have the Pacific Islands who have different challenges, you know Because of climate changes, etc. There’s water rising. There are other issues which are happening So it’s in there are different challenges people do bring in but again You know how you have that assimilated is difficult because every region has different issues Access is difficult Multilingualism is important as in if I look at the countries a country like India has 22 official languages Let alone unofficial similarly in many parts of Asia Pacific language is an issue, you know having everything in those languages Access, you know basic access is an issue for people Rights to even access it for example, I’ll come back to Afghanistan Women do not have any rights. Women do not even have right to an internet device That’s a challenge when we are talking about so many things achieving SDG goals. So those are diverse I think we try to bring it up and see what can be done Yeah, so, you know, there are higher level issues and there are deep-rooted issues which needs to be worked like anything

Jennifer Chung: Thank You, I’m Rita. I like that you brought up also Multilingualism as a challenge and also a strength in the diversity of the languages that we’re allowed to speak I know here we have translation in the six UN languages So you heard her speak in Arabic and you heard Lillian being able to speak in in Spanish and for myself I’m very lucky to be able to use my language to speak in Chinese I’m very lucky to be able to use my language Chinese to be able to speak to everyone But that is not the case for every single language that you see on you know that’s represented by the people you see here on the panel and I’m sure many, many more in the audience. I know that we probably in the audience because the light is now shining into my eyes and I cannot see your faces, but there must be many NRI and youth initiatives representatives from Francophonie countries who do have a lot to contribute and input on. And I urge you also to raise your hand if you have inputs that you would like to make during this national regional sub-regional youth initiative main session to share with us your issues and how internet governance and especially the multi-stakeholder process has evolved discussion in your home economies. And of course, we welcome you to speak in your language in French as well. I’d like to now go back again to see if we’re able to unmute Mr. Pedro Lana who is our online moderator.

Pedro Lana: Yes, Jennifer, can you hear me?

Jennifer Chung: Yes, we can hear you Pedro, please go ahead.

Pedro Lana: Perfect. We have two raised hands and one question in the chat in order to alternate between onsite and online questions. I think we can go with Dr. Jimson Olapunha who has his hand raised and then we’ll go to the other questions posed. If there is no onsite question or commenters. Can I go in that direction, Jennifer?

Jennifer Chung: Yes, we can take the online interventions. I see some hands up. So Pedro, I’ll allow you to unmute them or Tech can unmute them and please have your, you can moderate the online inputs, please.

Pedro Lana: Tech, can you unmute Dr. Jimson?

Jennifer Chung: Ah, I see Jimson actually in the room. So, yes, he is online and in the room, which is amazing. and we all are as well. Jimson, please go ahead.

Audience: Good evening, everybody. Good afternoon. And I want to first and foremost say I’m Jimson Olufoye, the Chair of the Advisory Council of Africa ICT Alliance. And I’m a private sector person and I run a private sector concern organization. I want to commend the MAG. The MAG have been doing fantastic work. We really appreciate all your work, all your effort across the world. We appreciate you very much. And Jennifer in particular, your work in IGF-SA, we appreciate it for the global community. I have two questions. The first one is connected with what you mentioned about the Net Mundia multistakeholder guidelines. I want to ask the panel how many of us have been using these guidelines because I believe it has the capacity to ensure that every stakeholder concern is brought to the table. And when we have all stakeholders on the table, we can easily tackle all our societal challenges together. And I’m very happy that the IGF has been very successful in bringing all these together because there will be ownership. Secondly, you also talk about the global digital compact. There are two outcomes of the WSIS 2005 agenda. The first one is the digital compact. The second one is the multistakeholder guidelines. And the third one is the multistakeholder guidelines. And the third one is the multistakeholder that. So, that’s the twin part, AIRS Corporation was only just came to fruition since 2025, since 2005, just September last year, when the global community, the world leaders agreed to the Pact for the Future, wherein we have the Global Data Compact. Excellent. So now, going forward, the question is, from your experiences across the continent, what do you think about how we will proceed to implement the Global Data Compact in our respective regions and countries? Should it be integrated into IGF, because IGF has been successful, or should we create another stream of engagement for that? Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Jimson. I’ll allow my panelists to give it a little bit of thought. I’ll go straight, actually, to our French intervention, I think, I believe, online. So I’ll go to Pedro first, and then we can go back to the panelists.

Pedro Lana: We have chat as well, but we will leave that for after Nina make her contribution.

Audience: Thank you. Can everyone hear me? Yes. Great. I will speak in French, so I’m giving half a second for people to grab their headsets. Hello, I’m Nina. I come from the internet. I am in Abidjan, in Ivory Coast. I would like to raise the attention on sustainability of the secretariat of the IGF in our country. In our country, we have this multi-stakeholder approach, but after two years… We are tired. And when we have this problem, the secretariat, the government, social society, the private sector, speak all at the same time. So here, it would be good to share what is the experience that we have when we talk about secretariat of the forum, when we talk about regional initiatives and national initiatives. I’m talking about that because I’m in West Africa. We have different experiences. We get different international aid, financial aid, but that cannot go in the pocket of a government. So we have been recommended to have a secretariat. But taking into account the forum agility, do we have to ask the social society to get this finance, this money on our account? So it’s not easy to manage. So I would like to ask to the panelists, what is your experience? What do you recommend us to have a sustainable secretariat? And also, to have a body who could get this aid, this monetary aid to support our activities in the framework of the different capacities of the secretariat, in the framework of the forum. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Nena. I think I speak for, well, I will presume to use my moderator prerogative to say that those of us sitting on the stage are no more experts than those of you here in the room. I already hear questions about how regionals or even nationals will look into implementing all of the different things recommended in the Global Digital Compact. I heard about the question about have we used the Sao Paulo guidelines coming out of NetMundial Plus 10 and how have we done so? And then finally, from Nena, we heard the importance of the sustainability, monetary, the financial sustainability of the IGF Secretariat. I see there is a line at the podium, so I’ll go straight to our next speaker. Please introduce yourself.

Audience: Thank you very much. My name is Nigel Castamere from the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. We’ve coordinated the Caribbean IGF since 2005, and basically, Jennifer, to respond to what you asked about getting experiences from around the world, the Caribbean is part of the GRULAC, and Lilian did mention the CIGF in her presentation. Basically, just to say the challenge we have is the Caribbean, whereas the AP is large and diverse, the Caribbean is small and diverse. Lots of small countries, restricted resources, and so on. But just within the Caribbean, there are four different language groups. I myself am from more the English-speaking language group, and notwithstanding, we have a Caribbean internet governance forum. We have had participation from some of the other language groups, but it has been to date in English. In 2025, we plan to have our 21st CIGF in Cuba, which would be a stretch for us, and we’d be learning, but it would be a more inclusive type of an approach. So we’d probably have a bilingual CIGF for the first time. And then beyond, say, regional communities of interest, we’ve also reached out to other communities of interest, like we are all small island developing states, and we have started a liaison with small island developing states around the world. The Pacific in particular has been our most reliable partner to create a small island developing states CIGF, and we’ve had two sittings of that so far. Of course, that has tended to be more virtual than in person, but it helps us to share our experience with small island developing states around the world who maybe don’t have all the resources to investigate all of these internet governance matters and so on. And one of the products of our CIGF, in fact, has been a policy framework that we have given to help inform our governments in terms of developing internet governance policies. So just to give you an idea of what has been happening, some of these challenges that we face in our region, and what we’ve been doing so far. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, Nigel. Especially in highlighting that there is a small island developing states CIGF, so SIDS IGF, looking at issues that are very unique to these states, and also congratulations for the next edition being in Cuba. I’m sure that it’s going to be very interesting and very rewarding. to have a regional meeting there or sub-regional meeting there as well. I’m going to pause to see if there’s any online interventions, I don’t see any hands, so I’ll go to our next speaker in the podium.

Audience: Thank you, Jennifer, and thank you for organising this important session. My name is Annalise Williams, I was the 2024 Chair of the Australian Internet Governance Forum, and just going back to your comment or question earlier about what NRIs are wanting in going into WSIS, we held the Australian IGF in October of this year, and for the first time we developed a position statement, like an output of the IGF. It was drafted by the committee, we put it out for input from stakeholders, and it was agreed, adopted by consensus at the IGF, and it is a position statement on what the Australian internet community wants from the WSIS process. We called on the WSIS review process to adopt meaningful multi-stakeholder processes consistent with the Sao Paolo multi-stakeholder guidelines. We called on the Australian government to ensure the full participation of Australia’s multi-stakeholder community in Australia’s national preparations for the WSIS, and in terms of the IGF, we called for its continuation of its mandate, and we also called on all stakeholders, particularly governments and the private sector, to fully participate in the IGF and commit to its ongoing financial sustainability, and to consider ways to strengthen and enhance the value and efficacy of the IGF, both as a discussion forum and as a key source of information on digital policy issues beyond WSIS. I just wanted to flag that we had done that in Australia. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: I think it’s really important to highlight all of the different national meetings that have looked into this and it’s really good that the AUIGF has had this output document looking specifically at WSIS plus 20 inputs and also how the Zampala guidelines can be utilised and also how the GDC or implementation of parts of it can be looked at for the Australian community. I’d like to encourage also all of those participants in the Pacific IGF to also input as well. I know there are many, many issues near and dear to your region that are not reflected and are quite unique to the Pacific region as well. I’d like to take a look to see if we have any more online. I don’t believe there are any new hands up. I’d like to go to our next speaker at the podium. Bertrand, please go ahead.

Bertrand La Chapelle: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Bertrand La Chapelle. I’m the Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network and I’m happy to have been one of the co-initiators of both the European IGF, the EuroDIG and the French IGF. One, I find fascinating that from the bottom up, the IGF has transformed into what is today a network of IGF. And so the annual global IGF is actually the global gathering of the network of IGFs. And we should flip the thinking and not see the IGF as proliferating at national level, but we should consider that the global meeting is the moment where the input coming from the IGFs at the national and regional level can be clustered and analyzed together so that, like a respiration, it goes back to them afterwards. The second thing is, as I mentioned in the previous session, the IGF at the global level, but Nenad was mentioning that it is a problem. at the local level as well, is usually caught in a catch-22 situation between the lack of resources and the difficulty to articulate an ambitious vision, because if you don’t have the resources, it’s hard to have a vision and implement it. But if you don’t have the vision, you cannot muster the resources. And in that regard, as Charles was mentioning, I want to give credit to, in many parts of the world, the local country code level domain, CCTLD operators, who have been instrumental, not the only actors, but instrumental sometimes, in providing not only financial, but logistical and in large part substantial support to the local IGFs. And I would like just to put on the table the fact that ICANN is basically the global tax collector for the management of the domain name system and the global public resource. The more it can do to support the global IGF, the better. But the final point I want to make is, and I’m glad to have the opportunity to do it here, is that there’s one topic that we will all have to address next year, which is what is the expanded, renewed, but also revised mandate of the global IGF? And what is its further institutionalization? And for that, I suggest, and I would be happy to have the feedback from people on the panel if they are willing, I think having an engagement of the NRIs in a consultation during 2025 on what do they think should be the process to move beyond the question of reconduction or not, but to address really the question of what is the next institutional step for the IGF would be an amazing approach. I would be really looking forward to seeing what the local and regional IGFs have to say. have to contribute to this discussion.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Bertrand. I’ll pause very quickly to see if there’s only two reactions from the panels from all the questions we’ve heard so far.

Giacomo Mazzone: Yes, thank you. I would like to answer to what has been said by Olufoye at the beginning and by Bertrand now. I think that we have to think the other way around. The GDC process needs us. At the moment, the process has been conducted in New York by the people that is following the United Nations General Assembly, that in most cases are not very well connected. I would not say more than that, but at least they are not very well connected with the reality in the world. And the only place where ideas can be tested, can be put on the reality, can be checked, is this. The IGF, during these 20 years, we have all together built something that is very valuable. Not only the NRI network, that is very important because it gives the possibility to consult directly in each country of the world, or mostly of the country of the world in the regional level, what can be done, what cannot be done. But also we have the dynamic coalitions. That means vested interest with a specific purpose that stress the specific aspect of the internet governance problematics. And we have also the policy network. Not only because I’m chair of one of the policy network, but the policy network is a place where you can grassroots collecting best practices that exist. And this best practice can be eventually used to contaminate the. rest of the world. So we have free tools that are the only ones that can bring down to earth the principles that are in the global digital compact. If this will not happen, then there will be another negotiation in New York about international treaties that are trying to regulate something. You remember Gulliver’s travels, the people that were up in the world, in the sky and they were not seeing the earth and they were deciding for the earth. They need us. We have just simple to remember them. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank You Giacomo. I think Amrita had a very quick response as well and then we’ll go to Pedro online.

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you so much Jim. Jimson, just to respond to your point while I don’t have your entire answer, is perhaps you could refer to a document which the MAG IGF working group on strategy has prepared as a vision document of what the IGF can do to support the various processes. Like for example be an effective coordination space for different follow-ups on digital policies. The policy network on AI is already having a lot of discussions so it could be further enhanced. So not only for Jimson, the others also could look at this document which talks about what the IGF could do and how it can strengthen and how it can help. That anyone can look at and it’s available in the IGF website.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you Amrita for stressing that publication, very recent publication of the working group on strategies document. I’d like to go to Pedro who has some interventions from online.

Pedro Lana: Thanks Jennifer. We have two questions and one comment that were made through the chat. The first one is from Julio Casaguenas from Columbia IGF. He is asking what recommendations will you highlight from your local experience to bring the results of your discussion to government? and decision makers. We also have a question from the IGF Ghana group. What strategies can NRIs use to involve underrepresented groups, such as women, youth, and marginalized communities in digital government? Then we have comments by Wisdom Donkor. He says, to resolve the capacity issues of the IGF secretariat, the force should focus on increasing financial resources through diversified funding and grants, enhancing staffing via recruitment and secondments, and strengthening operational capacity by upgrading infrastructure and outsourcing non-core functions. Staff capacity can be improved through training and knowledge-sharing programs, while community involvement can be boosted by leveraging volunteers, interns, and partnerships. Streamlined governance, stakeholder feedback mechanisms, and advocacy efforts to promote the IGF’s mission are essential to secure broader support and ensure the secretariat can make its growing demands effective. Then we have another two comments, but we will leave that after the on-site participations.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Pedro. I think I do see a hand online, if we can actually get to the vocal intervention. If you can unmute our participant who has their hand up online.

Pedro Lana: I will ask tech to unmute, but it takes a few seconds. I think we can get on-site participation while this is happening.

Audience: Hello?

Jennifer Chung: Yes, please go ahead.

Audience: Hello, I am Sumit Bhutne. I am not income on-site. I am online participant, all event full. Fully participate in good webinars. So internally, problem. So I have only events participate text, and necessary event to participate in mention create event, STD and GDC. But he have no admin support on body in today, so I started to permanently delete in events. But I have to achieve to, I am create CRI, and I can register in members, in event and fields, to participate on good debates and unlikely is involvement much entered room is unlikely they favour in text, so I not participate in full line, but I go remark to all event and debates. Thank you all to introduce to myself, myself Sumit Bhutte, I am UN and UN membership, but I like to support. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much. And I think we will now turn back to the participants on the floor. I do see that there is a line. Our next speaker, please.

Myanmar Youth IGF: Hello, everyone. Thank you, Jennifer, for giving a chance to speak. And also thank you all panelists for sharing your experiences. And anyway, this is Pyo from Myanmar, and I am the co-coordinator of the UIGF Myanmar and South Asia UIGF. I would like to share my experience why we are trying to create a better environment for all the participants. So I would like to start by saying that we have been trying to, you know, foster the collaboration and trying to sustain the youth initiative during this year, firstly. It has been challenging a lot to us at the local level to foster the collaboration because of our current situation and even it is difficult to do so because of the COVID-19 situation, so we have difficulty to define, we have a challenge to define the government statehood in this state but so far as YGF Myanmar, we mostly focus on the capacity building and also trying to get more input from the different regions and states or different regions, so we are trying to get more input from the different regions, so that was even though all of our, we started our youth initiative with 11 organizing committee members. It is getting, like, it’s likely to be many young people have their own challenges, like fulfilling the basic need and continuing their work, so we are trying to get more input from the different regions and also, we have only few people of the young professional, so we are facing the challenge and even within the team to collaborate and finding resources and also sharing the time among us to make this happen yearly. It has been always a challenge to devise design and both in terms of import SNF concept and to mandate in every regions in Thailand, so we recognize the inimity of the or find the final result as we are not registered under any, you know, any title at local. And also, when we try to initiate, like a self-region you initiated, the public is very clear that we already have Asia-Pacific YMGF. We wanted to put more concrete input and feed into related to the internet cases and issue what are happening at the self-regional level as well. For that purpose, we try to gather the organizing committee members, and this year we could make and establish a very first and foremost South Asia YMGF forum. Luckily, with the support of the United Nations IGF Secretaries and also South Asia IGF Secretaries as well as other supporters like IGFSA, we could smoothly organize our very first and foremost self-regional YMGF forum this year. But so far, they are still having the challenge for starting the collaboration among the youth community in the South Asia region, because maybe this is maybe because of this is our very first year, and we need to think about what would be the best way to approach the other countries like Malaysia, Laos, and also Vietnam to invite youth committee members on board in our committee. And that would be great if someone who are from this country also attending at the YMGF. and we will be happy to talk more about our collaboration for next year. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Pio, for bringing to light how difficult it is for many in many different parts of the world to even meet, to be able to meet, to be able to discuss these issues. Thank you for also highlighting that Youth IGF in Myanmar is still very vibrant and they have their meetings, and congratulations to the Southeast Asian Youth IGF for their initial meeting. I think both Jimson and several others, including Pio, has mentioned the IGF Support Association, which allows for some seed funding to give to initiatives just starting out to be able to meet, to be able to have platforms to meet. I am going to go to the next person in the floor, our next speaker, and then I will go to Pedro online. Please go ahead.

Audience: Thank you so much, the panellists, for your talk, and my name is Naza, Dr Naza Nicholas Kirama from the Tanzania IGF, and I would like to make about 7,000 girls on STEM. We have been able to connect about 800 citizens to affordable and meaningful Internet, and 10 schools have been connected to broadband Internet, and also with the same kind of project, we have been able to…

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, thank you Naza so much for telling us all the good work that Tanzania IGF is doing, and of course… your takeaway for that you know that it takes a village to raise a child, it takes multi-stakeholder model to make all of this work. I’d like now to turn to Pedro who has several comments online. Pedro, please.

Pedro Lana: Yes, I will read two of them. I also noticed that NetMundial and the Sao Paulo guidelines were mentioned and I believe that we have two people from that were involved in the work on site, on the line. I just mentioned that to Jennifer but first the comments that were made on the chat. The first one was from Peter Kinkoye, a convener for the Liberia IGF. He wanted to present a point on the progress of the Liberia IGF that has been hosted in this fifth edition this year with governments and all local stakeholders fully involved in a multi-stakeholder style and have increased their advocacy level to see this level of progress with policy and personal data and cybersecurity strategies that are currently being developed in their governments. This regulatory participation has led to the validation of the draft, the draft Personal Data Protection Act and they intend to sustain the advocacy and discussions on national issues with the collaboration being sustained with support of a vibrant national IGF secretariat supported by the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications. This collective effort has led to a very visible Liberia IGF and also Liberia hosting its first sub-regional consultative forum on the MIU region for the Liberia with support of the UN IGF and ICANN in the region. We also have a comment from Azeem Sajjad about the importance of internal governance at government level being realized in addition to efforts of individuals already recognized at the global level. The Pakistani School of Internal Governance is playing its role since 10 years in different cities of the country. There is an inventory of work related to Internet policies that has also been keeping the pace, in addition to planning, to restructure departments for enablement of effective digital governance ecosystems. There is a challenge to retain the talents of this space and it’s hard to ensure engagement of individuals after capacity building. Universal meaningful connection as well as Internet censorship for information fake news etc are big challenges nowadays. It has been extremely hard for especially governments to keep the balance in digital policies. AI has been the next big thing which is a big challenge for governments in terms of capacity building, development, deployment, management and issues of governance and oversight. So with those two questions I think we can go back on site. So back to you Jennifer.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much Pedro. As you can see there is so many good inputs and we have so little time together. I go back to the floor now. I see there still is a line. If you could please keep your intervention within a minute that would be very much appreciated. Next speaker please.

Pacific IGF: Hello. Thank you Jennifer. This is Andrew Molivare representing the regulators office in Vanuatu and also chair of Pacific IGF. The regulators office has been supporting Pacific IGF over the last years. That started in 2011 and I want to acknowledge my Pacific colleagues who have started this initiative in the Pacific back then. Today the Pacific IGF secretariat is with the Pacific Island chapter of the Internet Society. This year Pacific IGF was held in Wellington and our theme was strengthening digital governance, resilience and resilience in the Pacific Islands. And we were supported by the AUDA, the domain name Authority of Australia, and the .NZ, UNESCO and the European Union through the CAID project. And I think there’s some relevance in the theme that we had this year. As we speak now, I had disasters struck two days ago in my country and caused a total outage of communications for the last two days. And thankfully, we are thankful for the Leo technology that currently we have Starlink, some Starlink set up in the country, and also the government is in discussion with Starlink to set up public Internet access around the town. So it’s becoming a reality and resilience for us. There’s two things probably I want to highlight here before I finish. One is I think we need more support in policy frameworks for responses in times of disaster in the Pacific Islands. As you know, for the last few years, we have had a lot of disasters like the volcano eruptions in Tonga and other cyclones, and the disasters are so frequent. And I think we need the right policies in this direction. And the second and last point is I believe probably there’s room to formalize the NRIs to align with the global IGF and increase support as we look forward for the next 20 years. Just to let you know that Pacific IGF 2025 will be in Apia, Samoa, and feel free to join us. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much. It’s good to hear from the Pacific IGF point of view and congratulations to Samoa for hosting the next edition. of the Pacific IGF. I know that we have two more here in the ground, and we also have one online. So we’ll take one more speaker here with us. Please keep your intervention very short, within a minute if you can. Thank you so much.

Hong Kong Youth IGF: Thank you very much, Jennifer, and everyone. This is Jasmine Emanco from Hong Kong YIGF. So we have been documenting our achievement on a report. So you can always go to HKYIGF.asia to see it. But then I wanted to share about the challenge that I find it very critical. And it’s not, I believe it’s not only the challenge that we face, it’s about to engage with the government. Despite that, this year, after several years of not having YIGF in Hong Kong, we make a theme called smart economy. We try to speak the language of government, but then we still find it difficult to get them engaged. So everything, you know, the multi-stakeholders that we engage in our HKYIGF, we have all the stakeholders except the government, which is a pity. So for me, I just want to share about this challenge, and hopefully we can get some insight and success case from the other regions. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, Jasmine. Thank you for giving the views from the Hong Kong Youth IGF. I’d like to go straight to online. Pedro, I believe we have an intervention.

Pedro Lana: Yes, we have an intervention from Nigel Hickson, from the UK. Nigo, I think that you already have permission to open your mic. There we go.

Nigel Hickson: Yes, thank you very much, and good afternoon. It’s an absolute pleasure to take part. I’m a member of the UK IGF. It’s just wonderful to hear so many in our eyes. I’ll be very brief. Three points. I think the Global Digital Compact has set us on the right track. on the right path as we go forward recognizing the immense value of the IGF. We need to build on that in the WSIS Plus 20 process, and we should take nothing for granted. It’s a new debate. Secondly, the UN IGF has done such immense work. I think it should be credited with a longer mandate, a mandate that extends beyond 10 or 20 years. It has so much to contribute to the internet debate. Thirdly, the NRIs need to be recognized in the WSIS Plus 20 resolution that’s adopted. The NRIs are the legitimacy of multi-stakeholder processes. The NRIs are an inspiration, and they need to be recognized for the tremendous work they do in bringing people together to have discussions and coordinate and contribute to the challenges and opportunities we have today. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Nigel. In the interest of time, our last speaker is here in the ground. Please keep your interventions within one minute. Thank you very much.

North African IGF: Thank you so much. I’m Ahmad Farak, chair of the North African IGF, and allow me to make my intervention in Arabic. Peace be upon you, ladies and gentlemen. I’m very proud today about two things here. We are an Arabic country that is actually hosting this IGF. This is the second time, if I remember very well. I think Egypt was there. It was in Egypt the first one in 2001 in the North African IGF. We have a very good position there. We are actually cooperating with a lot of entities in our countries and in the northern of Africa. The Arabic participation here that we see, that is an excellent one, in fact. It is very good, really, as I said, the good preparation, and that it is hosted here in an Arabic country. And so that, too, and all the works that we are doing to unify our efforts. My friends here, Dr. Shafik Misharik is a participant. We have organized a forum before this forum, in fact, to prepare for the Arabic participation. And the forum for the youth of Africa, we have challenges. We have dreams. We try all the time to enhance the people of concern. The most important thing is the programs of capacity building. We try all the time, the trainings all the time, at different times, like cyber security, and marine technology, and other technologies. And also bringing internet to school, and there will be also different other efforts. We also give trainings for women and youth. Also, we have an idea to give trainings also for the elderly, so that to make them aware of these new technologies, and to make them a part of this digital world. All these dreams that we are dreaming today, there is, we have an obstacle, big obstacle, that is the financial obstacle. I thank, let me thank everybody. I, and others, they are trying to help us through their programs. But all the time, with these dreams that we have here or elsewhere, it is the monetary issue all the time. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, and it’s very, very important. Our final speaker on the floor, if you can keep your intervention within one minute, that would be so much appreciated.

Audience: Okay, thank you so much. Before I start ask my question, let me introduce myself. I am Mary Henrica, I am from Timor-Leste, and I am one of the fellow IGF fellow. Before I start my question, here I also want to say thank you to the IGF to give me the opportunity to attend the IGF and to give the opportunity for the Timor-Leste people also to attend the IGF. Okay, this is my question. Timor-Leste right now doesn’t have a local IGF, so how can we establish an IGF in our country and what we need to prepare first to have our own local IGF in our country? Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much. Welcome from Timor-Leste, coming here to the Global IGF. If you need information on how to start an IGF, please contact the IGF secretariat, they will be more than happy. We would be more than happy to help you now that we are over time. I would like to remind everyone, we are still taking in all your inputs. Please send them to the IGF secretariat so all of your inputs can be captured for this session as well. I’m going to end with, of course, all our speakers in reverse order this time. So Lillian, the one key takeaway, 15 seconds each, please, Lillian.

Lilian Chamorro Rojas: Thank you very much, everybody, for sharing your experiences, your ideas. I just wanted to conclude with saying that this governance model that we have built all together and that we have all made our own is not just part of an international system, it’s also local. And this is an invitation to value diversity, experience, learnings, and to take advantage of the next year so that we can renovate ourselves, be creative, and propose new actions and ask the right questions for the GDC and the global community. I’m going to turn it over to Charles to talk a little bit more about the role of multi-stakeholderism and how it plays out in W3C’s.

Jennifer Chung: Charles?

Charles Noir: Thanks for a great discussion. This was fabulous. I think what I’m taking away from this is multi-stakeholderism is a practice. It needs to be practiced regularly. It needs to be strengthened and it needs to be evolved. We all have a role in that. And particularly coming from a stakeholder group, if you want to be a stakeholder, you need to have a sense of community.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Charles. Amrita?

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you. I would say engage, build capacity, work together to create common dialogues, and to protect what we all cherish, the IGF.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Amrita. Lillian?

Lillian Nalwoga: I would like to say there’s really no one-size-fits-all, and we’ve seen that happening in so many different ways, so we need to continue being innovative, creative, to have meaningful participation, whether you’re approaching from organising from a stakeholder aspect or from an issue perspective, we need to be able to be more creative and more innovative.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Lillian. Giacomo?

Giacomo Mazzone: Yes, there was a French politician 100 years ago, that was saying the war is too serious to left it to the generals. I think that we need now to decline to the Internet. The Internet is too serious to be left only to the governments. I think that only through the richness of the contribution of all the stakeholders, we can get through. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Giacomo. Now, back to our home region, Chafic.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you so much, Jennifer. I’ll make my closing remarks in English. First, it’s really appreciated for all these NRIs who came from different regions to speak about their challenges and their opportunities and what they are facing. So on behalf of the Lebanon IGF, I’m happy to help these NRIs to speak about their challenges and their opportunities and what they are facing. to establish and start their NRIs because of the experience that we have during our establishment of the Lebanon IGF. Second, no doubt that the inclusive, open, multi-stakeholder approach is not an option. It’s foundational to build first a community with common vision and objectives that is reflected later in NRIs. And third, as we say as technical people, the internet is the network of networks. So here, the global IGF is the network of the NRIs networks and happy to help anyone that can take our experience and tailor it to their experiences at their national and regional level. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Shafik. What a perfect way to end this session. I hope it has given you just a small taste of all the really good work that the more than 174 NRIs across the globe do. Please engage with your local IGFs in your region, in your economy, in your home country. Can we give us all a round of applause, all for the work of the IGF and also the NRIs.

Chafic Chaya

Speech speed

126 words per minute

Speech length

909 words

Speech time

432 seconds

Transformation from conventional to multi-stakeholder governance in MENA region

Explanation

The MENA region is witnessing a notable transformation from conventional governance to a multi-stakeholder governance model. This model focuses on inclusiveness, flexibility, and cooperation, with national and regional initiatives localizing and harmonizing global governance principles.

Evidence

Increasing number of national and regional initiatives in the MENA region, such as Lebanon Internet Governance Forum, Arab Governance Forum, and North Africa Internet Governance Forum.

Major Discussion Point

Evolution of Internet Governance and Multi-stakeholder Model

Agreed with

Giacomo Mazzone

Charles Noir

Lilian Chamorro Rojas

Agreed on

Importance of multi-stakeholder model in internet governance

Giacomo Mazzone

Speech speed

145 words per minute

Speech length

1051 words

Speech time

432 seconds

European institutions promoting consensus-building and multi-stakeholder approach

Explanation

European institutions like the European Union and Council of Europe have been promoting consensus-building and multi-stakeholder approaches for decades. This approach has been extended to include civil society, academia, and industry in addressing digital policy issues.

Evidence

Example of European elections in June and measures taken to address disinformation and AI-related challenges through collaboration with platforms and fact-checkers.

Major Discussion Point

Evolution of Internet Governance and Multi-stakeholder Model

Agreed with

Chafic Chaya

Charles Noir

Lilian Chamorro Rojas

Agreed on

Importance of multi-stakeholder model in internet governance

IGF should support implementation of Global Digital Compact

Explanation

The IGF and its associated structures are seen as crucial for supporting the implementation of the Global Digital Compact. The IGF network provides tools to bring the principles of the Global Digital Compact down to earth and test them in real-world contexts.

Evidence

Mention of dynamic coalitions, policy networks, and NRIs as tools for collecting best practices and consulting stakeholders at national and regional levels.

Major Discussion Point

Future of the IGF and Internet Governance

Lillian Nalwoga

Speech speed

133 words per minute

Speech length

586 words

Speech time

263 seconds

Capacity building initiatives driving multi-stakeholder engagement in Africa

Explanation

Africa has seen a growth in capacity building initiatives that promote multi-stakeholder engagement in internet governance. These initiatives include regional and national schools on internet governance, which aim to build capacity across different stakeholder groups.

Evidence

Mention of regional schools, national schools, and the Africa School on Internet Governance (AfriSIG). Introduction of the Africa Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance to engage legislators.

Major Discussion Point

Evolution of Internet Governance and Multi-stakeholder Model

Agreed with

Amrita Choudhury

Charles Noir

Lilian Chamorro Rojas

Agreed on

Value of National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs)

Importance of tracking outcomes from NRI meetings

Explanation

There is a need to develop and track outcomes from NRI meetings to demonstrate their impact. This involves producing key outcome documents from meetings and tracking their implementation at country and regional levels.

Major Discussion Point

Challenges and Opportunities for National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs)

Amrita Choudhury

Speech speed

159 words per minute

Speech length

1000 words

Speech time

377 seconds

Diverse stakeholder inclusion needed in Asia-Pacific region

Explanation

The Asia-Pacific region requires the inclusion of diverse stakeholders in internet governance discussions due to its vast diversity in countries, cultures, languages, economies, and levels of technology adoption. Efforts are being made to increase participation from underrepresented groups and economies.

Evidence

Mention of fellowship programs to improve gender balance and representation from underrepresented economies like the Pacific islands.

Major Discussion Point

Evolution of Internet Governance and Multi-stakeholder Model

Agreed with

Lillian Nalwoga

Charles Noir

Lilian Chamorro Rojas

Agreed on

Value of National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs)

Charles Noir

Speech speed

152 words per minute

Speech length

917 words

Speech time

359 seconds

Multi-stakeholder model crucial for technical operation of internet

Explanation

The multi-stakeholder governance model is essential for the current technical operation of the internet. It is the reason why instant global connectivity is possible and why the internet functions as it does today from a technical operating perspective.

Evidence

Reference to the ability to call someone on the other side of the world instantaneously as a result of the multi-stakeholder model governing the technical layer of the internet.

Major Discussion Point

Evolution of Internet Governance and Multi-stakeholder Model

Agreed with

Chafic Chaya

Giacomo Mazzone

Lilian Chamorro Rojas

Agreed on

Importance of multi-stakeholder model in internet governance

Value of NRIs in informing national policymaking

Explanation

National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs) are seen as important sources of information and guidance for national policymakers. They provide a platform for engaging the community and informing decision-making on internet policy issues.

Evidence

Mention of the Canadian IGF as a source of information and advice for policymakers making decisions about internet governance.

Major Discussion Point

Challenges and Opportunities for National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs)

Agreed with

Lillian Nalwoga

Amrita Choudhury

Lilian Chamorro Rojas

Agreed on

Value of National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs)

Opportunity to renew commitment to multi-stakeholderism through WSIS+20

Explanation

The WSIS+20 review process is seen as an opportunity to reinforce and dedicate a commitment to multi-stakeholderism for the next decade. It is viewed as a chance to recognize the importance of the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance.

Major Discussion Point

Future of the IGF and Internet Governance

Lilian Chamorro Rojas

Speech speed

125 words per minute

Speech length

781 words

Speech time

373 seconds

Local and regional IGFs contribute to global internet governance

Explanation

National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs) play a crucial role in contributing to global internet governance. They provide platforms for discussing and assessing the implementation of global agreements at national and regional levels.

Evidence

Mention of increased activity in NRIs, both in terms of number of initiatives and number of participants.

Major Discussion Point

Evolution of Internet Governance and Multi-stakeholder Model

Explanation

The UN IGF should be credited with a longer mandate that extends beyond 10 or 20 years. This is based on the recognition of the IGF’s significant contributions to internet governance debates.

Major Discussion Point

Future of the IGF and Internet Governance

Call for NRIs to be recognized in WSIS+20 resolution

Explanation

There is a call for NRIs to be formally recognized in the WSIS+20 resolution. This recognition is seen as important due to the crucial role NRIs play in legitimizing multi-stakeholder processes and bringing people together for internet governance discussions.

Major Discussion Point

Future of the IGF and Internet Governance

Audience

Speech speed

111 words per minute

Speech length

1496 words

Speech time

801 seconds

IGF as key platform for discussing digital policy issues beyond WSIS

Explanation

The IGF is viewed as a crucial platform for discussing digital policy issues beyond the scope of WSIS. There is a call for stakeholders to fully participate in the IGF and commit to its ongoing financial sustainability.

Evidence

Mention of the Australian IGF’s position statement calling for the continuation of the IGF’s mandate and for stakeholders to commit to its financial sustainability.

Major Discussion Point

Future of the IGF and Internet Governance

Agreements

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder model in internet governance

Chafic Chaya

Giacomo Mazzone

Charles Noir

Lilian Chamorro Rojas

Transformation from conventional to multi-stakeholder governance in MENA region

European institutions promoting consensus-building and multi-stakeholder approach

Multi-stakeholder model crucial for technical operation of internet

Local and regional IGFs contribute to global internet governance

Speakers agree on the crucial role of the multi-stakeholder model in shaping internet governance, emphasizing its importance for technical operations, policy-making, and regional development.

Value of National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs)

Lillian Nalwoga

Amrita Choudhury

Charles Noir

Lilian Chamorro Rojas

Capacity building initiatives driving multi-stakeholder engagement in Africa

Diverse stakeholder inclusion needed in Asia-Pacific region

Value of NRIs in informing national policymaking

Local and regional IGFs contribute to global internet governance

Speakers highlight the importance of NRIs in promoting capacity building, stakeholder engagement, and informing national and regional internet governance policies.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for capacity building and inclusive participation in their respective regions to strengthen internet governance processes.

Lillian Nalwoga

Amrita Choudhury

Capacity building initiatives driving multi-stakeholder engagement in Africa

Diverse stakeholder inclusion needed in Asia-Pacific region

Both speakers view the WSIS+20 process as an opportunity to strengthen and extend the IGF’s mandate, emphasizing the importance of recognizing and supporting NRIs.

Charles Noir

Nigel Hickson

Opportunity to renew commitment to multi-stakeholderism through WSIS+20

Need to strengthen IGF mandate beyond 10-20 years

Call for NRIs to be recognized in WSIS+20 resolution

Unexpected Consensus

Challenges faced by NRIs across different regions

Ahmed Farag

Jasmine Ko

Andrew Molivurae

Phyo Thiri L.

Financial sustainability challenges for NRI secretariats

Difficulty engaging government stakeholders in some regions

Need for policy frameworks on disaster response in Pacific islands

Challenges in fostering youth collaboration across South Asia

Despite coming from diverse regions, these speakers unexpectedly highlight similar challenges faced by NRIs, including financial constraints, stakeholder engagement difficulties, and the need for specialized policy frameworks.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the importance of the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance, the value of NRIs in capacity building and policy-making, and the need to strengthen the IGF’s mandate through the WSIS+20 process. There is also consensus on the challenges faced by NRIs across different regions.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among speakers on the fundamental principles of internet governance and the role of NRIs. This strong agreement suggests a unified vision for the future of internet governance, which could facilitate more effective collaboration and policy-making at both regional and global levels. However, the shared challenges identified by NRIs from different regions indicate that there are still significant obstacles to overcome in implementing these principles effectively across diverse contexts.

Differences

Different Viewpoints

Approach to engaging government stakeholders

Charles Noir

Jasmine Ko

While Charles Noir emphasizes the value of NRIs in informing national policymaking, Jasmine Ko highlights the difficulty in engaging government stakeholders in some regions.

Unexpected Differences

Financial sustainability of NRIs

Ahmed Farag

Charles Noir

While the Ahmed Farag highlights financial sustainability as a major challenge for NRIs, Charles Noir focuses on the opportunity to reinforce multi-stakeholderism through WSIS+20 without addressing the financial concerns. This difference in focus on immediate operational challenges versus long-term policy opportunities is unexpected.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the challenges faced by different NRIs, particularly in engaging government stakeholders and ensuring financial sustainability. There are also differences in focus regarding the immediate operational needs of NRIs versus long-term policy opportunities.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is relatively low, with most differences stemming from varied regional experiences and priorities rather than fundamental disagreements on the value of multi-stakeholderism or the importance of NRIs. These differences highlight the diverse challenges faced by NRIs across different regions and underscore the need for flexible, context-specific approaches to internet governance.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of inclusive participation in NRIs, but they differ in their focus. Lillian Nalwoga emphasizes tracking outcomes, while Amrita Choudhury focuses on increasing diverse stakeholder participation.

Lillian Nalwoga

Amrita Choudhury

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for capacity building and inclusive participation in their respective regions to strengthen internet governance processes.

Lillian Nalwoga

Amrita Choudhury

Capacity building initiatives driving multi-stakeholder engagement in Africa

Diverse stakeholder inclusion needed in Asia-Pacific region

Both speakers view the WSIS+20 process as an opportunity to strengthen and extend the IGF’s mandate, emphasizing the importance of recognizing and supporting NRIs.

Charles Noir

Nigel Hickson

Opportunity to renew commitment to multi-stakeholderism through WSIS+20

Need to strengthen IGF mandate beyond 10-20 years

Call for NRIs to be recognized in WSIS+20 resolution

Takeaways

Key Takeaways

The multi-stakeholder model is crucial for effective internet governance and should be strengthened

National and Regional Internet Governance Forum (NRI) initiatives play a vital role in shaping global internet governance

Capacity building and inclusivity are key challenges for many NRIs, especially in developing regions

Financial sustainability is a major concern for many NRI initiatives

The upcoming WSIS+20 review presents an opportunity to reinforce commitment to multi-stakeholderism and the IGF

There is a need to better integrate NRI inputs into global internet governance processes

Resolutions and Action Items

Engage NRIs in consultation during 2025 on the future institutional structure of the IGF

Recognize and formalize NRIs in the WSIS+20 resolution

Strengthen the IGF mandate beyond 10-20 years

Develop mechanisms to track outcomes from NRI meetings

Increase support for policy frameworks on disaster response in Pacific islands

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively engage government stakeholders in some regions

How to ensure financial sustainability for NRI initiatives

How to better integrate youth voices in internet governance processes

How to establish new national IGFs in countries that don’t yet have them

How to balance diverse regional needs and priorities in global internet governance

Suggested Compromises

Use the IGF as a platform to support implementation of the Global Digital Compact while maintaining its broader mandate

This question from a participant highlights the ongoing process of expanding the IGF network and the interest from underrepresented regions. It brings attention to the practical steps needed to establish new IGFs.

impact

This comment shifted the discussion towards practical advice and support for establishing new IGFs, emphasizing the role of the IGF Secretariat and existing IGFs in supporting expansion. It highlighted the dynamic, growing nature of the IGF ecosystem.

Overall Assessment

explanation

Continuous improvement of the multi-stakeholder approach is essential for effective internet governance.

Open Forum #12 Ensuring an Inclusive and Rights-Respecting Digital Future

Session at a Glance

Summary

This discussion focused on ensuring an inclusive and rights-respecting digital future, particularly in the context of implementing the UN Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the WSIS+20 review. Speakers emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in digital governance, highlighting the need to involve diverse voices from civil society, the private sector, technical community, and academia.

A key theme was the challenge of achieving meaningful multi-stakeholder participation in UN processes, especially in New York-based negotiations. Several speakers noted that while the GDC emphasizes multi-stakeholderism, its development process was not sufficiently inclusive. The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was highlighted as a valuable platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue, with calls to strengthen its role and secure sustainable funding.

Participants stressed the importance of capacity building to enable effective engagement from underrepresented groups, particularly from the Global South. The need for a multilingual internet and consideration of local contexts in digital governance was also emphasized. Speakers advocated for focusing on national and regional initiatives, such as national IGFs, to complement global processes.

The Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) was recognized as an important platform for promoting human rights online and facilitating multi-stakeholder collaboration. Speakers called for continued support of the FOC and its Advisory Network. The discussion also touched on the role of the technical community in ensuring that governance discussions are grounded in technical realities.

Overall, the conversation highlighted the complex challenges of achieving inclusive digital governance and the need for continued efforts to evolve multi-stakeholder processes to address emerging digital issues.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in internet governance and digital policy processes

– Challenges with inclusivity and meaningful participation, especially for stakeholders from the Global South

– The role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and other forums in facilitating inclusive dialogue

– Implementation of the Global Digital Compact and WSIS+20 review process

– Building capacity and expertise among diverse stakeholders to enable effective participation

Overall purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how to ensure an inclusive and rights-respecting digital future through multi-stakeholder engagement in global internet governance processes, with a focus on implementing the Global Digital Compact and preparing for the WSIS+20 review.

Tone:

The tone was largely constructive and collaborative, with speakers building on each other’s points. There was a sense of shared purpose in promoting inclusive governance, though some frustration was expressed about the limitations of multilateral UN processes in New York. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end, with speakers emphasizing the need for concrete steps to improve stakeholder engagement and capacity building.

Speakers

– Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Senior Policy Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of the Netherlands

– Ernst Noorman: Ambassador for Cyber Affairs, Kingdom of the Netherlands

– Filippo Pierozzi: Office of the UN Tech Envoy

– Rasmus Lumi:Director General of the Department of International Organizations and Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia

– Anja Gengo: IGF Secretariat

– Emilar Gandhi: Global Head of Stakeholder Engagement, META

– Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Executive Director, TechGlobal Initiative, member of the FOC Advisory Network

– Adeboye Adegoke: Paradigm Initiative

– Olaf Kolfman: Executive-level Advisor and Spokesperson, ISOC

– Fiona Alexander: American University

Additional speakers:

– Audience

Full session report

Expanded Summary: Ensuring an Inclusive and Rights-Respecting Digital Future

This discussion focused on the critical challenge of ensuring an inclusive and rights-respecting digital future, particularly in the context of implementing the UN Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the upcoming WSIS+20 review. The conversation brought together diverse perspectives from government representatives, international organisations, civil society, the private sector, and the technical community.

Setting the Context: Multi-stakeholder Engagement and Global Initiatives

Ernst Noorman, the Ambassador for Cyber Affairs of the Netherlands and current chair of the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), set the tone for the discussion. He emphasized that a multi-stakeholder approach is crucial for addressing complex digital issues and highlighted the recent adoption of the Global Digital Compact. Noorman stressed the need for evolving multi-stakeholder governance and creating an appealing narrative to engage diverse stakeholders. He framed the GDC as integrating human rights, sustainable development, and technology governance in an interconnected way.

Rasmus Lumi, representing Estonia as the incoming Chair of the FOC for 2025, echoed the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches. He noted the increasing complexity of the UN ecosystem and emphasized the need for inclusive governance that respects human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Lumi suggested that the FOC could play a role in GDC implementation aligned with these principles.

The Role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

The Internet Governance Forum was highlighted as a valuable platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue on digital policy issues. Anja Gengo from the IGF Secretariat provided insights into the forum’s growth, citing statistics on increased participation. She emphasized the IGF’s role as an inclusive space for dialogue and its adaptation to emerging technologies like AI. Gengo also stressed the need for multi-disciplinary approaches in addressing digital governance challenges.

However, there was recognition that the IGF needs strengthening to enhance its effectiveness. Fiona Alexander from American University stressed the need for sustained funding to strengthen the IGF’s capacity, while others called for evolving the forum to produce more actionable outcomes.

Challenges in Multi-stakeholder Processes

The discussion highlighted significant challenges in achieving meaningful multi-stakeholder participation, especially in UN-based processes. Fiona Alexander provided a critical perspective, stating that “New York processes, by design and by structure, are limited in their way to involve stakeholders. And I don’t see a meaningful way to change that.” This unexpected consensus on the limitations of UN processes in New York sparked a broader conversation about alternative approaches and the importance of local and national initiatives.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya, Executive Director of the TechGlobal Initiative, and Adeboye Adegoke from Paradigm Initiative highlighted power asymmetries in multi-stakeholder processes. They emphasized the need for capacity building to enable effective engagement from underrepresented groups, particularly from the Global South. Diya made a thought-provoking comment on the importance of meaningful participation: “Even when we are in these kinds of spaces, and I think that’s where the technical community, the private sector, governments have a tremendous role to play in terms of how do we ensure that when groups have access to international spaces, are sitting on these tables, they’re active.”

Private Sector and Technical Community Perspectives

Emilar Gandhi from META provided insights into the private sector’s role, highlighting META’s human rights policy and employee training. She emphasized the importance of stakeholder engagement and creating intentional spaces for diverse voices in digital governance discussions.

Olaf Kolkman from the Internet Society offered a technical community perspective, making a memorable analogy comparing multi-stakeholder mechanisms to large language models: “If you train a large language model and you provide it with incomplete input, it will start to hallucinate. And I think that the multi-stakeholder mechanisms, if you do not provide all the inputs that you have at the table, the output of the process will be a hallucination.” This reinforced the importance of including diverse perspectives, including technical expertise, in governance discussions. Kolkman also noted that the technical community often speaks a different “language” and stressed the need for mutual understanding among stakeholders.

Local and National Initiatives

Several speakers, including Adeboye Adegoke and Olaf Kolkman, stressed the importance of focusing on national and regional initiatives, such as national IGFs, to complement global processes. There was a shared viewpoint that local and national processes are key for implementing digital governance principles and engaging stakeholders effectively. Fiona Alexander particularly emphasized this point, suggesting a focus on local and national processes as a way to overcome the limitations of UN-based mechanisms.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The discussion concluded with a recognition of the complex challenges in achieving inclusive digital governance and the need for continued efforts to evolve multi-stakeholder processes. Key takeaways included the crucial role of multi-stakeholder engagement, the importance of local and national processes, the need for capacity building, and the significance of technical expertise in governance discussions.

Several unresolved issues were identified, including how to effectively integrate multi-stakeholder input into UN processes, balance multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches, address power asymmetries within multi-stakeholder processes, and ensure meaningful participation from marginalized groups.

Moving forward, participants suggested focusing on renewing and strengthening the IGF mandate in the upcoming WSIS+20 review, securing sustained funding for the IGF, and encouraging stakeholders to engage in local and national digital governance processes. The discussion underscored the ongoing need for collaborative efforts to shape an inclusive and rights-respecting digital future.

Session Transcript

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: for this year’s IGF. The session is called Ensuring an Inclusive and Right-Respecting Digital Future, and the session seeks to allow input from various stakeholder and regional groups on the role of the multistakeholder community in the implementation of the UN Global Digital Compact and the WSIS plus 20 review. Without further ado, I will give the floor to Mr. Ernst-Norman, Ambassador for Cyber Affairs of the Netherlands for his opening remarks.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you very much, Jakob. And welcome to all the friends of the Freedom Online Coalition, esteemed panelists, and, of course, also our online audience. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us today at the open forum session of the Freedom Online Coalition. Today, we are going to talk about Ensuring an Inclusive and Right-Respecting Digital Future. The Netherlands organized this session in its role as the current Freedom Online Coalition chair. The Netherlands is one of the founders who created the Freedom Online Coalition in 2011 and acted as the first chair, and has been an honor for our country to have been chairing this ever more important coalition this year for the second time. And I’m delighted to see such a great variety of panelists to the roles that we see as essential for discussions on digital issues. We have experts from the FOC advisory network, civil society, private sector, the technical community, and the tech and voice office, and the IGF Secretariat present today. And last but not least, my colleague and friend from Estonia, Rasmus Lumi, who will be chairing our coalition in 2025. When I first started my role as a cyber ambassador for the Netherlands, they were telling me that 2025 would be an extremely important year for internet governance and human rights online. Therefore, I must thank Estonia from the bottom of my heart for their willingness to take over our FOC chairship next year. At the same time, in 2024, we have not been calmly waiting for the Estonians to save us. The adoption of the Global Digital Compact at the Summit of the Future has been a key milestone in our journey towards the WSIS Plus 20 review next year. The events we have been hosting with the FOC over the course of 2024 have been largely focused on laying the groundwork while preparing ourselves for these important negotiations. As most of you are familiar with the WSIS, we do not need to start the review negotiations with a blank slate. I’m going to use a term that most of you will have a love-hate relationship with, but we do have agreed language to work with. The principles, commitments, and actions in the Global Digital Compact are closely linked to the existing WSIS agreements. The Tunisia Agenda and the Geneva Plan of Action. The GDC sets out a vision for digital cooperation built on principles ingrained in sustainable development and human rights, both mutually dependent and reinforcing, as well as for global internet and AI governance. The GDC also acknowledges the role of the IGF as a primary multi-stakeholder platform for discussions on internet issues. Moreover, in April this year, the Sao Paulo Multi-Stakeholder Guidelines were adopted at the NetMundial Plus 10 conference. These underline the need to protect and get participation in internet and digital governance. And lastly, just this week, on the initiative of Canada, the FOC published a joint statement on the future of the multi-stakeholder approach at the United Nations. The statement recognizes that multi-stakeholder processes must evolve to address emerging and complex challenges. It is precisely this idea of evolving that I would like to address in the remainder of my remarks. Agreed language is no guarantee in today’s world. Characterized by geopolitical dynamics, economic power concentrations, a decline in internet freedom worldwide, and rapid technological development. In order to actually strengthen and evolve the multi-stakeholder governance of the internet and digital technologies, we will need to have an appealing narrative, a narrative underpinned by commitments and actions that actually do, one, keep discussions on technical issues within the technical domain, two, bridge the digital divides without reinforcing existing inequalities, three, strengthen the protection of human rights worldwide, online and offline, four, govern emerging digital technologies in a responsible and rights-respecting manner, while making the existing multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance more inclusive. This is no way an easy task. But we as the Netherlands and the broader Freedom Online Coalition believe that these commitments resonate around the world and are the best way to work towards a digital future for all of us. The 20-year review of WSIS is around the corner. And it will be up to us to ensure that it will continue to steer global digital cooperation and governance together with the implementation of the GDC. I hope the forum session will not only address those issues that are close to our hearts, but we want to defend human rights online, multistakeholder governance, and the IGF itself, but also those issues that need to evolve to ensure that the implementation of the GDC and the WSIS process remain fit for purpose also in 2025. While I have full confidence in Estonia, in my chair of the FOC, it does set me to that today is the very last event that we are organizing as a chair of the Freedom Online Coalition. Nikki of the USA, most of you know her, asked me last night what the most memorable event for me was during our FOC chairship. As this is our last event, I hope this will be the one. So without putting any pressure on all of you, I wish you all a very fruitful and inspirational discussion. Thank you very much. And back to Jakob Pepijn.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you very much, Mr. Norman, for your opening remark. We will now have a round through the panelists, through the different speakers. Each panelist will have about five minutes to answer a question related to their role in the multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance. And after that, we will have time for questions from the audience, followed by closing remarks from all the speakers. So without further ado, and also because Mr. Filippo from the Secretary General’s office, from the Office of the Tech Envoy, has to leave, unfortunately, already in half an hour, I will give the floor first to him. And Filippo, the implementation of the Global Digital Compact, so to ensure that it and other relevant processes maintain and are in alignment with international human rights law.

Filippo Pierozzi: Thanks, Jakob. And I would like also to acknowledge the statement from Ambassador Norman, and especially on the role of the Global Digital Compact, the role of IGF. I mean, I guess all of you would agree that if IGF didn’t exist, we would need to invent something like this. And this is also still a landing point of the Global Digital Compact, where most member states and all stakeholders found an agreement that the role of IGF and its convening role should be strengthened. Rather than weaken it, we count, I acknowledge also Director General Lumi, we count on the Freedom Online Coalition to work in this coalition building when it comes to the role of this multi-stakeholder forum. Now, the Global Digital Compact, and sorry, my body language, I’m trying to be in an open forum, trying to be as open as possible, and not turn my back on anyone. The Global Digital Compact is refreshing the agreement that member states found in 2005 with the Tunis Agenda, the principles, and introduces some areas that are new. It’s comprehensive. It’s comprehensive and has multi-stakeholder at the center. And most of you and several member states and even stakeholders ask me, hold on, that is an intergovernmental process. How can it be multi-stakeholder? And that is the tricky answer, the tricky question that we’ll need to answer. Because yes, the Global Digital Compact, as much as we exist, it’s an intergovernmental process. So something that I would like to see moving forward in both processes is to see a concerted effort from our side, from the United Nations, from member states to be as inclusive as possible from stakeholders. Again, even the concept of human rights that is the very core of this conversation developed and evolved. And as, again, Ambassador Norman said, it’s based on the sustainable development goals and human rights. If you’re going back to the Geneva Declaration of Principles of 2003, the concept of human rights was mostly anchored to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its freedom of expression. 20 years later, when we are in the digital space, we know that human rights is way more than just… freedom of expression. So ideally we want to work together with all stakeholders and start implementing the Global Digital Compact not in one year time, not in two years time, but right now. There are provisions that broaden the understanding of what human rights are. There is a section that is objective three of the Global Digital Compact that has a strong cluster of human rights and there are commitments from member states, there are calls for the private sector that is here represented at this table and it would be very good to hear from them how they plan of acting even further on new… is already undertaking. There is the digital advisory service run by the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights and that we hope it will be another tool to sharpen the accountability of the private sector and of member states when it comes to respecting human rights online. Coming back on how we can do this in a multi-stakeholder way, a provision in the Global Digital Compact is to have a call for endorsement and you might have heard me saying this over and over again versus a time or two days ago. Endorsement, yes or no. It’s an online form, stakeholders can tell the UN Secretariat what they are doing or what they plan to do to implement the Global Digital Compact and any reference in there to what you have been doing over the last 20 years in connection to WSIS are most welcome and there is again an option to endorse. We do understand that for some civil society organizations sometimes endorsing can be a tough undertaking so that’s why we wanted to give the option of just specifying the areas of action. The Secretary General will publish a report on the implementation map and this will constitute the way forward and will run in parallel to the WSIS process. Where did I have to dash to the airport and trying to, not to prevent, but maybe to address one of the FAQs that we are getting on how these two processes can go together and this is just my personal take having been in the GDC negotiation and consultations since day one. I don’t see this as two different roads that diverge but rather as a stack. WSIS is fit for purpose if we make it fit for purpose. The action lines encompass a lot of the areas that are in the Global Digital Compact but not all of them and vice versa. Ideally you will have the implementation of the Global Digital Compact strengthening and adding to what is already in WSIS because again times are changing and we hope that with over the coming months engaging in Geneva with the WSIS plus 20 consults, co-facilitators for the process will be appointed by the end of March in New York by the President of the General Assembly and with the Global Digital Compact implementation process. And again to all of you around this table it is very, very important to hear from you on what you would like to see in the implementation of the Global Digital Compact because again multi-stakeholder processes they don’t happen by themselves. We as the UN Tech Envoy office and as the UN we are committed to keep it as multi-stakeholder as possible and to preserve that dimension but we really need to hear from all of you and with this Jaco back to you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you so much Filippo and thank you for especially for elaborating on the Global Digital Compact laying out what it entails exactly also in terms of human rights and on how the implementation of the Global Digital Compact also can be nurtured and can be especially also endorsed or how the role of stakeholders in its implementation and upon that last point especially on the WSIS and the GDC relationship because I think that’s a question that many of us have and that we are all thinking about how we can best ensure that there is no duplication on that side and that we are not only reviewing text but actually implement it. So thank you Filippo and without further ado I will give the floor to Rasmus Lumi the Director General of the Department of International Organizations and Human Rights and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia and who is also going to be the Chair of the Freedom Online Coalition in 2025. Rasmus, what role can the FOC and individual governments play in the implementation of the Global Digital Compact and how can we ensure, how can governments ensure together with the stakeholders of course to make sure that the GDC and the relevant implementation of the GDC and the different aspects of that and the WSIS plus 20 are in alignment with the international human rights law.

Rasmus Lumi: Maybe, okay good. So thank you very much and first of all I should be thankful to Ambassador Norman for his kind keynote although I’m now a bit much pressure on Estonia that I don’t know how to respond to that. So thank you very much. Now if you’ll allow me in the very beginning I would like to concentrate a bit also on the issue of multi-stakeholderism and the importance of it in the upcoming processes but then definitely will also say a few words about the possible FOC role. As a government representative it’s to note that for us fostering the multi-stakeholder approach is extremely important and we too have been looking with concern into the situation that many discussions have been varying towards multilateralism and not so much multi-stakeholderism but we will have to see what we can do about it. So looking back of course in the last 10 years tech governance has changed quite a bit and the recent GDC negotiations have gained prominence and at the same time become much more contested and meanwhile the UN ecosystem has grown much more complex and there is an increasing number of agencies competing for their role in different technology-related mandates and also now that the new UN tech office is entering the fora it will be even more complicated to figure out what is the best way of moving forward. But despite all this complexity we have learned during many years that everything about it has to be a multi-stakeholder effort in order for it to be more successful and more inclusive. There should be absolutely no one single country or entity who is controlling the internet and we can see it very well at the national level where one government is in control of the internet structures then in the form of internet shutdown this is something that is happening in the world quite often and in our future endeavors we should definitely avoid this happening on a global scale. We also know that there is no way to have a comprehensive approach when some stakeholders are excluded from the discussions and especially those stakeholders who are in other ways. So ultimately if we don’t have a sufficiently inclusive approach the outcome will be worse for everybody especially of course the people. And there is plenty of room for improvement since we have millions and even billions of people still without proper access to the internet. But this is again something that the governments must not and should not do alone but the global community should support this and also play a part. Now the digital governance as opposed to the internet governance is of course a much broader topic with wider scope and focus where we include e-governance, cyber security, digital inclusion, artificial intelligence and so on. But just like internet governance we cannot and must be very important that even in digital governance each stakeholder plays its role and not only for the sake of inclusion but also because they have specific competencies and then they could use them to play their part in those discussions. And since the digital society is an ecosystem and not an institution we should not forget that when we also talk about implementation of the GDC. Now as I said in the beginning during the GDC negotiations also we felt a shift towards a multilateral approach and this is proving how and why we need to continue showcasing the benefits and support of other stakeholder. This is a great example of this being such a global policy dialogue and bringing all the stakeholders together from technologists to the governments to civil society. And therefore as we approach the WSIS plus 20 process and discuss the implementation of the GDC we must adopt a strong common approach to ensure the protection of internet’s decentralized model. Regarding digital governance we must prioritize the inclusive governance and policy making that takes into account and respects human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Count the governance system we already have created and how to use it to its full potential instead of creating new mechanisms that might duplicate already existing formats. And with regard now to the role of the FOC and individual governments I will just mention that in Estonia’s experience technology generally is a very powerful tool. accompanied by proper change management, which is very important. And we have to focus on how to transform the societies as a whole, with the help of technologies. Now, in the FOC, as a coalition of like-minded, we can message, and the FOC states can and will protect this principle, across different forums. As advocacy, as you know, is the FOC’s strongest tool. And another, and finally I will mention that another important aspect is capacity building. This is one of the priorities for the Estonian chairship in the FOC, and we will definitely continue our efforts in this regard. Often there is confusion and sometimes even resistance how exactly human rights can be followed and implemented when using and developing technologies. So, and by capacity building, it’s very important. And the OHCHR has a crucial role to play in this, which the GDC also affirmed. So, the FOC, as well as individual governments, will have to continue supporting the OHCHR and its work. And it also means that we have to continue doing it financially. So I will leave it to that for now, and maybe come back later after some questions. Thank you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you very much, Rasmus. And yeah, especially thank you also for mentioning the complexities, because indeed, digital governance, internet governance are very complex fields. But I think you would agree with me that if we underline that including as many stakeholders as possible in the conversation is not something that makes it more complex, but actually helps us engage with the complexities of the governance and of the technical and governmental issues. Governmental, yeah, the governing challenges which is emerging technologies and the internet. And especially also change management, which you mentioned. You mentioned it, of course, in the context of digital transformation, but I also think that for the WSIS plus 20 review, we need to develop together a very strong and agile change management for the WSIS. So, having said that, we will turn to Anja Jengel from the IGF Secretariat. I’m glad you could make it. How can forums and spaces like the Internet Governance Forum continue to serve as an inclusive space for dialogue amidst changes in the global digital ecosystem? Anja, I will give you the mic too.

Anja Gengo: Thank you. Thank you very much, Jaakko and Riad. Thank you for being patient and waiting for me. The Secretariat is extremely busy on the first and last day, especially of the IGF. But it’s a great honor for us to join the Freedom Online Coalition in this setup in Riad. We have been cooperating, collaborating particularly over the past two years very closely. And I use this opportunity to recognize the excellent work that the Coalition has been doing, especially during the consultations on the Global Digital Compact leading toward its adoption. And I use the opportunity as well on behalf of the Secretariat to congratulate the Chair, Ambassador Norman, on… …wonderful, and we welcome certainly working closely with Estonia and new leadership in the months to come. That is indeed a very important question. The IGF, as you know, has been convened in 2006 by the Secretary General as a neutral platform that will allow for facilitation of multi-stakeholder dialogue on issues pertaining to public digital policy. Indeed, some of the terms that especially in the recent times are present in our discourse, such as Internet governance and digital governance, what is the difference? It is an interesting debate. But essentially, I think nothing is better to tell us in terms of description of the digital public policy issues than people. And through the IGF, we really see, because of its bottom-up nature and, of course, multi-stakeholder approach, that people really see digital technologies as something that’s more and more integrated in their lives. And therefore, speaking indeed about one entity, one… …is really impossible now. It’s part of our lives, and it’s deeply integrated in all spheres. Therefore, including at the UN system, various institutions can now not even avoid not to deal with the digital, because it’s just there in every sphere of our lives and of our dynamics. If we look back in the past now 19 years of the IGF, things have been changing, and as digital technologies have been evolving, so has the IGF. I always like to start from the numbers, a nice indicator of the success or maybe of an alarm where we need to do more. And, you know, always these WSIS Plus 20 preparations are reminding me of my beginnings with the IGF, which was around WSIS Plus 10, when the IGF was hosted by the government of Brazil. And in Brazil, we could speak about certainly less than 1,000 stakeholders that were participating in Joao Pessoa’s annual meeting, coming from around 120, 22 different member states. The numbers in the past changed, I would say, in favor of all those who are diligently standing to protect the multi-stakeholder approach to Internet, which is, for example, that in Kyoto last year, we could speak about triple participation than 10 years ago, so more than 9,000 stakeholders participated from around 178 member states. That’s a significant increase in just a 10-year period. And that also tells us that the multi-stakeholder approach is being endorsed or adopted or visible in other various parts of the world. Another indicator, which I think is a mere fact of the endorsement of the multi-stakeholder approach through the IGF model, is the growing number of the local IGFs, national, regional, sub-regional and youth IGFs. So, for example, during the WSIS Plus 10, the Secretary has been reporting to the community that we work with about 50, less than 50, NRIs. They were really proud to say that we work with a very firm, robust, stable network of 178 national, regional, sub-regional and youth IGFs. And just to tell the number, but the community tripled the number of the IGF models that are deployed at the local level through the multi-stakeholder approach. So those are, for example, some of the indicators of the success. The IGF as a platform, and I certainly can speak for the Secretariat, continues to serve people around the world and continues to react on the demand that comes from the people. That’s why the agenda every year is changing, basically being reflective of the demand that’s coming from stakeholders from around the world through the public consultations. As the digital technologies are changing, as, for example, the artificial intelligence is becoming more and more prominent, or more and more part of us, so is the agenda or the program of the IGF annually speaking. Since 2016, there’s been a significant shift. Topics that were dominating the agenda by that time, such as cybersecurity, safety online, access and connectivity, have slowly been pushed a little bit on the maybe second place by the topics related to new and emerging technologies, especially artificial intelligence, just because it’s bringing a new wave of challenges to us and it’s bringing an additional layer of responsibilities in front of the multistakeholder community to respond how to govern this very important piece of technology that is more and more accessible. I would say those are the indicators, and I think in terms of the IGF, we will certainly see how the WSIS Plus 20 and the whole preparatory process will behave, but the Secretariat remains committed to its community to listen what is the demand, and then to respond within its capacity to the best of its ability to adjust the process so that it’s reflective of the needs and hopefully to help us resolve the issues that have been identified by the community for having a sustainable development overall. Thank you very much.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Aymar. Thank you for your remarks. And if I may try to summarize them, I think you wanted to emphasize mostly that the IGF, throughout its existence, has been, the character of the IGF has been very much bottom-up and flexible to make sure that it can actually stand the test of time and continue to evolve together with the technical, social, political, all the developments that are ongoing. And I think that’s also something that we want to retain. So thank you very much for that. And then we’ll move to the private sector because we have different stakeholders around the table. So we will move to the private sector now. To Emila Adladi, Global Head of Stakeholder Engagement from META. Emila, given the critical role of online platforms in the private sector in guiding global digital cooperation, how can industry contribute to the realization of a rights-perspective and inclusive digital future while ensuring accountability? And what does this look like in practice?

Emilar Gandhi: Thank you so much for… It’s weird when you hear yourself. Thank you so much for that question. So tough, the end of the IGF, after four or five days of conversations, but, yeah, I think that, you know, as private sector, we have a huge role to play. And META has taken several steps or several initiatives to ensure that we contribute to rights-respecting in the future. And some of it actually aligns with what the Director General said and what, you know, my colleague also mentioned. I think I’ll take a step back… a little bit and say, for us, our approach is stemmed from our goals or our mission as a company is embedded in how we actually approach human rights and how we build our products and how we build our policies. So by that, I mean, it’s good and nice to be here, for us to be able to share the tales. But if our foundation is not strong, then we might as well just be theorizing everything that we are saying here. So for us, it’s part of our mission. It’s part of how we approach inclusivity and how we approach human rights. And by that, I mean, in terms of our hiring, in terms of ensuring that we have people in our teams that actually also represent the people who are using our platforms. As most of you know, over 90% of the people that use our platforms are outside of the US and Canada. Of course, our staff is not at our levels, but ensuring that people who are working on these issues, particularly in terms of policy, have the lived experiences, can speak the languages and can engage and do outreach as we need. We also have a human rights policy team that actually experts on these issues. So that’s one. So having a mission that is actually, it’s inclusivity and inclusion at the heart of everything that we do. Secondly, multi-stakeholder engagements. We are here to be part of this conversation, one, at the Internet Governance Forum, but also in the FOC as a META member. I was a co-chair of the FOC Advisory Network for about three years. I think it’s an important platform in Estonia, as you take on the chairship. But it’s also a place where you have civil society, you have governments having conversations. I think that’s very, very important because you just do not want partners who tap you on the back to say you’re doing well, but also who will make sure that you are accountable. The third thing that I would also mention is our human rights corporate policy that we launched in 2020, which is, for us, groundbreaking. But also, it’s not just a policy that we say, now we have it, let’s tick a box. Within that framework, we are ensuring that we are training our employees internally for them to be aware of human rights principles, for our employees to be aware, not only to be trained, but also aware of the human rights principles as they build products and as they build policies as well. We also do regular human rights due diligence assessments to identify and mitigate as well. And the third thing that I’ll mention is, the fourth one is stakeholder engagement, and then I’ll pass on the mic. With regards to stakeholder engagement, I think this actually contributes to how inclusive our policies and products are. Every time we write our community standards, we engage externally. But I think that sounds nice on paper, but how we do it is ensuring that we identify not only people that identify themselves as experts, but also people with lived experiences. We go beyond just geographical, but we also look at cultural inclusion. Who has the cultural competence to ensure that they can engage with these issues? But also, I want to reference what the Director General also mentioned around, you know, some people not having access. So you might, and access, I mean infrastructure and also content access. So even if you are reaching out to someone because you want to be inclusive, but do they even have internet access to engage with you? Is engaging virtually something that’s, you know, is that the right format of engaging? Or should you ensure that you meet them where they are at? Content access, can they actually meaningfully engage in the issue that is at hand? Because for the engagement and for the stakeholder engagement to be inclusive and to be meaningful, then we have to also invest in ensuring that we build the capacity of the people that actually talk to us to ensure that we improve our policies. Otherwise, then it’s not inclusive at all. The transparency, which we can talk about later on once we’ve done all of this. But if we are not sharing about our decision making, who we engaged with, we have the transparency center where you can actually see the changes that go through our policies. Everything is there. But I think one criticism will be who has the time to go through that transparency center. And I think I’m sure we have so much more work to do to ensure that it’s not just there, but also it can be used as a mechanism for accountability.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, and thank you for being very comprehensive and explaining that I was working to actually holistically approach this issue with all the stakeholders and also touching upon your role in the advocacy advisory network, which of course, also, yeah, I’m going to repeat this many times, but the advisory network is also, especially because we want to include the stakeholders in our work as a free online We’ll go to the next question, which is the same question, both for Savannas and Boja. So, first, let’s refer to Savannas Pashithia, the executive director of TechGlobal Initiative and also a member of the advocacy advisory network. Savannas, how can stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, international organizations, and civil society work in collaboration with civil society to ensure that the voices of the global majority and marginalized groups are being engaged in both shaping and implementing global digital governance frameworks, like the UN Global Digital Conflict and the WSIS plus 20 review, taking into account the unique challenges of digital like the UN Global Digital Conflict and the WSIS plus 20 review, taking into account the unique challenges and local context in different regions.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, everyone, for having us here. So, at TechGlobal Institute, we primarily focus on getting the global majority stakeholders of the private sector, civil society, marginalized communities, refugees into the conversation around what does the internet mean to them and how do we govern it better. And I think it’s quite fundamental to us that when we see the differences, not only between the global north and the global majority, but also even within the global majority, there’s a number of different equities that are at play. For example, we have gender inequalities that continue to be persistent, even in rooms when there is multi-stakeholderism happening, we oftentimes see there’s more men or we see certain groups having a more majority role in these conversations than many of the other groups. So, I think to ensure that we have a truly multi-stakeholder model, I think we have to first acknowledge the fact that the multi-stakeholder model, while it is all well and good and has been the bedrock of internet governance for the last 20 years, is not perfect and that there are many power asymmetries that exist within the multi-stakeholder model itself, which has made many communities across the global majority particularly feel disenfranchised and excluded. And this is not just the communities that don’t have access to the internet as it is, but also communities that don’t have access to these kinds of spaces, whether it’s because of financial capital, because of knowledge, because of networks, there’s a number of different power asymmetries at play. I think it’s very important to acknowledge that. The director-general from Estonia has also alluded to, is really around even when communities are connected, sometimes because of shutdowns, they become disconnected and again, they’re left out of the conversation. So, there’s different layers to that and I think for us to really preserve the multi-stakeholder model and to be able to ensure that it works for the global majority and for people around the world, it is really important to start interrogating some aspects of the multi-stakeholder model to ensure that it is responding to the needs of the people on the ground. I think the second is really on the capacity piece. Even when we are in these kinds of spaces, and I think that’s where the technical community, the private sector, governments have a tremendous role to play in terms of how do we ensure that when groups have access to international spaces, are sitting on these tables, they’re active. In the last one year, we’ve seen that with the GDC and a number of other processes, it’s actually quite extraordinary the amount of things happening and it’s a lot to keep track of. And if you are a under-resourced suicide organization in the global majority, where you have existential crisis around not just the internet and being online and surviving online, but also in terms of food security, climate change, political geopolitics, there’s so many things at play and in that kind of environment, keeping track of what’s happening in New York and Geneva is really, really difficult. And so I think to be able to, again, make the multi-stakeholder model work, it’s really important to invest quite deliberately in capacity of communities from the very sort of grassroots up to the very… You heard from the IGF Secretary about the NRIs, and oftentimes in the last sort of 20 years, we’ve also seen that while NRIs are great in terms of engaging local communities, oftentimes they also are not sufficiently multi-stakeholder. They oftentimes become politicized or they end up only capturing the majority of voices that women are left behind. That has been at least my experience in my NRI. And so I think to ensure that if we want multi-stakeholderism to really work for the global majority, that there is a downstream effect along the way. We are very deliberate about, one, building that capacity, two, creating intentional spaces. And then three, are designing those spaces in a way where different voices have equal rights and equal say and are able to contribute to what they want on how the internet to be. And I think that lived experience that I think also, that Medha also mentioned is really critical. I think the last piece I’m gonna say is just in terms of ensuring a multilingual internet. I think that’s quite important in terms of that. And that’s a huge contribution of both the technical community as well as the private sector, that if the internet, and I think Medha also talked about the fact that 90% of the web is used, but if you see the websites on the world of the internet, it’s majority English. And that is also a huge problem in terms of access and the kind of content we’re designing and having the communities properly represented online. But at the same time, we also have to remember that now that with AI and other kinds of technologies, building a multilingual internet should not mean that we expect indigenous communities to contribute data for free. And so there’s also that power dynamic that we have to be quite cognizant of. So I hope that as we think about the implementation of the GDC and how the member states intentional about how we’re also thinking about the multi-stakeholder model, about inclusion, about space building, and about the inherent power asymmetries that are not unique to the multi-stakeholder model, that is structural asymmetries that exist. But I think we have a real opportunity as a community that to be able to build those spaces in a way so that everybody has an equal footing and an equal say and has an equal stake in these conversations. Because the internet, from where I come from, the internet is the world. And without its access, I think we fundamentally get cut off from the world. And so there is a very real stake here. And I hope as we are thinking about, as all these various stakeholders are thinking about it, that space building. Thank you.

Adeboye Adegoke: Hello, okay. Yeah, thanks. Excuse me. Thank you very much for the question and for the opportunity to contribute this conversation. My name is Adibwe Adigoke and I work for an organization called Paradigm Initiative. We work in Africa and we represent the global south community as well. I think the issue around stakeholderism within the context of global processes such as the WSIS and the GDC is a conversation that has been blocked, if not overflowed. And I think we are at the point where we need to come up with some tangible recommendations in terms of how to proceed in this conversation. I think one of the concerns that have been discussed is around the role of the IGF, for example, in implementation of the GDC, for example, whether the IGF represent a veritable platform to achieve that objective, or whether other options are to, I mean, the IGF has been that IGF is not known to be the platform that leads to actionable outcomes or tangible outcomes, which is a valid argument. But I would also argue that if it is not, if it doesn’t lead to actionable outcomes, who is to blame? Why is it so? It doesn’t lead to actionable outcome because it is not set up to lead to actionable outcome and we will make it to lead to actionable outcome if not the UN, if not the countries. We will decide to make it what it is right now. So I do think that if we do, if good reason, the reason why a lot of civil society organizations have bias for the IGF process is that it’s probably one of the few processes where civil society voices are at least visible. I mean, the point has been made about how invisible non-state actors were in the GDC negotiation, for example. So I do think that it is not enough to say the IGF doesn’t lead to actionable outcome. It’s about if we believe in multistakeholderism and if we think that IGF reflects multistakeholderism, then I think the question that should be on the table is how do we strengthen the IGF to be able to achieve or to lead to actionable outcomes? But I also think that one issue around multistakeholderism, especially from the global perspective, is that I do think that it’s about paying the deep service over the years and it has not helped us to really advance. My colleague was talking about a lot of dimensions of around marginalized voices, male, female, no dynamics and all of that. And I remember being in a room, in a panel where the moderator was introducing panelists and after he had introduced four men, he said, oh, we are gender conscious, so we also introduce a woman to join the panel. And I said, what happens a lot in a lot of processes whereby the issues that people complain about, multistakeholderism, gender balance, our response to it is tokenistic. We are not really interested in addressing the issue. And I think that is also the same thing with multistakeholderism. A lot of platform we set up to achieve multistakeholder objective are set up as a tokenistic response to the complaints. If we are more genuine about how to achieve it, I believe that we have what it takes to achieve it. And I’ll quickly, before I end, rather, some of the efforts or some of the initiatives that can help us to achieve multistakeholder outcomes. I do think that one of the challenges that multistakeholder process has is that it is not just enough that you don’t have diverse stakeholders in the room. It’s also because you don’t have equal capacity by diverse stakeholders. So even when you manage to get diverse stakeholders into the room, they cannot negotiate or discuss at the same level because they don’t have the capacity. I work for an organization that I think we are a bit privileged, coming from civil society, we’re a bit privileged to be part of organizations that do the kind of work that we do, don’t have. But I also think that what we also need to do at the multilateral level is that where we have opportunities to engage with organizations such as ours, it is not just about getting us in the room. It’s also about using us as a link between the government, between the multilateral processes and the diverse communities that we serve. So we don’t just want to be there and feel among. We want to be there knowing that we represent a whole lot of communities of people using our voice to make their opinions heard at the global stage. So I know I’ve been bashing multilateral, I’ve been bashing the UN. Now, this is also an advice to a few of us that get the chance to speak in rooms like this, to also recognize that we are not here to advance ourself. We are also here to represent the community. And we need to also create a process back home whereby we create engagement platforms where we can let the community know what kind of conversation is happening at the multilateral level, let them know how they can contribute to it. And so that when we show up here, we are not just discussing our opinion, we are discussing what our communities want us to talk about. Thank you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Boya, and thank you, Sabanas. Thank you very much for your remarks. I think they were especially very useful because you try to connect the local with the global level and try to especially also bring this input from the local level into the conversation, even though we have some conversations that are multilateral and maybe a bit more closed. While we are trying to open them up, we are also trying to create more opportunities and to create more momentum. Most are with a broad range of stakeholders at the IGF, but also outside of it. And I think that’s an example that many others could also follow. Without further ado, I will move to the last question to the panelists. It’s also a question for two of our speakers. So we’ll first introduce them and then mention the question. We have Olaf Kolkman, Executive Level Advisor and Spokesperson, and I think also Principal from the Internet Society and from the technical community. And we have Fiona Alexander here from the American University, who is also a member from the academia. And then to the question, building on what Boya and Shabana just mentioned also, how can we ensure that digital governance is not only inclusive, but also underpinned by the necessary technical expertise, leveraging the knowledge and expertise of the technical community and academia, and the lessons learned from previous processes, such as the WSIS Plus 10, but perhaps also the WSIS, the original WSIS process and the Tunis process that we had there. Olaf, I will give the floor for you.

Olaf Kolfman: I’m going to start with, I promised myself not to mention AI during this whole week, but I failed. If you train a large language model and you provide it with incomplete input, it will start to hallucinate. And I think that the multi-stakeholder mechanisms, if you do not provide all the inputs that you have at the table, the inputs that you have at the table, the output of the process will be a hallucination. Therefore, we need everybody at the table, including the technical community, which will help to produce an outcome that suits reality, so to speak, that is achievable. But also, of course, the other stakeholders, so that we’re not hallucinating about rights and about social justice issues. As a, I’m not going to call myself a representative of the technical community. I am somebody who has a technical community background. I’ve been contributing to the development of the internet for two and a half decades. I can only speak for my own organization, and there are many technical community organizations out there. First, I want to come back to, we heard how the GDC was developed, and we’ve heard that multi-stakeholderism is front and central as an output of it. However, the process itself was not a leading by example type of process with respect to multi-stakeholderism. And therefore, the question whether the GDC was a leading by example type of process with respect to multi-stakeholderism is not a leading by example type of process. And therefore, the question whether the GDC was a leading by example type of process is not a leading by example type of process. And therefore, the question whether the process or the outcome should be endorsed is one that we at least at the Internet Society answer is no, we will not endorse it. We were not part of this process. We were looking in through opaque windows and sort of guessing what was happening. At some point there was a consultation, but consultation is not multi-stakeholder engagement. It’s not a discussion. It’s not sharing what you’ve learned and improving on that outcome. And of course we understand that in a multilateral environment such as the U.N. at some points the doors close and decisions are being made, but those should be moment, not at draft one, two or whatever the draft number was. We like the outcome of the paper, the principle, the vision, and the objectives that the GDC defines and as the Internet Society again, I cannot talk for the whole community, we at least will be working towards some of these objectives, including making sure that the last people it is and probably more still are going to be connected to the Internet because that’s the basis of being able to reap the benefits of the Internet. And there again multi-stakeholderism is important because the initiatives that connect the people in the most difficult places are initiatives that are sort of local, local initiatives, community networks, innovative solutions that people build on the ground together with stakeholders that are technical and stakeholders that are interest groups, actual stakeholders. And I think that the role that the IGF structure from local to national to regional to global plays a role there. The IGF in that sense works as a norm and entrepreneur bubble up. They gain maybe formal, maybe informal consensus at the highest level and then trickle down again so that people can act locally while thinking globally. So I think that that is, for me, that is what multi-stakeholderism embodies. With respect to the role of the technical community, I have to say, and now I’m saying we, we speak a different language too. And we as technical community can, because we speak a different language, we use different acronyms than the people that are engaged with traditional governance issues. And that makes things difficult. You don’t land a technologist in this forum and accept them to be able to navigate it. NRI doesn’t mean anything to them. But if you take a policymaker and you dump them in a technical environment, TCP doesn’t mean anything to them. And I think it’s very important to be conscious about that. One of the things that I do in the Context Engineering Task Force is that we help policymakers understand that environment. We do policy programs. We expose policymakers to those groups. The ITF itself brings different communities into it to discuss issues that are relevant for society. We have a human rights and protocol research group in which we discuss those things. That doesn’t make the ITF from the global south and the global majority and doesn’t make it easy to contribute, but it is still an open forum in which people can contribute it should they have the capacity and resources, which that organization can unfortunately not offer. I know I am meandering around a few topics here, but I think that is sort of the gist of it. To get together, only then we can solve complex issues. And the technology is often an aspect of that complexity. So you need the technologists in the room. When we do that, we need to have a conscious and purposeful way of engaging. That goes two ways. And the IGF, I think, is a good forum where we exchange ideas and bring things back home so that we can implement them. Those were the three things. Thank you, Jaco.

Fiona Alexander: Apparently, I was clocked in earlier as being the fastest speaker at the IGF on Monday. So I will try to actually be much slower today. But who knows? I’m naturally a fast talker. So let me know if I get back up to that high speed again. Thanks for the invitation. It’s good. I’m happy to be here and talk about sort of this important topic. And I was sort of struck by not just the questions, but the interventions that everyone else has made. And it’s kind of the nice problem of being the last person. You get to kind of pull from what everyone else has said. So I’ll try to do that with what I’m doing as well. But the question is, how do you actually make sure that the conversations are underpinned by all the right expertise? And the only way you do that is by letting people in the room and giving them the capacity to be a meaningful peer. And as I reflect on the last year and all the work the FOC has done on things led by the ambassador and others, and what the AN has done, what I see from the New York processes this year is two processes that touched on digital issues that point to the limits and the inability of the New York UN processes to actually involve people. So not only do we have the experience of the Global Digital Compact, which several folks have talked about, we also had the experience of the UN Cybercrime Convention, where actually stakeholders were actually allowed, theoretically, to be in the room and give advice, and then were ignored for two years. So my takeaway from this past year’s experience is that the New York processes, by design and by structure, are limited in their way to involve stakeholders. And I don’t see a meaningful way to change that. I will keep saying it should change, and I will keep pushing for it to change. But the reality is those structures and systems are inherently set up not to allow that. So the way to address that going forward is to make sure FOC countries keep coordinating, make sure AN members are part of that process, FOC member states allowing other folks on their delegations, perhaps, kind of helps can address some of that. But the other, my takeaway, is that when I actually look at the final output of the GDC and I read it carefully, and I’ve been doing this work for 25 years. I was in the U.S. government for about 20 years before doing what I do now for the last five. They’re very new. Almost nothing, actually, as I read it and think about all the other things I’ve been involved in negotiating in the last 25 years. There’s a new conversation on data governance that the CSTD is doing, and luckily the CSTD actually has processes to involve people. So that’s actually a great win, I think, for us. And then there’s a new AI panel, which I’m still not sure what it’s for. But otherwise, there’s not much in the GDC that’s new. And when we talk about GDC implementation, I would offer, I think the GDC implementation is well underway, because the GDC is just reinforcing what we’re all already doing. And so while I think the conversations next year in New York are important, and clearly the resolution that will be adopted likely in December of next year about WSIS renewal and WSIS plus 20 will be pivotal, the conversation around that will inherently be intergovernmental. It will be the last quarter of next year, probably. So that means five months of next year. And I think the emphasis that we should collectively consider taking on is looking at our local and national processes. And I’m struck when Anya mentioned 178 national and regional IGFs now. And for those that weren’t involved in the beginning, the impetus for the national and regional IGFs happened because the UK stakeholders went home after the first IGF in Greece and said, oh, we should do one of these at home. There was nothing in the global IGF that said go forth and do this. There was nothing that anybody said you should do this. It was people from the UK, I don’t know, at some point. And they came back and they said, we should do this in our country. And that then spurred everybody else to take this on and do that around. And now 20 years later, you have 178 NRIs, local, national, regional, youth, whatever it may be. And that’s a pretty inspiring thing to think about. And 20 years later, we got to that. And, again, this gets back to my suggestion for going forward, which is, yes, we have to engage in New York and monitor in the way that we can. But GDC implementation is not something that needs to start. It’s already happened or is ongoing. And I think if we start thinking of it that way, then we can go back to focusing on what’s actually important, which is how do we actually involve and participate and solve these problems where we have structures to participate. When I think back to 20 years ago and even looking at the ITU or UNESCO, those groups were not particularly open and inclusive. And I’m not suggesting that they’re perfect now, but they’ve made great strides. So I think that the operating agencies of the UN, the executing agencies of the UN, whether it’s an IGF, which I would include in that, or whether it’s a WSIS forum, or whether it’s a UNESCO, or whether it’s an ITU, whether it’s these other IGFs that are outside the process, whether it’s an ICANN or an IETF, those processes all have mechanisms and those processes are making best efforts. So I think it’s time for us to go back and engaging in doing those things, not in a performative way, as you suggested in some cases, but actually undertaking that. And that’s where I think we need to shift our focus. Because I think the New York exercise and processes of this year have just reinforced for me that the New York processes aren’t going to ever solve our problems, because by design they’re going to be multilateral. We can keep pushing, we can keep demanding access, and we can keep working with FOC and other partner governments to make things better, but I think we’re going to hit a wall repeatedly over and over. And I really think that we need to focus on the other parts of the ecosystem and the WSIS ecosystem as we know it. That’s kind of my takeaway from this week, especially as I listen to the OSET Secretariat attempt to answer questions â I’m sorry, the flipper’s already gone â about how they’re going to go forward, and they don’t know still. And I think that just speaks to the lack of â even if they wanted to â the lack of opportunity in a meaningful way.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Piona, and thank you, Olaf, for your comments. And I’m very glad that both the national and regional initiatives and the transmission control protocol have been mentioned now, so that we can put in our pocket. And I’m also actually glad that you mentioned New York versus local versus national, and I think when we are engaging with the WSIS process, but also broader internet governance, that would speak to sort of double engagement, where we both try to meaningfully engage with these processes that are in New York or in Geneva and that are more multilateral-based, and trying to ensure that these are not too detailed, but that they are creating an enabling environment for those more locally-based and nationally-based initiatives. Because we don’t need to have all the details in New York. We can have general principles, we can have more general language, but that language has to be enabling for all those other initiatives. And I think on the other hand, we have to make sure that we have to engage with our stakeholders at home and within our own smaller or bigger circles of influence. So we have a few more minutes. We have, I think, about eight minutes for questions, and then we’ll have another round for all the speakers to give their last takeaway in about one or two sentences. So let me see, do we have any questions in the room or online? No? Okay. Because there are two comments online, but I don’t know if they are. Okay. If we don’t have any questions in the room or online, I think that just means that we have more time for our panel. Oh, we do. Yeah. More comments than questions, but very useful. Yeah. If we don’t have any questions online or in the room, I think we are going to go to our speakers for their final words. And I’m going to have the same order as we did before, except that, of course, Philippe was left. One second. So that means we will go to Rasmus for your final remarks.

Rasmus Lumi: Okay. So thank you. Is that 30 seconds now or a bit more? Okay. Yeah. So just to comment on a few, just to say that I very much agree that a lot is happening here and there and everywhere, except for one thing. And that is that there is a lot going on. And just to say that I very much agree that a lot is happening here and there and everywhere, except for New York in terms of multi-stakeholderism. So I think you’re quite right that the mindset in New York is very multilateral. It is very difficult to have a different type of access there. So I think the way we have been working in the FOC and in other fora is the right way to go in order to actually be able to get some input into the government’s thinking in order for them to carry it over then to the discussions in New York. I also think that it is important to work a lot on the national level, because, well, as it is said, all foreign policy is also domestic. So it means that a lot can be done and have to be done on the national level so that the governments will then appear on the international arena already with the necessary input into the civil society and so on in what they have gotten from their own country. It is obvious that it is not the same for every country and it is not even possible in every country, but at least this is the approach that should be tried everywhere by trying to show the governments that where their interest may lie in being inclusive in these processes. I also wanted to agree very much with the point that actually I just omitted in the beginning to make it later that we, even as a government, we also encourage our other government members in their delegations wherever possible in these discussions in order to make it more easy to have the multi-stakeholder approach working on the international level. So very much agreed with this point. And then maybe finally just to say that we very well recognize as a government that multilateral formats are not sufficient to handle all those questions and cannot everything alone with regard to discussions related to Internet governance and digital technologies and therefore we do need an inclusive approach. And the question is what is the best way of achieving it and one here in the IGF, we can say that this is exactly why we believe that IGF needs to be strengthened. It’s very important to pay attention to this when the mandate renewal for the IGF will come to discussion and we very much support the stronger Internet governance forum and its bottom up way. This is why I also mentioned in the beginning that we should put in more effort in making those existing multi-stakeholder formats work instead of trying to create new ones that might make things more complex. Thank you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you Rasmus and I think you almost stuck to the 30 seconds.

Anja Gengo: Thank you very much. I certainly would like to say that I do understand that sometimes maybe there is a concern or even frustration that we are slower in terms of our good action and policy with respect to the rapid development of digital technologies. But I also think that we should not underestimate everything that has been done in the past 20 years because it’s really remarkable. And that is this whole ecosystem that we established of various concept of local IGFs just because it’s the closest to us and I think it’s much easier to see the change on the ground through the national IGFs rather than through a global IGF because of the complexity. For instance, we are now working with more resources and more mechanisms at our disposal. So that’s I think an encouraging factor. Where we need to focus our attention more, I completely agree with Fiona and other colleagues who mentioned, is really the capacity development. We are not anymore in this narrative where we have four stakeholder groups represented by numbers. We have to look at that in a more nuanced way through maybe a multidisciplinary lens. We have been seeing that through the IGFs. Our statistics are always very nice in that sense. You are exactly seeing from which countries, for example, we have lower participation, especially looking, for example, in the past 10 years. We are also seeing which disciplines are missing in this discourse, especially as the technologies are becoming so integrated that it’s not anymore exclusive, for example, to the car industry or health sector to be part of these discussions. It’s not much needed in these areas. So that’s what I think, that now evolving from multistakeholder to multidisciplinary, having all disciplines involved with us is very important. That’s why this IGF, for example, legislators, parliamentarians, but also very much put emphasis on working more with the private sector of various backgrounds and with the judiciary as courts, prosecutors, the court system overall, is coming up with decisions that are reflecting all of us, one way or another, and that’s why it’s important to have them understand, first of all, what are they deciding against before any wrong decisions are made, which have long-term consequences on our human rights, first of all. Thank you very much.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Anja, and I will give it straight to Emilio.

Emilar Gandhi: I think, really, a good conversation. So, for me, just in terms of closing remarks, the IGF is an important space, but also, more importantly, the FOC, I think, is really, really an important space for us, this private sector, and I’m sure civil society. I was in civil society before I participated in FOC, and it was really important then, as it is important now. not only I think for pushing diplomacy or inter-goals, but it’s also an important space where we can all sit around the table, not only for change, but for relationship building, for trust building, particularly from an industry perspective, I also think it’s important not only as a space for, you know, like right now, creating statements or from a substance perspective, but it’s also important as an example of an inclusive process. It’s important and I… Second. Oh, it’s dead, sorry. It’s on, okay. Sorry, the mic, yeah. But, you know, but also the FOC is important, I think as a process, you know, is an exemplary process that we can all learn from, and I hope there will still be continued support for the Secretariat, who are also, you know, a lot of the work behind the scenes to support all the work that FOC and the AN is doing, and that cannot happen, and we cannot talk about inclusion and digital future without actually putting resources where our mouth is, so I thank you to everyone.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Indra, I’ll give it straight to Helen for your closing remarks.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thank you, Jakob. Thank you all for your insightful interventions. I think for us, for the majority, I think there were two main takeaways from the last year. And I see this being reflected also in this particular conversation, one is really the power of local networks, and whether that is national or governmental communities, and really, I think, while we cannot always influence all the purposes in New York, like Fiona said, we do have tremendous structures and networks built on at the local level and at the national level, and I think there’s a real opportunity to be able to engage with those networks to then be able to then influence international processes. And I completely agree with Rasmus and Fiona in terms of decentralizing these conversations as much as possible, and ensuring that stakeholders at that level, whether it’s governments, their private sector, civil society, authorities, are able to participate in a meaningful way, and then bring it up to the international level. And the second is, as we were participating in the last couple of years, but also particularly the last year, I think the issue of capacity really came up, and I think we also alluded to it, that even when we have access to these spaces, there’s a gap in capacity, so then we are unable to negotiate the way we would like to, and not all of us come from countries and have governments who are willing to engage with civil society, and so we also have to engage in very different ways and using very creative ways. And so that capacity piece is really critical, so I hope as we get into the future, the next few years, particularly next year, there’s serious consideration about how we’re building capacity of various stakeholders, including governments, in the global majority, to be able to come to these forums with a collective bargaining power, because I think that’s what’s gonna make all the difference when we think about the future of the internet.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, and we have three speakers left and a few minutes only, so I’ll ask you to keep it brief.

Adeboye Adegoke: All right, thank you. I think it’s helpful that the point about capacity has been made over and over again, but I’ll just use the opportunity of the last remark to, again, spotlight the work of the FOC, because I think the FOC has served as some sort of buffer for filling the gap around multi-stakeholder involvement. I personally consider the FOC as a very strategic coalition that has provided a platform for, especially through the advisory network, for a lot of expertise that exists outside of government to engage in global processes. I am a beneficiary of that, for example, so I think that’s very important. So this is commendation for the FOC, and I trust that with the leadership of the government of Estonia, that will continue to be the case as well. So I also just think that strategic initiatives such as the FOC’s like that, we should also to know that they complete in buffering some of the gaps that we have identified during this conversation. Thank you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Borja, and to Olaf.

Olaf Kolfman: Much has been said. I would underline the need for a bottom-up involvement, and I saw a good example this week, our Tanzania chapter, the ISOC chapter in Tanzania, and to organize a WSIS PrEP meeting. And I think that is the type of initiative that we should see basically everywhere, local communities self-organizing, going to their government and basically prepping this stuff.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Olaf. And then we have our final speaker. Of course, some of us know that the last remarks are best remembered, so I think we’re all getting pressure on each other. So I’m going to let you do that.

Fiona Alexander: Slow and conscious of time and not too much pressure. I think just agreeing with all the closing remarks everyone else has said, let’s make that slow. And I would just encourage us as we go forward as FOC and FOCAN, we really think strategically for next year about how best to leverage the collaborative nature that we have. And I think at least from my perspective, I think there’s two big priorities for next year for WSIS 20, and that’s obviously the renewal of the IGF. But I think it’s really time that we try to focus on getting some sustained funding for the IGF so that the IGF is not strangers to give them the money and actually give them some real money in the budget. So I think those would be my two big priority items for WSIS 20 next year.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you very much. Thank you to our speakers. Thank you to our audience. And I wish you a very nice day. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Ernst Noorman

Speech speed

132 words per minute

Speech length

886 words

Speech time

402 seconds

Multi-stakeholder approach is crucial for addressing complex digital issues

Explanation

Ernst Noorman emphasizes the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in addressing complex digital issues. He argues that this approach is essential for discussions on digital issues and for working towards a digital future for all.

Evidence

The Netherlands organized this session in its role as the current Freedom Online Coalition chair, bringing together experts from various stakeholder groups.

Major Discussion Point

Ensuring inclusive and rights-respecting digital governance

Agreed with

Filippo Pierozzi

Rasmus Lumi

Anja Gengo

Emilar Gandhi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Olaf Kolfman

Fiona Alexander

Agreed on

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach

Filippo Pierozzi

Speech speed

155 words per minute

Speech length

950 words

Speech time

366 seconds

GDC implementation should involve multi-stakeholder engagement

Explanation

Filippo Pierozzi emphasizes the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in implementing the Global Digital Compact. He argues that while the GDC is an intergovernmental process, it should be as inclusive as possible of stakeholders.

Evidence

He mentions the option for stakeholders to endorse the GDC online and specify their areas of action in its implementation.

Major Discussion Point

Implementation of the Global Digital Compact (GDC)

Agreed with

Ernst Noorman

Rasmus Lumi

Anja Gengo

Emilar Gandhi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Olaf Kolfman

Fiona Alexander

Agreed on

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach

Differed with

Fiona Alexander

Differed on

Effectiveness of New York UN processes in involving stakeholders

Rasmus Lumi

Speech speed

141 words per minute

Speech length

1433 words

Speech time

606 seconds

FOC can play a role in GDC implementation aligned with human rights

Explanation

Rasmus Lumi suggests that the Freedom Online Coalition can contribute to the implementation of the Global Digital Compact in a way that aligns with human rights. He emphasizes the importance of the FOC in pushing for diplomacy and inter-goals.

Evidence

He mentions Estonia’s upcoming chairship of the FOC and their commitment to capacity building.

Major Discussion Point

Implementation of the Global Digital Compact (GDC)

Anja Gengo

Speech speed

160 words per minute

Speech length

1305 words

Speech time

488 seconds

IGF serves as an inclusive space for dialogue on digital policy issues

Explanation

Anja Gengo highlights the role of the Internet Governance Forum as an inclusive platform for dialogue on digital policy issues. She emphasizes the IGF’s bottom-up nature and multi-stakeholder approach.

Evidence

She mentions the growth of national and regional IGFs, with 178 now existing worldwide.

Major Discussion Point

Ensuring inclusive and rights-respecting digital governance

Agreed with

Ernst Noorman

Filippo Pierozzi

Rasmus Lumi

Emilar Gandhi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Olaf Kolfman

Fiona Alexander

Agreed on

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach

Emilar Gandhi

Speech speed

141 words per minute

Speech length

1139 words

Speech time

481 seconds

Private sector has a role in contributing to rights-respecting digital future

Explanation

Emilar Gandhi argues that the private sector has a significant role to play in ensuring a rights-respecting digital future. She emphasizes the importance of embedding human rights considerations in company missions and product development.

Evidence

She mentions META’s human rights corporate policy launched in 2020 and their efforts in stakeholder engagement and transparency.

Major Discussion Point

Ensuring inclusive and rights-respecting digital governance

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Speech speed

178 words per minute

Speech length

1356 words

Speech time

456 seconds

Global majority voices need to be engaged in shaping governance frameworks

Explanation

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya emphasizes the importance of engaging voices from the global majority in shaping digital governance frameworks. She argues for the need to address power asymmetries in multi-stakeholder models.

Evidence

She mentions the work of TechGlobal Institute in focusing on getting global majority stakeholders into conversations about internet governance.

Major Discussion Point

Ensuring inclusive and rights-respecting digital governance

Agreed with

Ernst Noorman

Filippo Pierozzi

Rasmus Lumi

Anja Gengo

Emilar Gandhi

Adeboye Adegoke

Olaf Kolfman

Fiona Alexander

Agreed on

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach

Capacity building is needed for stakeholders to engage effectively

Explanation

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya highlights the need for capacity building to enable stakeholders, especially from the global majority, to engage effectively in digital governance discussions. She argues that this is crucial for meaningful participation in international processes.

Major Discussion Point

Strengthening capacity for meaningful participation

Agreed with

Rasmus Lumi

Adeboye Adegoke

Fiona Alexander

Agreed on

Need for capacity building

Adeboye Adegoke

Speech speed

186 words per minute

Speech length

1078 words

Speech time

347 seconds

Local and national processes are key for implementing GDC principles

Explanation

Adeboye Adegoke emphasizes the importance of local and national processes in implementing the principles of the Global Digital Compact. He argues that these processes are crucial for ensuring meaningful stakeholder involvement.

Major Discussion Point

Implementation of the Global Digital Compact (GDC)

FOC serves as a platform to build capacity and expertise

Explanation

Adeboye Adegoke highlights the role of the Freedom Online Coalition in building capacity and expertise. He argues that the FOC has provided a platform for expertise outside of government to engage in global processes.

Evidence

He mentions his personal experience as a beneficiary of the FOC’s capacity building efforts.

Major Discussion Point

Strengthening capacity for meaningful participation

Agreed with

Rasmus Lumi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Fiona Alexander

Agreed on

Need for capacity building

Olaf Kolfman

Speech speed

119 words per minute

Speech length

977 words

Speech time

490 seconds

Technical expertise is necessary to underpin digital governance discussions

Explanation

Olaf Kolfman argues for the importance of including technical expertise in digital governance discussions. He emphasizes that without all inputs, including technical ones, the output of governance processes may be unrealistic or unachievable.

Evidence

He mentions his background of contributing to internet development for two and a half decades.

Major Discussion Point

Ensuring inclusive and rights-respecting digital governance

Bottom-up involvement and local initiatives are important

Explanation

Olaf Kolfman emphasizes the importance of bottom-up involvement and local initiatives in digital governance. He argues that local communities self-organizing and engaging with their governments is crucial.

Evidence

He mentions the example of the ISOC chapter in Tanzania organizing a WSIS prep meeting.

Major Discussion Point

Strengthening capacity for meaningful participation

Fiona Alexander

Speech speed

199 words per minute

Speech length

1338 words

Speech time

403 seconds

New York UN processes have limited ability to involve stakeholders meaningfully

Explanation

Fiona Alexander argues that UN processes in New York have limited capacity to meaningfully involve stakeholders. She suggests that these processes are inherently set up to be multilateral rather than multi-stakeholder.

Evidence

She cites the experiences with the Global Digital Compact and the UN Cybercrime Convention as examples of limited stakeholder involvement.

Major Discussion Point

Ensuring inclusive and rights-respecting digital governance

Differed with

Filippo Pierozzi

Differed on

Effectiveness of New York UN processes in involving stakeholders

GDC implementation is already underway through existing initiatives

Explanation

Fiona Alexander suggests that the implementation of the Global Digital Compact is already happening through existing initiatives. She argues that the GDC largely reinforces what stakeholders are already doing.

Major Discussion Point

Implementation of the Global Digital Compact (GDC)

Sustained funding is needed to strengthen IGF’s capacity

Explanation

Fiona Alexander emphasizes the need for sustained funding to strengthen the capacity of the Internet Governance Forum. She argues that this should be a priority for the WSIS+20 process.

Major Discussion Point

Strengthening capacity for meaningful participation

Agreed with

Rasmus Lumi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Agreed on

Need for capacity building

Agreements

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach

Ernst Noorman

Filippo Pierozzi

Rasmus Lumi

Anja Gengo

Emilar Gandhi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Olaf Kolfman

Fiona Alexander

Multi-stakeholder approach is crucial for addressing complex digital issues

GDC implementation should involve multi-stakeholder engagement

IGF serves as an inclusive space for dialogue on digital policy issues

Global majority voices need to be engaged in shaping governance frameworks

All speakers emphasized the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in addressing digital governance issues and implementing the Global Digital Compact.

Need for capacity building

Rasmus Lumi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Fiona Alexander

Capacity building is needed for stakeholders to engage effectively

FOC serves as a platform to build capacity and expertise

Sustained funding is needed to strengthen IGF’s capacity

Multiple speakers highlighted the importance of capacity building to enable effective participation in digital governance discussions, particularly for stakeholders from the global majority.

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers emphasized the importance of local and national processes in implementing digital governance principles and engaging stakeholders effectively.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Olaf Kolfman

Local and national processes are key for implementing GDC principles

Bottom-up involvement and local initiatives are important

These speakers highlighted the importance of aligning digital governance with human rights principles and ensuring diverse voices are included in shaping these frameworks.

Rasmus Lumi

Emilar Gandhi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

FOC can play a role in GDC implementation aligned with human rights

Private sector has a role in contributing to rights-respecting digital future

Global majority voices need to be engaged in shaping governance frameworks

Unexpected Consensus

Limitations of UN processes in New York

Fiona Alexander

Rasmus Lumi

New York UN processes have limited ability to involve stakeholders meaningfully

There was an unexpected consensus on the limitations of UN processes in New York to meaningfully involve stakeholders, with both government and academic representatives acknowledging this challenge.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches, the need for capacity building, the significance of local and national processes, and the alignment of digital governance with human rights principles.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among speakers on the importance of inclusive and rights-respecting digital governance. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for collaborative efforts in implementing the Global Digital Compact and strengthening multi-stakeholder processes in digital governance.

Differences

Different Viewpoints

Effectiveness of New York UN processes in involving stakeholders

Filippo Pierozzi

Fiona Alexander

GDC implementation should involve multi-stakeholder engagement

New York UN processes have limited ability to involve stakeholders meaningfully

While Pierozzi emphasizes the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in GDC implementation, Alexander argues that New York UN processes are inherently limited in their ability to meaningfully involve stakeholders.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the effectiveness of UN processes in New York for stakeholder engagement and the best approaches for implementing the Global Digital Compact.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement and the need for inclusive digital governance. The differences mainly lie in the specific approaches and emphasis on different aspects of implementation. This suggests a general consensus on the overall goals, which could facilitate collaborative efforts in addressing digital governance challenges.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of implementing the GDC, but differ on the approach. Lumi emphasizes the role of FOC in implementation, while Alexander suggests implementation is already happening through existing initiatives.

Rasmus Lumi

Fiona Alexander

FOC can play a role in GDC implementation aligned with human rights

GDC implementation is already underway through existing initiatives

Both speakers recognize the importance of the IGF, but while Gengo focuses on its role as an inclusive dialogue space, Alexander emphasizes the need for sustained funding to strengthen its capacity.

Anja Gengo

Fiona Alexander

IGF serves as an inclusive space for dialogue on digital policy issues

Sustained funding is needed to strengthen IGF’s capacity

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers emphasized the importance of local and national processes in implementing digital governance principles and engaging stakeholders effectively.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Olaf Kolfman

Local and national processes are key for implementing GDC principles

Bottom-up involvement and local initiatives are important

These speakers highlighted the importance of aligning digital governance with human rights principles and ensuring diverse voices are included in shaping these frameworks.

Rasmus Lumi

Emilar Gandhi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

FOC can play a role in GDC implementation aligned with human rights

Private sector has a role in contributing to rights-respecting digital future

Global majority voices need to be engaged in shaping governance frameworks

Takeaways

Key Takeaways

Multi-stakeholder engagement is crucial for effective and inclusive digital governance

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) implementation should involve diverse stakeholders

Local and national processes are key for implementing global digital governance principles

Capacity building is needed to enable meaningful participation from all stakeholders

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) serves as an important inclusive space for dialogue

New York-based UN processes have limitations in involving stakeholders meaningfully

Technical expertise is necessary to underpin digital governance discussions

Resolutions and Action Items

FOC to continue supporting multi-stakeholder engagement in digital governance

Stakeholders encouraged to engage in local and national digital governance processes

Focus on renewing and strengthening the IGF mandate in upcoming WSIS+20 review

Work towards securing sustained funding for the IGF

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively integrate multi-stakeholder input into New York-based UN processes

Balancing multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches in global digital governance

Addressing power asymmetries within multi-stakeholder processes

How to ensure meaningful participation from marginalized and underrepresented groups

Suggested Compromises

Using FOC and other platforms to channel multi-stakeholder input into intergovernmental processes

This comment provides a critical perspective on the limitations of UN processes for multi-stakeholder engagement.

impact

It sparked discussion about alternative approaches and the importance of local and national initiatives, shifting focus away from solely UN-centered processes.

Overall Assessment

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring that global governance reflects diverse local and national perspectives and experiences.

Open Forum #44 Building Trust with Technical Standards and Human Rights

Session at a Glance

Summary

This discussion focused on incorporating human rights considerations into technical standards for emerging technologies, particularly in the context of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital governance. Participants from various sectors, including government, civil society, and international organizations, emphasized the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in developing standards that respect human rights.

Key points included the need to break down silos between human rights experts and technical communities, and the challenges of involving diverse stakeholders in the standard-setting process. Speakers highlighted the importance of considering human rights from the inception of new technologies, rather than as an afterthought. The discussion touched on specific issues such as linguistic diversity in AI development, privacy concerns, and the potential for discrimination in AI systems.

Participants stressed the financial and resource challenges faced by civil society organizations and small enterprises in participating in standards development processes. They called for more accessible ways to contribute to these discussions, such as through workshops and targeted input opportunities. The role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in facilitating these conversations was emphasized.

The discussion also addressed the responsibilities of tech companies in respecting human rights, with mention of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Speakers noted the importance of human rights due diligence in both company operations and standard-setting organizations. The Global Digital Compact was highlighted as a key framework for advancing human rights in technical standards.

Overall, the discussion underscored the critical need for collaboration between technical experts, human rights advocates, governments, and industry to ensure that emerging technologies and their governing standards protect and promote human rights.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of incorporating human rights considerations into technical standards for emerging technologies

– Challenges in involving diverse stakeholders, especially civil society and marginalized groups, in standards development processes

– The need for a multi-stakeholder approach and breaking down silos between technical and human rights communities

– Balancing innovation with ethical considerations and human rights protections

– The role of governments, companies, and international organizations in promoting human rights-aligned standards

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to explore how human rights principles can be better integrated into technical standards for digital technologies, and to identify challenges and potential solutions for making standards development processes more inclusive and rights-respecting.

Tone:

The tone was largely collaborative and solution-oriented. Speakers approached the topic from different perspectives but shared a common interest in improving standards processes. The tone became more urgent when discussing the need for concrete actions and greater civil society involvement. Overall, there was a sense of cautious optimism about the potential for positive change if stakeholders work together effectively.

Speakers

– Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Consultant, OHCHR

– Olivier Alais: Program Coordinator, ITU

– Marek Janovský: First Secretary for Cyber Diplomacy at the Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic in Geneva

– Shirani De Clercq: Expertise France Economist, seconded at the Saudi Ministry of Digital Technology

– Yoo Jin Kim: Representative from OHCHR

– Gbenga Sesan: Executive Director of Paradigm Initiative

– Florian Ostmann: Director of Innovation at Alan Turing Institute

Additional speakers:

– Mizna Tregi: Representative for the Saudi Green Building Forum

Full session report

Incorporating Human Rights into Technical Standards: A Multi-Stakeholder Approach

This discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Riyadh focused on the critical need to incorporate human rights considerations into technical standards for emerging technologies, particularly in the context of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital governance. Participants from various sectors, including government, civil society, and international organisations, emphasised the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in developing standards that respect human rights.

Key Themes and Arguments:

1. Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Breaking Silos

Participants stressed the necessity of involving diverse stakeholders in the development of technical standards. Dhevy Sivaprakasam, the moderator, highlighted the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to include diverse perspectives. Marek JanovskÃ½ emphasized the importance of breaking silos between human rights experts and technical bodies, and stressed the government’s role in fostering dialogue and outreach, particularly in including youth and emerging tech companies.

Gbenga Sesan, Executive Director of Paradigm Initiative, emphasised civil society’s role in bringing user experiences to standards discussions. Olivier Alais, representing the ITU, underscored the need for collaboration between public, private, and civil society sectors, and mentioned the Freedom Online Coalition’s joint statement linking technical standards and human rights.

2. Balancing Innovation with Human Rights Considerations

The discussion explored the challenge of integrating human rights considerations into technical standards without impeding innovation. Shirani De Clercq, an economist from Expertise France, highlighted the tension between economic objectives and ethical principles in AI development. She also discussed Saudi Arabia’s context, mentioning the AI ethics principles issued by SADAYA and the AI Adoption Framework.

Gbenga Sesan argued that considering human rights and user experiences can actually promote innovation by improving services and experiences. He also raised the issue of internet shutdowns and their impact on human rights.

3. Challenges in Implementation

Several speakers highlighted practical challenges in implementing human rights-based standards. Financial and resource constraints for inclusive participation were noted by audience members and speakers alike. Florian Ostmann emphasised the need for lowering barriers to participation in standards development, particularly for civil society and small and medium enterprises (SMEs). He also stressed the importance of considering the use of technology, not just the properties of systems.

Yoo Jin Kim, representing OHCHR, stressed the importance of human rights due diligence by companies and standards bodies. Kim also highlighted the critical risks to human rights from emerging technologies, particularly noting the lack of transparency in AI development and use. She mentioned the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and its relevance to human rights in technical standards.

4. Specific Concerns and Examples

Shirani De Clercq raised an important point about linguistic diversity in AI development, noting that while 7% of internet users are native Arabic speakers, only 0.8% of internet content is in Arabic. She also mentioned the Gaia Accelerator project in Saudi Arabia and discussed the PDLP (Saudi Arabia’s equivalent to GDPR) and its implications for data privacy.

Marek Janovský highlighted the challenges of neuroscience and brain-related technologies. An audience member raised concerns about blockchain standards making.

Florian Ostmann provided specific examples of human rights implications of AI, such as bias in recruitment algorithms and the use of AI in law enforcement.

Conclusion and Future Directions:

The discussion underscored the critical need for collaboration between technical experts, human rights advocates, governments, and industry to ensure that emerging technologies and their governing standards protect and promote human rights. While there was general consensus on the importance of incorporating human rights into technical standards, the practical challenges of implementation remain significant.

Key takeaways included the need to lower barriers for participation in standards development processes, especially for civil society and SMEs, the importance of agile methodology in implementing standards, and the need to consider both the properties and use of technology in standards development.

Unresolved issues include creating scalable models for integrating human rights into technical standards without slowing innovation, addressing financial and resource constraints that limit participation, and effectively balancing economic objectives with ethical principles in standards development.

The discussion highlighted the complexity of the challenge but also demonstrated a growing recognition of the interconnectedness between technical standards and human rights. This suggests a potential shift towards more inclusive and rights-based approaches in technology development and governance, though significant work remains to be done to realise this vision.

Session Transcript

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Okay, so good afternoon in Riyadh and good morning, good night, wherever everyone is. We’re happy to introduce you all to the session today on building trust with technical standards and human rights. We all recognize in this IGF on the multi-stakeholder approach that there is a real need to have a rights-based approach to technical standards. And here we have today, and we’re very happy to introduce quite a number of good experts in the room from civil society, government, and corporate perspective as well. I will now just hand over to Olivier to give an initial introduction.

Olivier Alais: Thanks a lot and good afternoon and good morning to all colleagues and friends. So it’s a great honor to welcome you to this important session. So it’s co-organized by Czech Republic, ITU, and OHCHR. And today we come together to address critical questions and how can we include human rights in technical standards for emerging technologies to build trust in our digital future. At ITU, we understand that technical standards are the invisible foundation of our connected world and traditionally standards have been focused on two goals, technical accuracy and commercial success. And today we must add a third essential dimension, the human rights perspective. So this new approach requires us to ask important questions. It’s about how to protect privacy and data, how to ensure freedom of expression and access to information, how do we guarantee non-discrimination and inclusivity. So addressing this question, it’s vital to build a trust that ensures emerging technologies are widely adopted. and serve everyone. So what does this matter now? Technology like AI, Internet of Things, Metaverse, offer incredible opportunities, but they also create challenges. And without clear guidance, technology can unintentionally harm the very rights it aims to protect. That’s why collaboration is so important, and this type of panel is very important. For example, the Freedom Online Coalition delivered recently its first joint statement explicitly linking technical standards and human rights. The recent IT resolution on Metaverse is a milestone, it was two months ago. It is the first to explicitly reference human rights. Our partnership with OHCHR is also key, and with human rights specialists, and to the commitment to implement the Global Digital Compact by turning human rights principles into technical guidance. So thanks a lot

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: for your attention. I look forward to this conversation and to working together to ensure technology serves humanity’s best interests. So I’m giving you back the floor. Thank you. Thanks so much, Olivier. And to speak to these issues, we have five different speakers today, and I’m very happy to introduce them. Marek Janowski, First Secretary for Cyber Diplomacy at the Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic in Geneva, joining us online. Shirani de Klerk, Expertise France Economist, seconded at the Saudi Ministry of Digital Technology, on site next to me. Yujin Kim, my colleague from OHHR in Geneva, joining us online as well. Thanks, Yujin, for joining. And Benga Sasan, Executive Director of Paradigm Initiative on my right. And finally, but not last, Florian Osman, Director of Innovation at Alan Turing Institute, who’s also joining us online. So let’s kick off the discussion, starting off with Marek. So the first question we wanted to throw to you, just to hear your thoughts, is how can international cyber diplomacy efforts promote the inclusion of people with disabilities in the public sector? And we’ll start with you, Marek. Sure. So, of human rights in the development of technical standards for emerging technologies.

Marek Janovský: Hello everybody. I hope you can hear me. Greetings from Geneva from the Czech Permanent Mission. I’m glad to be here with you with the expert community. I will try to be brief. I hope not to exceed much time. So if I am too long, please don’t hesitate to stop me. I’ve got a few points and some questions. So to your question, actually the diplomatic cyber community, what we can do actually is to keep raising of our awareness to these matters. These matters of linking human rights and the development of the standards is not a self-standing issue. It’s actually linked to, let’s say, a broader international relations and how new and emerging technologies change these international relations. So we’re not talking about a vacuum. It’s a link. It’s a change of, let’s say, environment that we live in as humans and as societies. So that is one of the reasons why I think the diplomatic communities globally start to take interest and raising interest in these matters. So just by way of introduction, I wanted to just point on that. I think the first thing I would like to mention is the attention we need to pay to the whole cycle of new emerging technologies, of their development. What we’re working on here with ITU specifically and the UIC HR colleagues is one of the points in the cycle. It’s standard development, standardization, but there is also inception. There’s also, you know, the youth development. and also disposal of technologies that the other phases that need to be, let’s say, heated. And so we’re now talking to you, to the expert audience, I think that you have experience with the other ones as well. The third element I’d like to mention is that it’s important for us, for diplomatic cyber community, or let’s say new tech people working in diplomacy, is to try to break the silos between specifically the experts working on human rights, such as the High Commissioner’s office in Geneva or elsewhere as well, and specific bodies such as ITU or ISO or IEC, etc. or IEEE. It’s important that the ITU is not the only game in the town, and there are others that can join the efforts, and need to join the efforts in order for the tech and the digital transformation to be a success. Another point I would like to mention is the importance of youth. I’d like to actually just point out that young people, they’re actually even in Riyadh now, NGOs and others, they make a crucial part in this, so I’ll be actually quite happy to hear from them what they think about this important link. Maybe one of the other points is, and this is the question I wanted to basically raise, is how the IGF could help to actually advance this. Because the diplomatic community is one thing, but we need a wholesale approach to a change of paradigm in how we actually perceive the development and use of the new and emerging technologies. I think this is key that not only diplomatic communities, but others join in in this effort and, you know, each of us will play a role in making you know this a success because I don’t think that once we decided to follow this path of digital transformation. We don’t have much choice, but to try to make it safe and human rights based. Thank you very much.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Thank you very much. There was a really good overview actually of the multi stakeholder approach and maybe also zooming down now to the Saudi Arabia experience like to ask Shirani specifically on the work that you’ve been doing in Riyadh concerning non discrimination. What are the use cases illustrating the impact of technology biases in Saudi Arabia and what solutions have you seen being implemented here to address those challenges.

Shirani De Clercq: Thanks again for inviting me in this great panel. In our ministry, in the ministry where I work in, we have a technology foresight department. For their monthly meeting, someone in their team tests the latest apps on the market. And these days, mostly the AI, Gen AI, and presents its pros and cons during a meeting. One occurring theme that has been observed is the biases within these applications. A simple example, when you ask a Gen AI model to depict a traditional Saudi family, you sometimes end up having a Saudi woman with a men’s tube. We also have other stereotypes, but today just stick on to this image issue. Is it really a big deal to be represented, falsely misrepresented? In the digital world, an entire minority could be falsely represented or even erased. Erased from, for example, an AI assisted recruitment process. It could become a big issue in the long run. So bias in AI systems often stems from how data is collected and how models are trained. But improving the fairness of AI requires more than just diversifying the data sets. While ensuring the data reflects the full range of appearance and cultural practice in Saudi Arabia is crucial, we must also design AI systems that don’t automatically discard what they deem unusual. So equally important is the composition of the development team. Inclusive teams representing various backgrounds and experiences are more likely to recognize blind spots and feed algorithms with data that genuinely reflects their populations. For more UN videos visit www.un.org So, what do we do in these situations? In 2023, the Saudi Data and AI Authority, which is SADAYA, issued an AI ethics principle aimed at guiding organizations in the responsible use of their technologies. And recently, in September 2024, SADAYA issued the AI Adaption Framework designed in a use-case-driven methodology, a very flexible approach. There’s another issue on language. Have you ever heard of the principle of linguistic relativity? So it says that the way people think of the world is influenced directly by the language that people use to talk about it. While 7% of internet users are Arabic as its native speakers, only 0.8% of internet content is in Arabic. So a model trained on modern standard Arabic fails to understand regional dialects. So research shows that customizing models to local language variations significantly improves the accuracy. For example, ArabBERT, an Arabic-focused language model, boosts dialect identification accuracy from about 84% to 92% simply by incorporating more dialect-specific data. In doing so, we not only improve technology’s effectiveness but also ensure that the digital world genuinely represents Saudi linguistic and cultural richness. So it’s very important for us.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Yeah, now switching gears to also Yujin, maybe you could speak a bit more to what are the critical risks that OHHR sees emerging from these technologies on a broader level. We heard Shirani speak to the Saudi Arabian perspective and more maybe the global trends that we’ve been observing from the office. Thank you.

Yoo Jin Kim: Thanks so much and thank you. for this question. It’s great to see some familiar faces online and on site. So to start, I would mention again, our reports that we had published last year on the relationship between human rights and technical standards in relation to digital technologies. So to recap, you know, on one hand, the report showed that, you know, how technical standards are relevant to the enjoyment of human rights. For instance, stressing that many standards define processes and actions that directly respond to certain human rights related concerns. So to be more concrete, some examples include standards on privacy by design, privacy risk assessment, management, perhaps accessibility standards on the web, for example, which allow people with impaired vision to navigate and access the internet. So the ways in which these standards that I’ve mentioned, as an example, are the way they’re designed are important to protecting the right to privacy, for example, freedom of expression and association, the right to life, in essence, across the whole spectrum of human rights, although I’ve only listed just a few rights here. And let’s look at a few more recent examples. The Internet Engineering Task Force has done a great amount of work around this. And right now, they’re currently discussing an internet protocol related to air tags, and gender violence. So the working group on DULT, DULT stands for Detecting Unwanted Location Trackers Accessory Protocol. So this protocol is being discussed in ITF to protect people against being unknowingly tracked. And it’s discussing a real issue in a way, you know, that tackles gender domestic violence cases, to create a standard that allows the AirTags to communicate with Bluetooth devices, so that the person being tracked can detect and discover the hidden tag. So, and on the other side, I would say our report showed that the risks related to the standards development, for example, standards that define technical features that are necessary for digital infrastructures functioning, have particular relevance for human rights, as we have seen the transmission control protocol and HTTP. So in this case, the weakness or lack thereof, or lack of inscription in these protocols can facilitate mass surveillance programs that systematically undermine the right to privacy, and facilitate targeted surveillance both by the state and by non-state actors. So there have, of course, been some really important resolutions recently from the UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council, and our reports, of course, on human rights and technical standards. But other reports that we have issued, for example, on internet shutdowns, the rights of privacy in the digital age, stress the risks that relate to new and emerging technologies. And other reports, such as the use of AI in border management by law enforcement, which gets into the use of AI, for example, facial recognition technologies, real-time and disproportionate impacts that it has. And I think one important thing to note is the lack of transparency, which has really been the undertone in the development and design and the use of AI. And this really the lack of transparency and thus the lack of accountability has really led to some harm and increased risks to human rights. And let me just conclude now that while technical standards can have an important role in creating conditions that are conducive to exercising human rights, clearly there are cases and risks posed to human rights by the way human rights are, by the way standards are designed, but also the way they are deployed. So this is why we really need to put human rights at the center and front of digital technologies and the standards that underpin them. And we have to make sure that standard setting processes really rest on multi-stakeholder principles and become as transparent, inclusive, and open as possible.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Thank you. And yeah, so we heard from both Yujin and Shirani and also Marek on the importance of having voices from marginalized communities and minorities also involved in this process. And Marek mentioned also a change in paradigm, so it’s good to have someone from paradigm initiative. I’m sure you heard that many times. So Venga, how can civil society organizations influence the technical standard setting processes and include voices that traditionally excluded in

Gbenga Sesan: the room? Thank you. I definitely heard paradigm mentioned and I’ve been hearing that all week, so that’s great. It’s good to know that our brand is spreading. Just very quick things, and I’ve organized my response in under five P’s because then it makes it easier to remember. And the first is prioritization. It’s important for civil society to prioritize participation in conversations around technical standards. And I say that because for many years, even myself and a few colleagues had conversations around, is it worth it? Because it’s expensive to participate and you need to decide. And that is where you begin to ask yourself the question that what is the connection between human rights and these technical standards? And then thanks to the Office of the High Commission, your report and some of the conversations we’ve had have helped in terms of painting that picture that if you don’t have the conversations at the design stage and the standards are set, you will then end up with fighting the fires eventually. The second is participation, because it’s one thing to complain that there are issues, but it’s another thing to participate and to bring knowledge to the table. And I think this is really important because when you bring knowledge to the table, you may just be presenting a side of the conversation that people have not even considered at all. And we see that in our work when, for example, we have conversations with security agencies or with the judiciary, that what the knowledge we bring to the table about human rights, about digital rights, are obviously not what they discuss every day. So it’s helpful for them to see that. The third is partnership. I said earlier today in one of the sessions that we need to see the spirit of multi-stakeholderism in government delegations. It’s not just about governments being in the room and then civil society is in the room, but even the sense of government. So government is a representation of the people. So governments need to start going for technical standards conversations with civil society, with businesses that I believe they already go with, and with, of course, they don’t have a choice with the technical community, so that there’s a partnership that brings in all of these elements, which then brings me to my fourth point, which is people. Because at the end of the day, my suspicion and the reality is that the services that will use the standards are focused on markets. The market is made up of people. Markets are made up of people. So if the people are not at the center of the experience, it’s like the UX, you’re building a user experience. And I think that civil society has a unique opportunity to bring user lived experience to the table of these conversations. We were talking about internet fragmentation and we got all technical until we stepped back and said, wait a second, how does fragmentation affect the internet user? And that was very helpful. And of course, finally, is the process itself. I was glad to hear Eugene mentioned earlier, something about privacy by design. This is where we need to begin to have conversations about processes, such that anything, basically talking about human rights by design. So it’s not human rights consideration. It is a fact that human rights, because it is people focused, is at the center of the entire process. It’s at the center of the conversation that we’re having about technical standards.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Those are very important points. And I’m now going to turn to Florenta to speak about how to make that actually effective, to actually incorporate the human rights perspective into the technical. standard processes, and where you see the challenges in this. The tough question comes to you.

Florian Ostmann: Thank you very much, and thank you for the invitation. It’s great to be part of this discussion. So I’ll be speaking from the perspective of our work at the Alan Turing Institute, which is the UK’s national institute for AI, and an initiative that we set up a couple of years ago called the AI Standards Hub. I’ll say more about that later, if I get a chance. But just to say, our work is focused on AI rather than digital technologies more broadly, but I think a lot of the considerations apply more broadly as well. I think I won’t go into too much detail on why AI raises human rights implications. I think that’s already been eloquently set out by my previous colleagues on the panel. Just to illustrate, as we’ve heard, there are privacy implications. AI can have implications for physical safety, those important questions around non-discrimination, due process when AI is used in legal or administrative processes, and important questions around surveillance, just to name a few important human rights aspects. So it’s very clear that AI raises human rights questions. Now the question is, why is it important for human rights to be considered in the context of standardization for AI? I think one important thing to emphasize here is that standardization, we’ve seen over the last couple of years, is increasingly being looked at as a tool for AI governance, often through important links between regulation and standards. So in the EU context, for example, there’s a very important and direct link between the enforcement and implementation of the AI Act and the standards that are being developed at the European level. So standards aren’t just a standalone tool, but they do have important links to the broader landscape. and are considered increasingly an enabler for AI governance more broadly. And that’s why it’s important, I think, and absolutely critical, that human rights considerations are part of standardization. Otherwise, standards won’t be able to play that overall enabling role. One thing that I also want to briefly sort of emphasize or highlight is the importance to think about the use of technology rather than just properties of systems, because I think that’s an important shift to some extent if you think about traditional domains of standardization, where standards are primarily about properties and specifications for systems. That is very important in the AI context, as it is everywhere. But as we’ve heard already, some of the most critical human rights-related impacts in the AI context may be associated with the use of systems, regardless of whether their properties meet certain specifications. And so, again, that’s something where I think standardization needs to broaden its scope if standards are meant to play this broad role of governance enablers and think about the use rather than just properties of systems. Now, to the second part, what are the main challenges for including human rights expertise in standards development? I think at a high level, sort of two points. The first one is that we are dealing with two different cultures. You know, think about the standardization community and the human rights community. There are different conceptual frameworks at play, different languages and, you know, different cultures of collaborating. The second one is a simple point about simply being different communities. So the people involved in standardization traditionally aren’t, you know, are separate from the group of people who traditionally focused or have a professional focus on human rights and human rights due diligence. Now, the fact that there are these different communities means that stakeholders that have expertise in human rights and human rights due diligence are not particularly familiar in many cases with standardization as a field, and that creates obstacles for them to actively engage. It starts with the fact that the space is very complex, there’s a wide range of standards development organizations, they each have their own rules for participating, it’s difficult to understand, you know, what are the most important developments, what are the most important standards projects, and then how do I get involved in those, given that there are different rules. Secondly, obstacles around skills, so skills and knowledge about how does the standards development process work, knowledge about, you know, what are different types of standards, there’s a very common misconception, I think, around the notion of technical standards, we tend to avoid using the term technical standards, because it tends to imply, you know, the content of standards developed in organizations like the ITU ISO, by necessity is particularly technical. That is the case for some standards, it’s not the case for all standards. And that often creates misunderstandings. And then as a last point, of course, it has to be mentioned that there are important challenges around resourcing, as has already been mentioned by previous speakers as well, it’s important to recognize, I think, that think about the multi stakeholder approach to standards development, certain stakeholder groups, you know, have a business case for being involved in standard development industry, as the obvious example for that important pockets of human rights expertise, you know, are to be found outside of industries, especially in civil society space. And it’s much more difficult for civil society organizations to find resources and make the business case for being involved. That is changing. I mean, the awareness is changing, but the challenge of finding the resources remains remains the same, so far.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: So much, Florian, I think at this time, we’d like to open the discussion to the floor and check if anyone would have any questions you would like to post to our speakers here. Sorry, I think. Apologies. Um, I think yeah. maybe it’s the time of the day, but maybe we can then move on to also other questions that we had for the speakers and maybe putting Marek back online. What role do you envision that the Czech Republic plays for governments in ensuring standards align with the multi-stakeholder process and also include human rights perspective in development?

Marek Janovský: Yeah, many, many thanks again on this national perspective. I’d like to just maybe refer very quickly to what I have already mentioned at the beginning of the panel. It’s the silos breaking. If we are to succeed, we need to make sure that people actually communicate. So the experts on both sides find a way to respect one another and do not disregard one another in terms of some kind of a joint work. I think it sounds banal, but it proved to be a very difficult thing to do from a diplomatic perspective. So that’s maybe one point. Again, breaking the silos, that’s what the Czech Republic in the EU does. I mean, not alone, because we would not have been able to do it, but we try to foster the even cross-regional, let’s say, dialogue. So as we have heard before, we need to talk, for example, the EU needs to talk with African countries because we’re actually facing some of the joint or challenges in this ever-increasing digital world. Linguistically, for example, as we have heard before, it’s the same issue. And I have to subscribe to the previous speaker saying that once we’re exposed to a different language, we think about a different language. We, of course, are subconsciously changed the way we perceive the world, that’s for sure. But there are other things which are similar to that, which actually are influencing our brains and thoughts. I’ll probably come back to that. Another point maybe worth mentioning outside of the outreach, which we want to foster also here, actually, through you guys. Again, the IGF would need to play a bigger role in this. And seriously, the Czech Republic would like to actually, not to task, but to ask the IGF to be of a help in this specific area of work. Because we think that we need more opinions, more, let’s say, recommendations from you, because you’re the experts that can actually help. Be it the governments, be it the civil society organizations, be it researchers, be it the private companies who are there. That brings me to the point of private companies. I think this is also one of the ways or elements that the Czech Republic is trying to foster. That’s why we’re extremely grateful for the OICHR’s project, BTEC, that is being at least run in Geneva. I think it would benefit from a worldwide coverage as well. Just trying to talk to not only the big tech, but trying to talk to the emerging and the SMEs. Again, to the young people who are actually driving companies who are at the, let’s say, frontier development of these applications. Because basically the world is going to be theirs and they need to step up and tell us how to do it as well. Not only to develop, but develop in a responsible way. So, I would end. there. And maybe just to say a few remarks, if I made to the previous conversation, it’s interesting to focus on standardization and on the use. I agree. But maybe a question to the audience or the other colleagues. When we talk about new technologies, such as sign neuroscience, and other things, other applications, which are going to be directly, which are you know, directly focusing on our brain activities on our thoughts, how can we improve the user’s capacities and skills? In my view, there’s no way it needs to be it needs to be already, let’s say, clean and responsible from the inception part, you know, the systemic proprieties need to be done in a in a in a good way in a responsible way. I don’t think that the user who is being swarmed by countless of applications and like, you know, internal things, connectivity, etc, is going to be able to focus on responsible usage and skills only, I think, just from a daily usage perspective, there’s no way. So again, the inception and the first phases of the development cycle are extremely key to get it right. Thank you.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Thanks so much, Mark. We have a lady in the room who would love to ask a question at this point. So we’ll just pass the mic.

Audience: First of all, thank you so much for this insightful discussion. And let me allow me to introduce myself. My name is Mizna Tregi. And I am the representative for the Saudi Green Building Forum, which is an organization committed to sustainable development and, and also fostering innovative principles. Now, the discussion highlighted a critical critical gaps in how human rights are considered in technical standards for emerging innovations. Despite the rapid advancement, overlooking these principles exposes marginalized groups to risks such as discrimination, privacy violations, and lack of transparency. Now, this challenge is further compounded by limited involvement of diverse stakeholders, which threatens to create unsafe and uninclusive technological environment. Now, to address these issues, there is a pressing need to ensure active participations from all sectors in the development of these technical standards. By integrating a human rights based approach, we can design the systems that prioritize transparency, fairness and accountability. Also, strengthening collaborations between public and private sector, and civil society is equally crucial to ensure these standards reflect the needs of all communities. Now moving forward, actionable steps include creating a human rights guide to align technical standards with principles like equality, equity and justice. Also, we can establish a robust multi stakeholder platform that can foster the exchange of experiences and expertise, and also best best practices, while regular human rights impact assessments will ensure alignment with sustainable development goals. Now, my question is, how can we create a scalable models for for integrating human rights into technical standards without slowing the pace of innovation, as well as how can we involve as, as His Excellency said, the private sector to implement these standards? Thank you.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Thank you so much. That was a really good question. I would just invite anyone in the room to come in on that because I think you raised multiple points that actually spoke to all of what all of the speeches of the panelists today. So anyone who wants to respond?

Gbenga Sesan: Thanks, that’s that’s a fantastic question, actually, because one of one of the reasons this is fantastic is because it actually takes us to the center of innovation. You know, question is how, how do we ensure standards are human rights compliant, without slowing down the pace of innovation. And I think it’s important to say this. Innovation is about providing improving experiences, right? Improving experiences, making services better, and doing things in different ways. And at the center of innovation are the people who interact with these experiences. And the whole sense of human rights is basically saying we want to make sure that the rights of those who engage with these platforms, who interact with these experiences is respected. A very simple example that I love to give is internet shutdowns. If we build if we bake the fact that shutdowns are not allowed, which is now part of the GDC, all countries have now agreed 29, 29 D that there, you know, no shutdowns, that itself doesn’t slow down the improvement of the internet, but it accelerates it. It means that people can use it, people can give feedback, people can have an experience of the entire and not fragmented internet. So thanks for asking that, because it actually, you know, takes us to the point of, you know, why human rights conversations are also helpful with technical standards, because they actually promote the sense of innovation. It’s not about the people. It’s not about the person creating the tool, but about a user, like, you know, user experience, and how their rights are respected.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Can you hear us? Okay, because I’m just seeing from the chat that the audio from the room apparently is a bit low for participants online. Please do continue to type in the Yeah, do continue to type in the chat and we will try to get this sorted. Thanks. Yeah, I wanted to see if anyone else was interested in responding to the question that was posed. But if not, then I might actually move on because two questions both to Eugene and to Shirani that were directly linked to what you actually raised, which was for Shirani, in Saudi Arabia, you spoke about the challenges that of the inclusion of minorities and marginalized communities. What are the financial and social challenges that you see in Saudi Arabia? And what are the challenges that you see in Saudi Arabia? And you mentioned, you know, the inclusion of minorities and marginalized communities. What are the financial and social implications you think that needs to be tackled to tackle this issue?

Shirani De Clercq: Really response to something you approached one of your questions, the dilemma between financial revenue and ethical, social values, traditional values. So it’s always a dilemma and both of them. So that’s why I just took two or three examples. And there’s no answer, of course, because we don’t know. So so one of the projects of like, in the race for the AI leader, you have projected to contribute to 5.1 the AI is projected to contribute to $5.1 billion to GDP by 2030. So there are many projects, and one of them that I identified is the Gaia Accelerator, so pushed by, supported by Saddaia and NTDP. So it has invested $160 million to fund 120 AI startups in Saudi. So while these startups from its economic returns, in the implementation of Saddaia’s AI ethic principle that has been deployed in 2093 and the framework last year, it’s going to slow down the whole process. We have an objective with KPIs where the companies have to become future unicorns. So that’s our main objective. But on the other side, there are principles that comes in and we say that this has to be, by design, you have to include ethical values in it. Why do you do it, and how do you do it? The others are like unbiased data sets with financial constraints. So you know about the ALM, the Arabic language model, which has been developed by Saddaia. It addresses often found in global LLMs like GDP4 that poorly represents Arabic dialects. So while ALM bridges this gap, expanding such initiatives, it costs enormously. So what do you fund? These kind of languages are future unicorn that makes you proud. And something else which is more difficult to discuss, it’s like Nata platform. It has 1.8 million daily digital verification users. Or Tavak Kalam, you say it like that, right? Tavak Kalam? Kalam, yeah, Kalam. It’s just developed during the COVID period. Kalam, sorry for the pronunciation. There’s 19.9 million users. No, 17.9 million users, which is enormous. So on one side, you need data to reduce biases. Sorry, on one side, you need data to reduce biases. And on the other side, there’s the privacy law. Saudi Arabia has published, I think, in 2023 the PDLP, which is the equivalent to the GDPR to protect data privacy in Saudi Arabia. So the real question is the same as yours. How do you classify and prioritize what is the most important thing for a country? I suppose it depends on the time period of your economic situation, because not all countries will face the same problematic at the same time. And I’m really for the agile method. No standardization can be deployed on one shot. I think you have to try, adjust. And I have the feeling that the Sadeas AI framework, ethical framework, has this methodology, very agile, that means you test with a use case methodology. And if it works, you improve and improve and implement it one by one. Thank you.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Thanks, Yorani. Actually, just building on that point and also the fact that our kind speaker, I mean, participant raised earlier about principles and standards that are already there on human rights principles. Oh, sorry. Okay, so we have another question. So I’ll pause and please feel free to speak. Thank you.

Audience: Yeah, I think I’m sitting on the wrong side of the room. So I have a question about blockchain standards making and multilateralism in that. So we did a project. I’m from India. I worked on a project. It was an Indo-Australian project. We started working on blockchain standards. And it was a three-year project. And by the end of it, we were just looking at what the involvement in standardization processes for multilateral forums was. So we worked with BIS and then Standards Australia, but then we also worked in like an international level. And the problem that we found was that most people just didn’t participate in standardization processes, not because they didn’t know that it was important, but because it’s not practically feasible. So I think that it’s important to get like a civil society approach and then like from small and medium enterprises, but contributing to standards conversations, which is something that we’ve also attempted to do, is an extremely resource and time-intensive process. It’s something that requires significant upselling. You have to upskill yourself. You have to spend a lot of time working on these things. It’s also something that you don’t actually get paid for. So most of us do it in addition to the work that we do. So in that context, unless, like even when we did conclude our project, we came up with like a roadmap of how potentially standards organizations could get people more invested in the standards-making process. But I think unless there’s like significant incentives being offered, which some governments are doing, but a majority of them can’t really do, that’s not something that’s very likely to change. A large organization could potentially devote some people to participate in standards conversation. Small and medium enterprises just can’t afford it. Civil societies can’t really afford it. It requires a lot of expertise. It requires a lot of time. In that kind of, unless like standards-making conversation drastically changes in the next two years where it becomes possible to contribute without that much investment, I’m not sure how a multilateral conversation on standards would really work out.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: That’s a really important point. And I do recognize Florian spoke a bit to this before. So yeah, Florian, please come in to respond.

Florian Ostmann: Yeah, thank you. I’ll just briefly come in also because I need to drop out in five minutes, I’m afraid. I think it’s a really important point. So we don’t work on blockchain, but I think the point applies more generally really, when it comes to civil society involvement in standards development for emerging technologies. I just thought I’d briefly give some examples of what we’ve done. I think that the problem really needs to be addressed at different layers. So one thing we’ve done in the AI space with the AI Standards Hub is to build a database of standards projects that are under development. That’s something that didn’t exist before. And so there’s a real challenge at a very foundational level for organizations that aren’t familiar with the space of understanding, tracking what is going on across the large number of SDOs that are active in the space, and then to be able to decide what is the standards project that’s with my limited resources is the one that I should be focused on and engaging. So that’s an example for how we try to contribute to solving that in the AI space through that kind of database that tracks those developments. Secondly, to your point on skills and upskilling, so we’ve developed a range of e-learning materials and we also have occasional in-person events. Some of those are not AI specific, so it might be useful if you’re interested to take a look. We have several e-learning modules on how the standardization process works and the role of different SDOs, for example. Then lastly, and I think that’s probably the most important point and where the most value lies, the biggest difference can be made, is thinking about ways for lowering the barrier to participating and contributing to standards development. Traditionally, of course, the way to contribute is to join a committee, whatever committee that is. In some organizations, if it’s ISO or… IEC or SenSenelec, it’s through the MIRO committee at the national level, in other cases it’s the study group directly like in the ITU, but it’s a formal process and it’s quite a time commitment that can be quite daunting and many organizations may feel they’re unable to commit to joining a committee. So we’ve been trying to experiment with ways of lowering that barrier in collaboration with SDOs, for example with SenSenelec and working group chairs, to create spaces through workshops, for example, that sort of on a one-off basis provide an opportunity for interested organizations, especially those that struggle. So we have a dedicated workstream to civil society or civil society organizations, you know, look at a project that’s under development and give targeted input on certain questions that the committee can then consider, you know, in the committee’s work. And I think that’s something we’ve had a lot of positive feedback on and we’ll try to do more. We’ll actually probably have a workshop for civil society organizations to feed into European standards for risk management for AI in February. So anyone who’s interested, please take a look at our website. We’ve been very, you know, pleased and proud of our partnership with Eugene and colleagues from OHCHR, have having done a couple of events together, and we’ll also be working together on a summit that the AI Standards Hub will be hosting in March. You’ll find more information on that global summit on AI standardization, where sort of civil society inclusion will be a really important focus.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Thanks very much, Florian. I just want to also share with the room a comment in the chat from Gopal. In my humble opinion, it’s best to have responsibilities before rights, making responsible citizens. Now netizens is crucial to building trust. using technology standards, we need a trust layer lower than the network layer in the ISO-OSI reference model. So thanks, Gopal. I think it’s also related to the question we asked to Eugene as you speak about responsibilities before rights. Eugene, could you speak a bit more on the project, the BTEC project that encourages companies to actually meet the responsibilities

Yoo Jin Kim: that they have to protect the rights of individuals as well? Sure, and I’m really glad to hear from my other colleagues on the panel here on the challenges non-technical community, the CSO, for example, face, which is, I think, really important to tackle. And just to note that we understand standard development takes time. It’s a complex and challenging environment. So really, we need all stakeholders involved in a continued effort in a collaborative manner to make sure that human rights are front and center to tech standards development. So it’s not something that we can flick on a switch or flick it off to make things happen. So I think also it really highlights the importance of a panel that we have here today with diverse participants on this panel. So I think I will focus a bit more, like you said, on the BTEC project and the role of companies and perhaps outline some of our next steps in the coming year. So the role of the tech companies is something in the standard setting space is something we would really like to stress and emphasize a bit more next year. We already engage with them with tech companies through our BTEC project, which was mentioned, which focuses on the role of tech companies and how they can operationalize the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. So within this BTEC project, our office has been able to provide or has been able to discuss how to foster business conduct responsibly when it comes to AI, provided practical guidance to tech companies. So operationalizing the UNGPs, for example. And recently we have a, we published a foundational paper on generative AI and also a taxonomy of human rights risks connected to generative AI. So this is really some of the examples and our more recent outputs we have in order to provide guidance to tech companies. And I’m happy to share a link where you can access these resources and the work that we have done so far. But the challenge now is really looking at how to engage meaningfully with companies on technical standards, human rights, because tech companies are a stakeholder group that is really crucial to be, to stay engaged because they take a part in standard setting processes. And sometimes in various fora, they’re the one driving some of this tech standards development. And so human rights to diligence is a key element. I think that should be highlighted. So human rights to diligence for both companies and for standard setting organizations. And in order for us to raise awareness vis-a-vis tech companies and also for standard development organizations, we will be conducting some consultations next year to better understand their view and how to better engage with them and better meaning more effectively. And this really, again, brings us to the importance of participation and multi-stakeholderism. It’s already been noted, but the challenge really is on getting non-technical communities involved. When I say that it’s civil society organizations, it’s academia, but also noting the disparity in participation for various reasons. between the global north and the global majority, and also the, you know, I think our, I heard from the floor as well, from other panelists, that we need to have more SMEs. I think Mark had mentioned this, the importance is also not just engaging with big tech, but looking at the ecosystem, right? We also need to be engaging with young entrepreneurs who are really at the frontiers of tech development, and also small and medium-sized enterprises. So, I think, I hope this is clear. I mean, there is enormous benefit to multi-stakeholder participation. Gbenga mentioned this, but, you know, it’s really important to bring in a perspective, you know, side of conversation that maybe no one in the room has heard before. And that’s really the value add of multi-stakeholder participation in developing tech technologies and standards that serve everybody. And in this sense, I would like to emphasize that IGF, you know, the Internet Governance Forum has been an important venue to discuss in a multi-stakeholder setting, you know, human rights and technical standards, but a host of other issues in this space. And that said, I think we’re now arriving at such critical juncture, right, with the steps to implementing the Global Digital Compact, the review of the multi-stakeholder model at the WSIS plus 20 next year. So, let me finish on a note by saying that in the GDC, if you look at line 58 in the adopted text, it places a great importance on human rights in relation to tech standards. It explicitly refers to AI standards that must respect human rights. So, we must also emphasize the importance of this forum to continue to discuss how to develop and deploy the technical standards that can be human rights respecting, and that will foster more public trust in different technologies. So thank you so much.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: And that was a really good summary of the whole thing. And also at the end of the day, we are here at IGF and we hope to discuss this conversation at the next IGF in Norway. So it’s been great to have all of you online. I would like to maybe call upon Olivia if you had final words. I’ve been told that we have two minutes left and so we might get kicked out of the room. But Olivia, please do come in.

Olivier Alais: Thanks a lot. It was a very interesting conversation and thanks a lot for all being here. So of course, technical standard has to be human rights enablers. We need to be more collaborative and to have a multi-stakeholder effort. And we need also, and as we said, to come with actionable solution for technical community and really to be in line with a global digital compact. So thanks a lot for being here. And I heard that we are still all working together to move on standardization and human rights.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Yeah, Marek, Eugene, Lauren, Benga, and Charani. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Bye-bye. Thank you. Bye everyone. Thank you. Thanks a lot to all. Thanks a lot to Jean-Claude also for being our reporter. Thank you. Thank you.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam

Speech speed

151 words per minute

Speech length

1202 words

Speech time

476 seconds

Need for multi-stakeholder approach to include diverse perspectives

Explanation

Sivaprakasam emphasizes the importance of involving various stakeholders in the process of developing technical standards. This approach aims to ensure that different perspectives, especially from marginalized communities, are considered in the standard-setting process.

Major Discussion Point

Major Discussion Point 1: Incorporating Human Rights into Technical Standards

Agreed with

Marek Janovský

Yoo Jin Kim

Gbenga Sesan

Agreed on

Importance of integrating human rights considerations into technical standards

Marek Janovský

Speech speed

140 words per minute

Speech length

1260 words

Speech time

539 seconds

Importance of breaking silos between human rights experts and technical bodies

Explanation

Marek Janovský stresses the need to foster communication and collaboration between human rights experts and technical bodies. This is crucial for ensuring that human rights considerations are effectively integrated into technical standards.

Major Discussion Point

Major Discussion Point 1: Incorporating Human Rights into Technical Standards

Agreed with

Dhevy Sivaprakasam

Yoo Jin Kim

Gbenga Sesan

Agreed on

Importance of integrating human rights considerations into technical standards

Government’s role in fostering dialogue and outreach

Explanation

Marek Janovský highlights the role of governments in promoting dialogue and outreach between different stakeholders. He emphasizes the importance of cross-regional dialogue and engaging with various communities, including young people and emerging tech companies.

Evidence

The speaker mentions the Czech Republic’s efforts in fostering cross-regional dialogue and the importance of talking with African countries about joint challenges in the digital world.

Major Discussion Point

Major Discussion Point 3: Role of Different Stakeholders in Standards Development

Agreed with

Dhevy Sivaprakasam

Gbenga Sesan

Olivier Alais

Agreed on

Need for multi-stakeholder approach in technical standards development

Shirani De Clercq

Speech speed

121 words per minute

Speech length

958 words

Speech time

471 seconds

Challenges of bias and misrepresentation in AI systems

Explanation

De Clercq discusses the issues of bias and misrepresentation in AI systems, particularly in the context of Saudi Arabia. She highlights how AI models can perpetuate stereotypes and potentially erase or misrepresent minority groups in the digital world.

Evidence

The speaker provides an example of how Gen AI models sometimes depict a Saudi woman with a men’s thobe when asked to represent a traditional Saudi family.

Major Discussion Point

Major Discussion Point 1: Incorporating Human Rights into Technical Standards

Tension between economic objectives and ethical principles

Explanation

De Clercq highlights the dilemma between pursuing financial revenue and adhering to ethical and social values in AI development. She discusses the challenge of balancing economic goals with the implementation of AI ethics principles.

Evidence

The speaker mentions the Gaia Accelerator project, which has invested $160 million to fund 120 AI startups in Saudi Arabia, and the potential conflict with implementing AI ethics principles.

Major Discussion Point

Major Discussion Point 2: Challenges in Implementing Human Rights-Based Standards

Differed with

Audience

Differed on

Balancing innovation and human rights considerations

Yoo Jin Kim

Speech speed

140 words per minute

Speech length

1469 words

Speech time

626 seconds

Critical risks to human rights from emerging technologies

Explanation

Kim outlines various risks to human rights posed by emerging technologies, particularly AI. She emphasizes issues such as privacy violations, potential for mass surveillance, and the lack of transparency in AI development and deployment.

Evidence

The speaker references UN reports on internet shutdowns, rights of privacy in the digital age, and the use of AI in border management.

Major Discussion Point

Major Discussion Point 1: Incorporating Human Rights into Technical Standards

Agreed with

Dhevy Sivaprakasam

Marek JanovskÃ½

Gbenga Sesan

Agreed on

Importance of integrating human rights considerations into technical standards

Importance of human rights due diligence by companies and standards bodies

Explanation

Kim stresses the need for both companies and standards development organizations to conduct human rights due diligence. She highlights the importance of engaging tech companies in discussions about technical standards and human rights.

Evidence

The speaker mentions the BTEC project, which focuses on helping tech companies operationalize the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Major Discussion Point

Major Discussion Point 2: Challenges in Implementing Human Rights-Based Standards

Gbenga Sesan

Speech speed

167 words per minute

Speech length

861 words

Speech time

307 seconds

Civil society’s role in bringing user experiences to standards discussions

Explanation

Sesan emphasizes the unique opportunity civil society has to bring user lived experiences to technical standards discussions. He argues that this perspective is crucial for ensuring that standards are people-focused and respect human rights.

Evidence

The speaker uses the example of internet fragmentation discussions, highlighting how considering the user perspective changed the conversation.

Major Discussion Point

Major Discussion Point 1: Incorporating Human Rights into Technical Standards

Agreed with

Dhevy Sivaprakasam

Marek Janovský

Yoo Jin Kim

Agreed on

Importance of integrating human rights considerations into technical standards

Civil society’s need to prioritize and participate in standards discussions

Explanation

Sesan argues that civil society organizations need to prioritize participation in technical standards discussions. He emphasizes the importance of bringing knowledge to the table and presenting perspectives that may not have been considered.

Major Discussion Point

Major Discussion Point 3: Role of Different Stakeholders in Standards Development

Agreed with

Dhevy Sivaprakasam

Marek Janovský

Olivier Alais

Agreed on

Need for multi-stakeholder approach in technical standards development

Florian Ostmann

Speech speed

158 words per minute

Speech length

1500 words

Speech time

567 seconds

Difficulties for non-technical stakeholders to engage in standards processes

Explanation

Ostmann highlights the challenges faced by non-technical stakeholders, particularly civil society organizations, in engaging with standards development processes. He points out issues such as the complexity of the space, lack of familiarity with processes, and resource constraints.

Evidence

The speaker mentions the difficulty in understanding the wide range of standards development organizations and their different rules for participation.

Major Discussion Point

Major Discussion Point 1: Incorporating Human Rights into Technical Standards

Need for lowering barriers to participation in standards development

Explanation

Ostmann emphasizes the importance of finding ways to lower the barriers for participation in standards development processes. He suggests alternative methods for contributing that don’t require the same level of time commitment as joining a formal committee.

Evidence

The speaker mentions experiments with workshops that provide opportunities for interested organizations to give targeted input on certain questions without joining a committee.

Major Discussion Point

Major Discussion Point 2: Challenges in Implementing Human Rights-Based Standards

Audience

Speech speed

157 words per minute

Speech length

638 words

Speech time

242 seconds

Balancing innovation pace with human rights considerations

Explanation

An audience member raises the question of how to create scalable models for integrating human rights into technical standards without slowing down innovation. This highlights the perceived tension between rapid technological advancement and ensuring human rights protections.

Major Discussion Point

Major Discussion Point 2: Challenges in Implementing Human Rights-Based Standards

Differed with

Shirani De Clercq

Differed on

Balancing innovation and human rights considerations

Financial and resource constraints for inclusive participation

Explanation

An audience member points out the practical challenges of participating in standards-making processes, particularly for small and medium enterprises and civil society organizations. They highlight the significant time and resource investment required, which often goes unpaid.

Evidence

The speaker mentions their experience with a three-year Indo-Australian project on blockchain standards, highlighting the resource-intensive nature of the process.

Major Discussion Point

Major Discussion Point 2: Challenges in Implementing Human Rights-Based Standards

Olivier Alais

Speech speed

142 words per minute

Speech length

378 words

Speech time

159 seconds

Need for collaboration between public, private and civil society sectors

Explanation

Alais emphasizes the importance of collaborative efforts between different sectors in developing human rights-based technical standards. He stresses the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to create actionable solutions for the technical community.

Major Discussion Point

Major Discussion Point 3: Role of Different Stakeholders in Standards Development

Agreed with

Dhevy Sivaprakasam

Marek Janovský

Gbenga Sesan

Agreed on

Need for multi-stakeholder approach in technical standards development

Agreements

Agreement Points

Need for multi-stakeholder approach in technical standards development

Dhevy Sivaprakasam

Marek Janovský

Gbenga Sesan

Olivier Alais

Need for multi-stakeholder approach to include diverse perspectives

Government’s role in fostering dialogue and outreach

Civil society’s need to prioritize and participate in standards discussions

Need for collaboration between public, private and civil society sectors

Speakers agreed on the importance of involving various stakeholders, including governments, civil society, and private sector, in the process of developing technical standards to ensure diverse perspectives are considered.

Importance of integrating human rights considerations into technical standards

Dhevy Sivaprakasam

Marek Janovský

Yoo Jin Kim

Gbenga Sesan

Need for multi-stakeholder approach to include diverse perspectives

Importance of breaking silos between human rights experts and technical bodies

Critical risks to human rights from emerging technologies

Civil society’s role in bringing user experiences to standards discussions

Speakers emphasized the need to incorporate human rights considerations into technical standards development, highlighting the importance of collaboration between human rights experts and technical bodies.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the potential risks and challenges posed by emerging technologies, particularly AI, to human rights and fair representation.

Shirani De Clercq

Yoo Jin Kim

Challenges of bias and misrepresentation in AI systems

Critical risks to human rights from emerging technologies

Both Ostmann and the audience member emphasized the practical challenges faced by non-technical stakeholders, particularly civil society and small organizations, in participating in standards development processes due to resource constraints and complexity.

Florian Ostmann

Audience

Difficulties for non-technical stakeholders to engage in standards processes

Need for lowering barriers to participation in standards development

Financial and resource constraints for inclusive participation

Unexpected Consensus

Balancing innovation with human rights considerations

Audience

Gbenga Sesan

Balancing innovation pace with human rights considerations

Civil society’s role in bringing user experiences to standards discussions

While the audience member raised concerns about slowing innovation by integrating human rights considerations, Sesan unexpectedly argued that considering human rights and user experiences can actually promote innovation by improving services and experiences.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the need for a multi-stakeholder approach in technical standards development, the importance of integrating human rights considerations into these standards, and the challenges faced by non-technical stakeholders in participating in the process.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the importance of incorporating human rights into technical standards and the need for diverse stakeholder participation. This consensus implies a growing recognition of the interconnectedness between technical standards and human rights, suggesting a potential shift towards more inclusive and rights-based approaches in technology development and governance.

Differences

Different Viewpoints

Balancing innovation and human rights considerations

Shirani De Clercq

Audience

Tension between economic objectives and ethical principles

Balancing innovation pace with human rights considerations

De Clercq highlighted the dilemma between pursuing financial revenue and adhering to ethical principles in AI development, while an audience member questioned how to integrate human rights into technical standards without slowing innovation. This reflects a tension between rapid technological advancement and ensuring human rights protections.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement centered around balancing innovation with human rights considerations and the practical challenges of involving diverse stakeholders in technical standards development.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers was relatively low. Most speakers agreed on the importance of incorporating human rights into technical standards and involving diverse stakeholders. The differences were mainly in the approaches to achieve these goals and the challenges faced in implementation. This suggests a general consensus on the overall direction, but highlights the complexity of practically integrating human rights considerations into technical standards development.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agreed on the importance of involving diverse stakeholders in technical standards development. However, they differed in their approaches: JanovskÃ½ emphasized breaking silos, Sesan stressed civil society’s need to prioritize participation, while Ostmann highlighted the difficulties faced by non-technical stakeholders in engaging with these processes.

Marek Janovský

Gbenga Sesan

Florian Ostmann

Importance of breaking silos between human rights experts and technical bodies

Civil society’s need to prioritize and participate in standards discussions

Difficulties for non-technical stakeholders to engage in standards processes

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the potential risks and challenges posed by emerging technologies, particularly AI, to human rights and fair representation.

Shirani De Clercq

Yoo Jin Kim

Challenges of bias and misrepresentation in AI systems

Critical risks to human rights from emerging technologies

Both Ostmann and the audience member emphasized the practical challenges faced by non-technical stakeholders, particularly civil society and small organizations, in participating in standards development processes due to resource constraints and complexity.

Florian Ostmann

Audience

Difficulties for non-technical stakeholders to engage in standards processes

Need for lowering barriers to participation in standards development

Financial and resource constraints for inclusive participation

Takeaways

Key Takeaways

There is a critical need to incorporate human rights considerations into technical standards for emerging technologies

A multi-stakeholder approach involving diverse perspectives is essential for developing inclusive and rights-respecting standards

Significant challenges exist in implementing human rights-based standards, including balancing innovation with rights protection and resource constraints for inclusive participation

Different stakeholders (government, private sector, civil society) have important roles to play in standards development

Breaking silos between human rights experts and technical bodies is necessary for effective collaboration

Resolutions and Action Items

Explore ways to lower barriers for participation in standards development processes, especially for civil society and SMEs

Conduct consultations with tech companies and standards organizations to better understand their views on human rights integration

Continue discussions on human rights and technical standards at future Internet Governance Forum meetings

Unresolved Issues

How to create scalable models for integrating human rights into technical standards without slowing innovation

How to address the financial and resource constraints that limit participation of civil society and SMEs in standards processes

Gbenga Sesan

reason

This comment reframes the potential conflict between innovation and human rights as a false dichotomy, arguing that respecting human rights is central to true innovation.

impact

It challenged the assumption that considering human rights might slow innovation, offering a new perspective on how they can be mutually reinforcing.

Overall Assessment

explanation

This addresses the practical challenges faced by civil society and small/medium enterprises in contributing to standards development processes.

Open Microphone Taking Stock

Session at a Glance

Summary

This transcript captures the closing session of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2024 held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Participants provided feedback and reflections on the event, as well as suggestions for future IGFs. Many speakers expressed gratitude to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting and praised the organization of the forum. Key points of discussion included the importance of youth participation, with several young delegates highlighting their experiences and calling for greater youth involvement in future IGFs.

Accessibility and inclusion were emphasized, with suggestions to better accommodate people with disabilities and ensure broader representation from developing countries. Visa processes were generally praised for being swift, though some noted challenges for certain participants. Several speakers stressed the need for the IGF to have a permanent mandate and stronger institutional capacity to address emerging digital challenges effectively.

Technical issues, particularly related to hybrid participation, were noted as areas for improvement. The importance of Internet governance schools and regional initiatives was highlighted. Many participants called for greater focus on emerging technologies like AI, emphasizing the need for ethical considerations and international cooperation in governance.

The discussion also touched on the significance of child rights, cybersecurity, and data privacy. Some speakers suggested enhancing collaboration with UN agencies and other stakeholders to increase the IGF’s impact. Overall, the session reflected a strong commitment to the IGF’s multi-stakeholder approach and its role in shaping global internet governance, with participants looking forward to the next IGF in Norway.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Appreciation for Saudi Arabia’s hosting and organization of IGF 2024

– Suggestions for improving future IGFs, including visa processes, accessibility, youth involvement, and technical aspects

– Calls to renew and strengthen the IGF mandate

– Importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration and inclusivity

– Need to address emerging technologies like AI and cybersecurity

The overall purpose of this discussion was to gather feedback and suggestions from participants about IGF 2024 and ideas for improving future IGFs. It served as a “listening session” for organizers to hear directly from attendees.

The tone was largely positive and appreciative, with many speakers thanking the hosts and expressing enthusiasm for the event. There was also a sense of constructive criticism, with participants offering specific suggestions for improvement. The tone remained consistent throughout, balancing gratitude with a forward-looking focus on enhancing future IGFs.

Speakers

Speakers from provided list:

– Chengetai Masango: Head of the IGF Secretariat

– Carol Roach: Chair of the 2024 MAG

– Ole-Martin Martinsen: 2025 host country chair

– Vint Cerf: Chair of the leadership panel

Additional speakers:

– Jordan Carter: Technical community participant, outgoing MAG member, from Australian Domain Administration

– Adam Peake: ICANN

– Dr. Huseyfi (name may be misspelled): Chad IGF coordinator

– Daa (surname missing): Host country Youth Track representative

– Rui Ferreira: Brazilian Youth Delegation from CGI

– Joao Moreno: Vice chair of the youth standing group

– Itzel: Fellow from the Dynamic Coalition of Accessibility and Disability

– Ghayr Bawari: Coordinator of Afghanistan IGF and affiliate initiatives

– Yusuf Abdel-Qadir: From Syracuse University and Africa Community Internet Program

– Ananda Gautam: Representative of Youth IGF Nepal, Internet Society Youth Standing Group and Youth Coalition on Internet Governance

– Jasmine Ko: Participant from Hong Kong

– Josephine Miliza: Association for Progressive Communication

– Dr. Andrise Bass: Executive Director for Institute of Public Policy and Diplomacy Research, hub for IGF in Dominican Republic

Full session report

Expanded Summary of IGF 2024 Closing Session

The closing session of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2024, held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, served as a platform for participants to reflect on the event and offer suggestions for future IGFs. The discussion encompassed a wide range of topics, from logistical considerations to strategic visions for the forum’s future.

Organisation and Logistics

Many speakers expressed gratitude to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting and praised the overall organisation of the forum. However, several areas for improvement were identified. Vint Cerf, Chair of the leadership panel, highlighted audio and technical issues that needed addressing, suggesting a post-meeting analysis to resolve these problems. Jordan Carter, from the technical community, emphasised the importance of practising the hybrid format in advance to ensure smoother execution.

The visa process received mixed feedback. While some praised its swiftness, others noted challenges for certain participants, particularly those from developing countries. There were calls for faster approval letters and a more streamlined application process to facilitate broader participation. Specific examples included delays in receiving invitation letters and difficulties for participants from certain regions.

Inclusivity and Representation

A significant portion of the discussion centred on enhancing inclusivity and representation at future IGFs. Itzel, a fellow from the Dynamic Coalition of Accessibility and Disability, made a compelling case for involving people with disabilities in the IGF planning process to ensure compliance with accessibility guidelines. Vint Cerf supported this notion, suggesting the formation of an accommodation expert team to visit future IGF sites well in advance. He also proposed using colored badges for people with accommodation needs to facilitate easier assistance.

Youth participation emerged as a key theme, with several young delegates highlighting their experiences and calling for greater involvement in future IGFs. Daa, the host country Youth Track representative, emphasized the importance of the Youth Track and its role in engaging young people in internet governance discussions. Representatives from various youth initiatives, including the Nepal Youth IGF and the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance, stressed the need for increased youth representation and engagement.

The importance of ensuring participation from developing countries was repeatedly emphasised, with speakers noting the need for improved regional representation, particularly from Latin America. This point underscored the broader goal of making the IGF truly global and inclusive.

IGF Mandate and Future Direction

There was strong support for extending and strengthening the IGF mandate. Jordan Carter voiced the need for a permanent IGF mandate, a sentiment echoed by other participants who called for increased institutional capacity to address emerging digital challenges effectively. The integration of the Global Digital Compact into the next phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was proposed as a crucial step in this direction.

Speakers emphasised the need for a clear, unified strategy for the IGF to maximise its collective impact. The APC representative stressed the importance of a strategic vision for IGF evolution rather than relying on ad hoc partnerships or initiatives. This strategic focus was seen as essential for addressing the dynamic challenges and opportunities in the rapidly evolving digital landscape.

Key Topics for Future IGFs

Participants highlighted several critical areas for future IGF discussions:

1. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance: There was a strong emphasis on the need to address AI governance and ethics, with calls for responsible development and use of AI technologies.

2. Cybersecurity and Privacy: Speakers stressed the importance of safeguarding data privacy, security, and integrity in an increasingly interconnected world.

3. Emerging Technologies: Discussions on the impact of emerging technologies, including the Internet of Things (IoT), were deemed crucial for promoting economic growth and sustainable development. The need for consistent standards and regulations across national borders was also highlighted.

4. Child Online Safety: Continued focus on protecting children in the digital space was advocated by several participants.

5. Beneficiaries: A Saudi participant suggested focusing on specific beneficiaries such as children and women in future discussions.

IGF Impact and Outreach

A recurring theme was the need to enhance the IGF’s impact and outreach. Ananda Gautam, representing various youth initiatives, pointed out that even UN agencies often fail to recognise the importance of the IGF. He emphasized the need for broader collaboration to enhance the impact of IGF when participants return to their communities. This led to calls for improved collaboration with international initiatives and UN agencies to increase the IGF’s visibility and effectiveness.

Suggestions were made to increase engagement with universities and support Internet Governance Schools, which were seen as vital for bringing holistic and engaging stakeholders into the IGF ecosystem. The importance of regional initiatives and their role in broadening the IGF’s reach was also highlighted. Nnena suggested engaging more with non-government stakeholders for the sustainability of IGF.

Technical Considerations and Program Structure

The challenges of managing hybrid events were discussed, with Joao Moreno, Vice Chair of the youth standing group, suggesting the need to unify the queue for online and on-site participants. This highlighted the ongoing challenges of ensuring equal participation opportunities for both in-person and remote attendees.

Moreno also raised concerns about the limited space given to Dynamic Coalitions to present their year-long discussions, emphasizing the need for better integration of these important groups into the main program.

Cultural Exchange and Networking

Jasmine Ko highlighted the importance of social occasions, such as the music night, for cultural exchange and networking. These events were seen as valuable opportunities for participants to connect informally and build relationships beyond the formal sessions.

Conclusion

The closing session reflected a strong commitment to the IGF’s multi-stakeholder approach and its role in shaping global internet governance. While participants expressed overall satisfaction with IGF 2024, they also provided constructive criticism and forward-looking suggestions. The discussion underscored the need for continuous improvement in organisation, inclusivity, and strategic focus to ensure the IGF remains relevant and effective in addressing the complex challenges of the digital age.

Chengetai Masango mentioned the post-IGF “taking stock” process, encouraging participants to continue providing feedback. The session concluded with brief closing remarks by Carol Roach and Ole-Martin Martinsen, followed by applause for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and all participants. As the forum looks ahead to its next iteration in Norway, there is a clear mandate to build upon these insights and work towards an even more impactful and inclusive IGF.

Session Transcript

Chengetai Masango: I’d like first of all to thank you all very much for sticking it out and for being here, and I hope you all had a very good meeting, and I’d also like to thank our gracious hosts of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting us in this fabulous place. Just a few points is that we’re here in a listening mode on what worked well, what you think we want to keep, and what we should take into consideration for next year as well. So what we’ll do is that we’ll just have one line on this podium over here, and we ask people to line up and speak. We will only have two minutes for each person, and we’ll also be taking online interventions as well. I’d like to remind everybody please to keep to the subject at hand, and only about logistical, room arrangements, issues that we’ve discussed here, and also keep in mind the code of conduct, which is also very important. And with that, I would also introduce myself. So my name is Chengetai Masango, and I am head of the IGF Secretariat, and on my right is Miss Carol Roach. She is the chair of the 2024 MAG, which helped, of course, organize this meeting. And on my left, we have Mr. Ole-Martin Martisen, who is the 2025 host country chair. and is going to be listening intently because he’ll be the host country representative on the MAG and also leading the organizational team for IGF 2025. I would like to ask our current chair if she would like to say a few words, please.

Carol Roach: Thank you, Shengetai. I just want to add my welcome and thank you to Shengetai’s opening. It’s been really a pleasure meeting many of you, and I really hope that you got a lot of takeaways. You had an opportunity to share your views and to also give us some kind of input on the way forward. We look forward to you helping us to organize a 2025 IGF, and so I won’t go on much longer so we could hear from you. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, Carol. And please, Olli.

Ole-Martin Martisen: Thank you. Hello. Well, thank you, everybody. I want to thank the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting this year’s IGF. The organization and the hospitality here have been truly exceptional, and we’re grateful for that. And I also want to thank everyone here for being here. It’s not much time until the next IGF, and we need every one of you to participate and help us in arranging that. And we are here to listen now. And Norway has a strong commitment to ensure that the 20th IGF also will become a success as this one has been, so thank you.

Chengetai Masango: And I would also like to introduce Vint Cerf, who is the chair of the leadership panel. He’s online and he’s right behind me, yes. And he’ll also be listening from the leadership panel. Vint, would you like to say a few words before we start?

Vint Cerf: Well, that’s very kind of you to let me do that. I realize that the way this is set up, I look like Banquo’s ghost sort of hovering on the stage. I actually have a concrete suggestion to make, if I could make it now, if that’s all right with you.

Chengetai Masango: Go ahead.

Vint Cerf: This is specifically with regard to the operation of the IGF here in Saudi. First, huge thanks to our Saudi hosts for putting this together. This is by no means an easy process, and I know our Norwegian hosts must be increasingly aware of that. I do want to suggest two specific things that we might do. First of all, we should have a post-meeting analysis of the audio problems that have popped up from time to time. Facing online and in-person audio and translation, captioning, and signing services is really hard. Any insights that the Saudi team can provide would be helpful to our Norwegian colleagues, so I would recommend a kind of a post-meeting analysis. The second thing is that I believe an accommodation expert team should visit the Norwegian site as early as possible in the planning in order to assure that support for people who need accommodation is taken into consideration. It was even suggested that people with bona fide accommodation needs might even have a different colored badge so that we know that they might require additional assistance. So those are two just very concrete things that might be considered. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, Vince. So let us start, and could you please, when you make an intervention, please just say your name quickly for the audience. I would like to invite you to come up and talk about your role in the IGF, your role in the IGF, your position for the record and your stakeholder group. Unfortunately, my eyesight is not that great, so will the first one please come up? And two minutes, and the clock starts as soon as you start speaking.

Chad IGF: Good afternoon, my name is Dr. Huseyfi, I coordinate the IGF. Yesterday was the international Arabic language day, so kindly allow me to share my closing remarks in Arabic. I say that was Sada. Ladies and gentlemen, today we convene at IGF, hosted by Saudi Arabia, in 2020-2021. I seize this opportunity to underscore that this forum should serve as a platform to resolve any issue, and for the governance of the youth, we need integration of AI and Internet of Things and technology to ensure our connectivity to the world. We also need to promote the development of the Internet of Things and technology in a sustainable manner, and to promote the economic growth and sustainable development. However, we, this forum faces a lot of challenges related to the conflict of interests between the U.N. agencies regarding the new look the U.N., and to mobilize efforts to promote IGF. So we should have this forum to be a permanent forum. and to have a budget and financial resources to ensure the sustainability of such efforts. We should work together to ensure that this forum will be an effective tool for development and peace. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. Can we have the next speaker please?

Audience: Peace be upon you all. It’s great to be here at the IJF 2024 in Riyadh. I had the pleasure to attend the last version in Japan and I’m happy to be part of it. Allow me to speak in Arabic. At the outset, I would like to express my deep thanks and appreciation to you and the leadership for the sound organization of IJF for 2020. This forum is a strategic platform to unify efforts and sharing experience and expertise and enhance international cooperation in digital challenges, bringing experts and decision-making can contribute to road mapping for sustainable digital worlds in the framework of the computing. We cannot ignore the computing technology in enhancing the services to our citizens and to provide innovative solutions to face the challenges. Computing technologies is instrumental in enhancing the responsiveness of governments to meet the needs of the society, especially at the time of crisis, health and the natural crisis. However, depending on the computing… ways, a lot of opportunities that the development countries can leverage to enhance its digital capabilities, including reducing the cost and enhancing the capabilities.

Chengetai Masango: One microphone. So I do see people lining up for the other one, which we are not using. So will the first one, please. You can move over to the next one. Yes. But the first person who’s there, please just walk over to the other microphone, please. Or let’s say, for now, why don’t the people in the front there, in that line, can you please just make another line there, and then we can go one by one, back and forth. Those few people who are there now. Thank you. It’s really a pleasure to be here in IGF 2024, and I would like just to highlight a really

Audience: important subject, which was in a… of the subject in Riyadh declaration that has been announced recently in the beginning ceremony. And it was about the digital idea. And allow me just to speak in Arabic in this subject. So today, establishing reliable digital identity, which can be operationalized, it’s very important for equitable access for economic development in the light of the digital economy. And the heavy relay on the methodology anchored on digital technologies, the digital identities internationally recognized a must for individuals and businesses and governments for the inclusivity of the economy. And to response to such challenges, the international community should focus on such pressing issues. And today, it’s not a secret designing international digital identity is of paramount importance for the benefits that can be generated in closing the gaps for the inequality and to enriching or the access to resources. Access identity ensure… Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Daa. Bluey, and it is an absolute honor to stand before you today as the host country Youth Track representative. I would like to start by saying that we have had an incredible time over the past week. This week showcased the immense efforts that all Youth Track representatives have put over the past few months. And I’m lucky to say that our participation across the IGF sessions has been nothing short of incredible. Our host country colleagues at the Digital Government Authority have worked relentlessly day and night to ensure that our encouragement and support is in place. It has also allowed us to shed some light on Saudi Arabia’s trajectory in the digital space. And I can only hope that in Norway next year, the Youth Track continues to receive the compelling level of support that it has, ensuring that youth have the opportunity to participate in high-level and parliamentary track sessions to truly embody our objective of building our multi-stakeholder future.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you so much. Thank you. Next. We can actually just do it automatically. Thank you. Okay.

Audience: Hello, everyone. I am Rui Ferreira, and I’m here with the Brazilian Youth Delegation from the CGI. I also research, focusing on protecting children and young people online. And it’s my first time at the IGF, so I just want to say that I’m very happy to be here. All the Brazilian delegation I have to participate in this year’s IGF, and to the Saudi Q3, and to attend the sessions related to my research topic. So thank you to the IGF organizers and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for this incredible opportunity. And if I can say anything… the youths are not the future, we are the present and we are building a beautiful internet for everyone. So thank you. Hello my name is John Moreno, I’m here as the vice chair of the youth standing group. I would like to first start thanking the host country for his hospitality and so I have a couple of things here. I believe the visa issues that we had last year were almost all solved, even though for some people it arrived dangerously close to the date of the event, so they almost didn’t manage it to get here, but it was a great improvement. I also recognize that the dynamic coalitions didn’t have much space to present their year-long discussions and outcomes, so we had several sessions intended to present outcomes that were not accepted and I believe this takes a huge and important well an important part of the event. Putting the workshops around the village was a great idea, we really could integrate them to the event that didn’t happen in past events. We need to find a way to unify the queue for online and on-site participants because it’s difficult to manage both ends while you’re organizing your session and yeah that’s it, thank you. Thank you very much

Chengetai Masango: for those insights, we will keep them in touch. After this speaker we’ll also have an online speaker, Nena, but please go ahead.

Audience: Hi everyone. l, this is my first IGF, you for the opportunity, but I wish the countries, there should be, like where all countries should be able to to have a stable flow of the growth in technology, so that some countries, like especially some countries in Africa, are not completely behind, while others are going ahead too fast. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. Nnena?

Online audience: Thank you very much, Shengetai. Hello, everyone. I have five points. I want to start with the first one. The first point is that we need to put more emphasis, more engagement, and more financing into the Internet Governance Schools. Because they bring us the most holistic and the most open and engaging stakeholders. The second is that for the sustainability of the IGF, we really need to engage more with the non-government stakeholders. So, we need to engage more with the non-government stakeholders, and we need to engage more with the international and regional initiatives. I believe these give us the best opportunity for sustainability in the Internet governance system. I want to congratulate Saudi Arabia for hosting us, and for kicking off the international IGF, but I would like to acknowledge Saudi Arabia as one of the main contributors for IGF. Just so we understand, the IGF has raised the audio issues. I would like to recognize those expansion and you raised those issues for the future. Because I want to recognize those expansion and you raised those I’d also like to join my voice to say that the visa processes were very fast, and I want to thank you all for it. We will be back in exactly 10 years in Saudi Arabia to join the FIFA World Cup. Thank you very much. My name is Nenna. I come from the internet. I have done 15 sessions online, and it’s been wonderful.

Chengetai Masango: Next slide, please.

Audience: Well hello, everyone. My name is Itzel from Mexico. I’m a fellow from the Dynamic Coalition of Accessibility and Disability. It was a great opportunity for me to be here, and I want to invite you and make a suggestion to involve people with disabilities and our organizations on the planning of the IFG in order to ensure that all necessities are covered, comply with the accessibility guidelines, and leave no one behind. Thank you. First of all, I would like to congratulate Saudi Arabia for organizing this amazing event. I’m so happy to share that for the first time we were having a session on judges on human rights, and one of the judges from the High Court, Tanzania, was present. So this is something very happy for me, being from the legal side, and I’m hopeful that the next year we might be having some other judges from the other part of the globe. So because judiciary is one of the important parts of the society, and I believe that technology can help. them to give a speedy justice. Along with that, I would like to raise my concern regarding the young voices. Although this year Pakistan was having a lot of participants, but still some of my friends, young guys, didn’t make it to the IGF because of the visa issues. So I believe that for the next IGF, the IGF secretariat would really work hard because for a country like us, especially from Asia, there will be a lot of issues in terms of the visa for Norway. So I believe that the young guys will be here, will be participating. I hope we do not have visa issues for the next year. Thank you. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening. My name is Ghayr Bawari. I am from Afghanistan and I live in Kabul, Afghanistan. I volunteer as the coordinator of Afghanistan IGF and its affiliate initiatives like the Youth IGF Afghanistan, the Afghanistan Network Operators Group, and as well as Afghanistan School of Internet Governance. I’m so happy to be here, not alone, but I have Afghan delegates with me as well. As in IGF 2022 in Addis Ababa, I was the only Afghan in the whole IGF event, and I was kind of feeling very alone, but I’m happy this year I have a few Afghans and Afghan delegates with me. Thank you very much. And today I’m here to, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt gratitude to several key supporters. who have made our presence at the IJF 2024 possible. First and foremost, a special thank you to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for graciously granting us visas. Your support has been instrumental in enabling our participation here. Thank you. I would like also to express our sincere appreciation to the APNIC Foundation for their gracious sponsorship of Afghan delegates. Your commitment to fostering inclusion and representation is truly commendable. And thank you for your strengthening Afghan community through your Digital Leap Project. When most of the international organizations turned their back to Afghan people after the political changes, you were the one who stepped in and supported them. Thank you. I want to first thank the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting this year’s convening of the UNIJF. Having been coming here for the last several years on a quarterly basis, I’ve seen the tremendous transformation going on in the Kingdom and wish that more of the world can see just how committed, how invested, and how impactful this new era for Saudi Arabia is and will be for the world. I’d like to thank the IJF Secretariat, the leaders here on the floor, the organizers, and most importantly, the staff who cleaned the bathrooms, cooked the food, and served us across this past week. These folks are often underappreciated, often unrecognized, and often unthanked. So I would be remiss if we didn’t take a moment here to thank them. My name is Yusuf Abdel-Qadir. I’m from Syracuse University, and I’m a part of a joint initiative between Syracuse and the Africa Open Data Internet Research Foundation wherein we created an organization called the Africa Community Internet Program. I won’t talk about us. You can find out about us at AGCIP. My intervention here today is focused on how might the Norwegian IGF build off the momentum of this convening. The multi-stakeholder framework that IGF is rooted in is more important now than ever. Efforts at fragmenting the internet present challenges to empowering and advancing access to the 2.5 billion that lack internet. And while IGF is rooted in multi-stakeholder engagements across private sector, the public sector and civil society, more formal avenues for accelerating access to internet connectivity for sustainable development and ensuring that innovation and creativity, language and cultural preservation and history and the visions of those often overlooked are more fully needed now to be integrated in our development of emerging technologies, particularly as we see what’s happening with the development and advancement of artificial intelligence. By this, I specifically mean that we need to move beyond a more multi-stakeholder, voluntary engagement to more concerted effort at identifying …

Chengetai Masango: Sorry. Thank you very much. And I heard you came from a great university, so thanks. Next we have online Thomas Olsen-Ahem.

Audience: First of all, I would like to say to welcome everyone here in Saudi Arabia. I hope you enjoyed your time at staying in Riyadh. So my name … My name is Athina Rachevi. I’m a computer engineer and hold a master’s degree in cybersecurity. So I’m so glad to host this great internet governance forum and this great event to knowledge transfer and to share our idea and our thoughts and focus on our future, digital future, which addressing many, many various topics such as AI governance, data governance, cybersecurity regulations. and how to put the regulating and unify our efforts to increase the efficiency in technology usage and ethical usage. So let me please use the other minutes to speak in Arabic. So I was honored that the Kingdom has hosted the IGF for 2024. And I would like to address the most prominent topics discussed here on the forum, which is the AI governance, which is the topic of the hour. I would like also to focus, say that we must have concerted efforts on having regulations, policies and processes for the use policies on two main themes. The first of which is the ethical consideration and the ethical aspect of AI. And the second is how do we how do you prevent biases and algorithms of AI and the issues that are that were where misuse take place. Generally speaking, we would like to have concerted efforts for the IGF to come. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Let’s just hear one person from online. Thomas Olsen, IHEM, if I’m saying your name correctly, please. Let’s get the next person.

Nepal Youth IGF: Hello, everyone. My name is Ananda Gautam. I’m from Nepal. I represent Youth IGF Nepal, Internet Society Youth Standing Group and Youth Coalition on Internet Governance here. So I’m very proud to be here. And I’m I’m raising the issues of young people who couldn’t be here. I’m sorry for the young people and teen guys who were working so hard to be here, but due to constraints, they couldn’t be here. I came here on my own expenses, but Riyadh was very expensive for me. I’m sorry. I’m thankful to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the visa issues. It was very swift for me. So we are working very collaboratively to enhance the IGF ecosystem with 170 NRIs. But when we go back to our communities, even the UN agencies don’t recognize what IGF is. I think we need a serious kind of collaboration so that they know the essence of IGF. When we go back to the community, it is about not only about the NRIs, but I think it is a broader collaboration that will enhance our impact. Another thing is many youth coordinators are putting their hands and hands to bring the Global Youth Summit, and this year we have started a youth mentorship program, which I am very thankful for. But to bring them here, I think we need a very broad collaboration so that it is not always equal that when people participate online and be on site, because they will be missing so many things that we have when we participate on site. So I would request for a broader collaboration that could bring the people who are really contributing to these processes, without whom the essence of IGF would be lost. So thank you for the young people who have made it out to here and have collaborated on a lot of sessions. And looking forward for the Norway IGF, I hope visa issues…

Audience: Thank you. Good afternoon. It’s truly a great pleasure to be here at the IGF Riyadh Forum, surrounded by such an esteemed group. of leaders, innovators, and collaborators. I have a few suggestions for the next iteration of the IGF forum. So as we look ahead to the future of technology, particularly with the rapid advancements in AI, automation, and data sciences, it’s clear that these technologies hold significant potential to revolutionize industries and improve efficiencies. It is crucial for the future IGF sessions to explore how they can be developed, implemented, and regulated to ensure they deliver their benefits responsibly and effectively across all borders. Another key area for future discussions, as well, is how we can ensure that emerging technologies, particularly in AI, are designed and implemented to achieve the best possible outcomes. As AI systems become more widely adopted across industries, such as healthcare, transportation, finance, how can we ensure that they are integrated in ways that maximize the positive impact while minimizing unintended consequences? What strategies can be employed to ensure these systems are robust, reliable, and aligned with broader and economic goals? Also, additionally, as data plays an essential role in driving technological progress, future IGF sessions should consider how data privacy, security, and integrity can be safeguarded in this rapidly evolving landscape. Also, as the development of emerging technologies across national borders, international cooperation and regulatory frameworks will be increasingly vital. Moving forward, how can countries, corporations, and international organizations collaborate to establish consistent standards and regulations that govern these technologies? Finally, as we continue to push the boundaries of technological progress, it will be important to strike a balance…

Chengetai Masango: Yes, sorry, it cuts off at two minutes. Next please.

Audience: Hello, everyone. As a Saudi, please allow me to start by warmly welcoming all attendees from different countries around the world. Allow me, please, to share my feedback and input in Arabic. It was IGF. It was a valuable opportunity to understand the challenges and the benefits of using the Internet. One of the key experience for me is the international experience which have been shared at the sessions and workshops. This was for me a golden chance for me to be equipped and familiar with the best practices and to understand the trends. What I have noticed, the key challenges revolving around the cyber security and the privacy protection and the keenness to have a digital infrastructure despite the disparity among countries in this regard. What I have concluded and the ways of such experiences, the importance of focusing on the beneficiaries, children, women, and to build and to have people-centered approach and to enhance the multi-stakeholder approach for the future. I hope the discussion will include emerging technologies which can be leveraged to provide optimal services and how can the organization build the foundations for safe benefits.

Chengetai Masango: So I’m going to turn it over to Jordan Carter, who is going to give you a brief overview of what we’re seeing in the region from such technologies. Thank you.

Jordan Carter: Good afternoon, my name is Jordan Carter, I’m a technical community participant, outgoing MAG member, and here from the Australian Domain Administration. On the logistics, first of all, thank you to the Kingdom of Australia for allowing me to be a part of this event. I’d like to start by saying, as I said in the past, please have your Zoom crews practice this hybrid thing. The Zoom experience has gotten better as the week has gone on. Practice more in advance, please, so it’s smoother from the beginning. That would be really good. One observation, I want to note the broad support for the Internet Governance Forum and its continuance, as the world’s premier Internet Governance and Digital Policy Forum, as many of you know, is the world’s largest Internet Governance and Digital Policy Forum, the IGF. Not just for principled reasons, but for practical ones. The collaboration and sharing of ideas at the IGF is the best way to make Internet Governance and Digital Policy as workable, as inclusive, as supportive of human rights, human development, and human potential as it can be. There’s broad support for extension from countries, the central to Canada, for an existing regulations, currently being expanded to a new setup and made available in a new spirit of policy, but it’s a cliff, so in 2025, let’s renew the mandate. Let’s make it permanent. Thank you.

Audience: the Digital Opportunities Foundation based in Germany. I would like to share three thoughts with you. First, last Tuesday was like a dream come true. We’ve discussed child rights here at the main stage in a high-level session in the plenary hall. It was a really great experience and we’ve come a long way to reach this and I hope that it was not a once-in-a-lifetime moment. Second, as a member of DC, it first felt like a duty when we were asked to merge our proposals to create joint workshops. While doing so, it becomes a pleasure and joy. It was meaningful and it has a lot of sense. Thanks for Martin Botterman from DCIOT and Jutta Kroll from DCCRITE for support and contribution. Third, I would like to thank the United Nations and Saudi Arabia for hosting this IGF here. It was incredible and a special thanks I would like to direct to all the population and inhabitants of Riyadh. Everyone we’ve met in the last days was so kind, so friendly, so open-minded, so polite. It was a pleasure to meet you, to be here, and thanks everyone. Dear all, thank you for having me. This is Jasmine Imanko from Hong Kong. I am very excited to be, this is my second IGF and despite of a lot of privilege and gratitude to the host and everything that is happening here, I want to share a little bit of my personal disappointment. One thing that I observe is it’s my second IGF but I already seen that we are missing something in this IGF. So one thing is the music night. I’m talking about this because it is a shared tradition, the tradition that IGF has been having for years and we are missing this tradition. You know, social, official social occasion is not just things for fun, but it’s also creating more scenario and platform for people to meet and have dialogues besides just the formal session we are having now and the others. It’s a very important occasion people treasure and it’s an important platform that we exchange our culture and celebrate our diversity in other means. So I hope that in next year we could have this in Norway and my worries come because even as a small tradition like this is missing here, I really hope that and I really emphasize that we are able to keep the entire IGF as a whole. So from small thing that we keep and then to extending to the whole IGF mandate that we are able to renew, it’s very critical and I really appreciate the effort of people here, the different stakeholders and everyone, thank you very much. Thank you. Good afternoon, it’s our privilege to address you. My name is Jocelyn Melissa from the Association for Progressive Communication, and these are our insights when it comes to the reflections for this year’s IGF. Clear messages. have emerged from the multiple sessions and discussions in Riyadh during the IGF is that the Global Digital Compact must be integrated into the next phase of the WSIS, and that the IGF has to continue and to be strengthened. The burden on countries from the global south to comply with and support global processes is already immense. Increasing it through duplication of efforts might serve the interests of international digital bureaucrats, but it might not help to bridge the digital, social, and economic divides. In relation to the IGF, it is essential that, in our view, to grant the IGF a long-term or permanent mandate and strengthen its institutional capacity, build on its achievement, and continue its evolution to respond to the multiple imperatives of the current, emerging, and future digital societies. The IGF evolution needs to be shaped by a strategic vision rather than by ad hoc partnerships or initiatives to establish new tracks or themes. These are valuable, but unless the IGF has the institutional capacity to interact effectively and consistently with governments and key institutions from non-state actors, expanding its range will dilute its impact. This includes

Chengetai Masango: And sorry, just to note. If you don’t finish your intervention and if there isn’t enough time to go through it. through everybody’s intervention, please send them to the IGF Secretariat and we’ll take note of them. So you can just email IGF at un.org. Thank you.

Audience: Hello, everyone. I am from the Minister of Finance and Economy from Benin. I would like to actually benefit from this opportunity to thank you all, to thank the International Organization for ensuring access to Internet. It should be affordable and accessible to developing countries. During this IGF, two important points actually, I saw one, positive one, negative one. The access to this country was very easy thanks to the visa issuing and the visa also should be available to everyone. The negative point is that I was not able to share my number. I invite, sorry, our personal information should not be collected. I called the hosting country next year not to collect our personal information. Thank you.

ICANN: Good afternoon. Adam Peake from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN. On behalf of the ICANN, I would like to thank the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as our host for this week. Thank you, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, Excellency Abdullah Amir Azwar and your team and all who have made the 19th IGF such an exceptional success. ICANN will continue our support for the IGF, continue our participant and absolute support for the multi-stakeholder approach for Internet governance. Thank you so much to you. to you, your team, who are skillful, dedicated and extremely supportive and patient, thank you. To the MAG, Carol, thank you. Without you, there’s no program and many of the excellent sessions we’ve enjoyed this week. Thank you for all of your work throughout the year. Thank you to the Kingdom of Norway. Thank you for â we’re looking forward to visiting you in â well, it’s only June, and as someone who lives in Northern Europe, midsummer seems a very long way away. It is not. It is about six months, and we have much work to do. Thank you, and look forward to seeing you in about six months’ time. Safe travels home. Thank you.

Audience: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Dr. Andrews Bass. I’m the Executive Director for Institute of Public Policy and Diplomacy Research and also the hub for the IGF in the Dominican Republic. IGF is one of the best multilateral forums out there, and I feel like we have missed a presentation, especially the one from South America and Latin America. The CSW, we are a led company. They want me to address some questions. They say they want the visa approval and the letter of approval to be faster, like the CSW, within 48 hours, they have the letters. The reason why, because some countries take up to six months for them to have an appointment. That will help them to come faster, and also, when you got the letter close to the date, the ticket becomes twice as expensive. Also, they want the regional representative to do a better job to reach the universities. I’m in the US. If you talk a lot of universities, one or two understand about IGF. IGF is inside the UN. A lot of people inside the UN don’t even know about IGF. The youth also want to have more representation on the planning. They say when they plan, if they have the future of tomorrow, they don’t want to hear about that. They want to know the future of tomorrow is today. And I’m giving IGF accountability for the one IGF I was in Germany, we say one planet, one Internet, or one people. For us to be one planet, one Internet, we have to be inclusivity. That means all of us have to be here. And thank you for the surpassing marvelous Saudi Arabia for their hospitality. Everything was like that. And thank you so much.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you. I’m sorry. I have to call the last speaker. So you’re the last speaker. And then we have to prepare for the closing session because there’s a schedule they have to keep in this venue as well. And also people have planes, et cetera, to catch. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you for the opportunity. Good evening, everyone. First, I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the organizer of this very insightful forum. Everyone’s dedication and effort has made this gathering truly impactful. It’s an honor to stand here in this open mic session today. This moment represents a power of connection and collaboration across borders with all. In a world that grows more interconnected every day, it’s inspiring to share ideas and perspective that contributes to building a better, more inclusive future for all. As we gather here in the final day of IGF 2024, I would like to propose that we take a significant step forward by developing a clear and unified strategy of the IGF to maximize our collective impact by establishing a shared vision and well-defined objectives that address the dynamic challenges and opportunities. So, thank you very much for your attention, and I look forward to the IGF 2025. Thank you very much, and now, to end the session, and thank you very much for all your interventions, we have taken good notes, and I can attest for both the Chair and the Co-Chair, they have taken good notes, and we will continue to do so. So, thank you very much, and I look forward to the IGF 2025.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, and I look forward to the IGF 2025. Thank you very much, and I look forward to the IGF 2025. Thank you very much, and we will continue to take good notes. And we will also be launching a taking stock, so you will be able to send us your comments, and we’ll compile them into a report, and that will be given to next year’s MAG to look at as well, so that they keep in mind your thoughts and your ideas. So, thank you very much, and I look forward to the IGF 2025.

Carol Roach: Thank you very much. And now, I would like to invite the Chair and the Co-Chair to say a few quick words. Well, I actually want you to do something. I want everybody to stand and just give yourselves and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia a rousing hand applause. Thank you very much.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, and I look forward to the next year’s MAG. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And our final, I’ll ask our Co-Chair for next year, if you

Ole-Martin Martisen: have to say a few quick words. I noted judging by the applause, the most important are visas and music night, so we’ll take that with us. Thank you.

Audience

Speech speed

122 words per minute

Speech length

3771 words

Speech time

1852 seconds

Visa process improvements needed

Explanation

The speaker suggests that the visa approval process for IGF attendees needs to be improved. They recommend faster approval times and earlier issuance of invitation letters to allow participants to make travel arrangements more efficiently.

Evidence

Some countries take up to six months for visa appointments, and late approvals result in more expensive travel costs.

Major Discussion Point

IGF Organization and Logistics

Agreed with

Vint Cerf

Jordan Carter

Agreed on

Improve IGF organization and logistics

Differed with

Nepal Youth IGF

Differed on

Approach to improving IGF participation

Audio and technical issues should be addressed

Explanation

The speaker highlights the need to address audio and technical issues at the IGF. They suggest that these problems should be analyzed and improved for future events.

Major Discussion Point

IGF Organization and Logistics

Agreed with

Vint Cerf

Jordan Carter

Agreed on

Improve IGF organization and logistics

Agreed with

Agreed with

Nepal Youth IGF

Agreed on

Enhance inclusivity and representation

Ensure participation from developing countries

Explanation

The speaker emphasizes the importance of ensuring participation from developing countries in the IGF. They suggest that access to the internet should be affordable and accessible to these countries.

Major Discussion Point

Inclusivity and Representation

Agreed with

Nepal Youth IGF

Agreed on

Enhance inclusivity and representation

Develop clear unified strategy for IGF

Explanation

The speaker proposes developing a clear and unified strategy for the IGF to maximize its collective impact. They suggest establishing a shared vision and well-defined objectives to address dynamic challenges and opportunities.

Major Discussion Point

IGF Mandate and Future

Vint Cerf

Speech speed

141 words per minute

Speech length

248 words

Speech time

105 seconds

Audio and technical issues should be addressed

Explanation

Vint Cerf suggests conducting a post-meeting analysis of the audio problems that occurred during the IGF. He emphasizes the difficulty of managing online and in-person audio, translation, captioning, and signing services.

Evidence

Recommendation for a post-meeting analysis of audio issues.

Major Discussion Point

IGF Organization and Logistics

Agreed with

Audience

Jordan Carter

Agreed on

Improve IGF organization and logistics

Jordan Carter

Speech speed

213 words per minute

Speech length

233 words

Speech time

65 seconds

Practice hybrid format in advance

Explanation

Jordan Carter recommends that the Zoom crews practice the hybrid format more in advance of the IGF. He notes that while the Zoom experience improved throughout the week, it should be smoother from the beginning.

Evidence

Observation that the Zoom experience got better as the week progressed.

Major Discussion Point

IGF Organization and Logistics

Agreed with

Audience

Vint Cerf

Agreed on

Improve IGF organization and logistics

Support for extending and strengthening IGF mandate

Explanation

Jordan Carter expresses broad support for the continuation and strengthening of the IGF as the world’s premier Internet Governance and Digital Policy Forum. He argues for both principled and practical reasons to extend the IGF’s mandate.

Evidence

Mention of collaboration and sharing of ideas at IGF as the best way to make Internet Governance and Digital Policy workable, inclusive, and supportive of human rights and development.

Major Discussion Point

IGF Mandate and Future

Online audience

Speech speed

168 words per minute

Speech length

The speaker advocates for more emphasis, engagement, and financing for Internet Governance Schools. They argue that these schools bring the most holistic, open, and engaging stakeholders to the IGF process.

Major Discussion Point

IGF Impact and Outreach

Nepal Youth IGF

Speech speed

158 words per minute

Speech length

323 words

Speech time

122 seconds

Improve recognition of IGF among UN agencies

Explanation

The speaker points out that even UN agencies often don’t recognize what the IGF is. They suggest that serious collaboration is needed to enhance the understanding and recognition of IGF within the broader UN system.

Evidence

Personal experience of UN agencies not recognizing IGF when returning to local communities.

Major Discussion Point

IGF Impact and Outreach

Differed with

Audience

Differed on

Approach to improving IGF participation

Unknown speaker

Speech speed

0 words per minute

Speech length

Mention of a high-level session on child rights in the plenary hall.

Major Discussion Point

Multiple speakers highlighted the need to address emerging technologies, particularly AI, cybersecurity, and privacy issues in future IGF discussions.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of strengthening the IGF’s role and expanding its engagement with various stakeholders and initiatives.

Jordan Carter

Online audience

Support for extending and strengthening IGF mandate

More engagement with non-government stakeholders needed

Enhance collaboration with international initiatives

Both speakers highlighted the need to improve IGF’s outreach and recognition, particularly in underrepresented regions and within the UN system.

Audience

Nepal Youth IGF

Improve regional representation, especially from Latin America

Improve recognition of IGF among UN agencies

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of social events at IGF

Audience

Visa process improvements needed

While discussing logistical improvements, there was an unexpected emphasis on the importance of social events like the ‘music night’ at IGF, highlighting the value placed on informal networking opportunities.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around improving IGF organization and logistics, enhancing inclusivity and representation, focusing on emerging technologies, and strengthening the IGF’s mandate and outreach.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among speakers on these key issues. This suggests a shared vision for improving and expanding the IGF’s impact, which could lead to more focused efforts in addressing these areas in future events.

Differences

Different Viewpoints

Approach to improving IGF participation

Audience

Nepal Youth IGF

Visa process improvements needed

Improve recognition of IGF among UN agencies

While both speakers aim to improve IGF participation, they focus on different aspects. One emphasizes streamlining the visa process, while the other suggests improving recognition of IGF among UN agencies.

Unexpected Differences

Focus on social aspects vs. technical improvements

Audience

Vint Cerf

Jordan Carter

Ensure participation from developing countries

Audio and technical issues should be addressed

Practice hybrid format in advance

While most speakers focused on technical improvements or representation issues, one audience member unexpectedly emphasized the need to ensure participation from developing countries, highlighting a potential gap in priorities.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around prioritizing technical improvements, enhancing participation and representation, and focusing on specific policy areas for future IGFs.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers appears to be moderate. While there are differing opinions on how to improve the IGF, most speakers share the common goal of enhancing the forum’s effectiveness and inclusivity. These differences in approach could lead to productive discussions on how to best evolve the IGF, but may also result in challenges in determining which improvements to prioritize.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need to improve technical aspects of the IGF, but they suggest different approaches. Vint Cerf proposes a post-meeting analysis, while Jordan Carter recommends more practice before the event.

Vint Cerf

Jordan Carter

Audio and technical issues should be addressed

Practice hybrid format in advance

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of strengthening the IGF’s role and expanding its engagement with various stakeholders and initiatives.

Jordan Carter

Online audience

Support for extending and strengthening IGF mandate

More engagement with non-government stakeholders needed

Enhance collaboration with international initiatives

Both speakers highlighted the need to improve IGF’s outreach and recognition, particularly in underrepresented regions and within the UN system.

Audience

Nepal Youth IGF

Improve regional representation, especially from Latin America

Improve recognition of IGF among UN agencies

Takeaways

Key Takeaways

reason

This comment synthesizes key outcomes from the IGF and connects them to broader global initiatives.

impact

It provided a higher-level perspective on the IGF’s role and future, influencing subsequent comments about the IGF’s mandate and evolution.

Overall Assessment

explanation

A shared vision and well-defined objectives are needed to address dynamic challenges and opportunities

[Parliamentary Session 7] Building parliamentary capacity to effectively shape the digital realm

Session at a Glance

Summary

This panel discussion focused on building parliamentary capacity to effectively shape the digital realm, particularly in relation to artificial intelligence (AI) and data governance. Experts from various organizations, including ICANN, GIZ, Google, and UNESCO, shared insights on how parliamentarians can engage with digital policymaking and capacity building initiatives.

The discussion highlighted the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in addressing the challenges of regulating AI and managing data in the digital age. Panelists emphasized the need for parliamentarians to receive specialized training and resources to understand complex technological issues. They also stressed the importance of balancing innovation with responsible regulation, particularly in emerging markets and the Global South.

Key topics included the harmonization of digital policies across countries, the role of international organizations in providing capacity building, and the challenges of data colonialism. The panelists discussed various approaches to AI regulation, from risk-based frameworks to more flexible, principles-based guidelines. They also addressed the tension between the need for regulation and the risk of stifling innovation.

Participants raised concerns about the lack of technical knowledge among many parliamentarians and the need for more targeted capacity building efforts. The discussion touched on the importance of considering cultural and regional contexts in digital policymaking, particularly in the Middle East and Africa.

Overall, the panel concluded that effective digital governance requires a collaborative approach involving governments, international organizations, the private sector, and civil society. The experts agreed that while AI regulation is necessary, it must be done thoughtfully and with a deep understanding of the technology’s potential benefits and risks.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The need for capacity building and education for parliamentarians on digital/AI issues

– Balancing regulation of AI with fostering innovation

– Data governance, data sharing, and concerns about “data colonialism”

– The role of international organizations and private companies in shaping digital policies

– Approaches to AI regulation, including risk-based and principles-based frameworks

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore how parliamentarians and parliaments can build capacity to effectively shape digital policies and navigate the challenges and opportunities of digital transformation.

The tone of the discussion was collaborative and solution-oriented. Panelists acknowledged the complexity of the issues but focused on practical ways to increase parliamentary engagement and knowledge. There was a sense of urgency about the need for parliamentarians to become more involved in digital policymaking, balanced with caution about over-regulating too quickly. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end as panelists offered specific resources and opportunities for parliamentarians to engage further on these topics.

Speakers

– Rima Al-Yahya: Moderator, Member of the Shura Council

– Franz von Weizsäcker: Head of Program Citizens’ Engagement and Innovation Data Use for Africa’s Development, GIZ

– Beckwith Burr: ICANN board member, Partner at Harris, Wiltshire & Granus LLP

– Olga Skorokhodova: Government Affairs and Public Policy Emerging Markets, Head of CACASIS, Central Asia, and Russia, Google

– Cedric Wachholz: Chief Section for Digital Policy and Digital Transformation in UNESCO

– Audience: Various parliamentarians and attendees who asked questions

Additional speakers:

– Maha Abdel Nasser: Egyptian parliamentarian

– Catherine Mumma: Senator from Kenya

– Al-Hajji: Member of Parliament from Gambia and the Pan-African Parliament

– Jamal Fakhro: From Bahrain

– Dr. Abadi: Unspecified role/country

– Dr. Saleh: Unspecified role, likely from Saudi Arabia

Full session report

Parliamentary Capacity Building for Digital Governance: A Multi-Stakeholder Approach

This panel discussion, moderated by Rima Al-Yahya of the Shura Council, explored the critical issue of building parliamentary capacity to effectively shape the digital realm, with a particular focus on artificial intelligence (AI) and data governance. Experts from various organisations, including ICANN, GIZ, Google, and UNESCO, shared insights on how parliamentarians can engage with digital policymaking and capacity building initiatives.

Key Themes and Discussions

1. ICANN’s Role in Internet Governance

Beckwith Burr, ICANN board member, outlined ICANN’s crucial role in coordinating the global Internet’s unique identifier systems, including domain names and IP addresses. She emphasized ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model, which brings together governments, civil society, and industry to develop policies. Burr highlighted ICANN’s capacity building programs, stating, “We have training programs, we have a lot of resources available for parliamentarians who want to understand how the Internet works.”

2. Capacity Building for Parliamentarians

A central theme was the urgent need for capacity building among parliamentarians to address the knowledge gap in digital technologies and AI. Honourable Al-Hajji, a Member of Parliament from Gambia and the Pan-African Parliament, highlighted this issue: “We have very, very, very few members of parliament that actually understand technology. I am an exception because I’m a software developer and I’ve been in the field for 25 years now, but I’m one in maybe hundreds or 200 members of parliament.”

To address this gap, panelists offered various solutions:

– Cedric Wachholz of UNESCO highlighted their capacity building workshops and online courses for parliamentarians, including a comprehensive AI curriculum.

– Olga Skorokhodova from Google discussed AI academies and online courses for policymakers in emerging markets, emphasizing the importance of “getting AI right requires a team effort across stakeholders.”

– Franz von Weizsäcker of GIZ mentioned their support for regional parliamentary networks and capacity building initiatives.

3. Approaches to AI Regulation

The discussion on AI regulation revealed a nuanced debate about balancing innovation with risk management. Von Weizsäcker advocated for a risk-based and tiered regulatory approach, citing the European model: “The European approach on AI is putting things into different risk categories. And when you’re dealing with biometric data of the entire population and very private information and so on, that’s a high-risk environment.”

Skorokhodova emphasized Google’s commitment to responsible AI development, stating, “AI is too important not to regulate, but it’s also too important not to regulate well.” She outlined Google’s AI principles and their practical application in product development.

Wachholz discussed UNESCO’s work on AI ethics and governance, including the development of a global standard-setting instrument on AI ethics. He stressed the importance of using existing laws to limit AI risks while developing more comprehensive frameworks.

4. Data Governance and Economic Development

The discussion touched on the crucial role of data governance in economic development, particularly in emerging markets. Von Weizsäcker emphasized the importance of data sharing across borders for economic development in Africa, while Skorokhodova highlighted the necessity of local data availability for developing AI applications.

The concept of “data colonialism” was raised, with concerns about fair benefits from data for countries in the Global South. Von Weizsäcker suggested, “We need to harmonize our data policies in order to be able to negotiate with global tech companies.” This led to discussions about regional approaches to data governance, such as the African Union’s efforts to develop a unified framework.

5. Saudi Arabian Approach to AI and Data Governance

Dr. Saleh shared insights on Saudi Arabia’s approach to AI and data governance, highlighting the country’s efforts to balance innovation with ethical considerations. He mentioned the establishment of the Saudi Data and Artificial Intelligence Authority (SDAIA) and the development of a national data strategy.

6. Multi-stakeholder Collaboration

A recurring theme was the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in digital policymaking. Burr highlighted ICANN’s role in facilitating collaboration between governments, civil society, and industry. Wachholz emphasized UNESCO’s position as a neutral broker bringing a multi-stakeholder approach to digital governance issues.

Audience Engagement

The audience, comprising various parliamentarians and attendees, raised questions about specific challenges in their countries and regions. Concerns were expressed about the digital divide, the need for localized AI solutions, and the challenges of regulating global tech companies at a national level.

Conclusion

The moderator, Rima Al-Yahya, concluded by emphasizing the critical importance of building parliamentary capacity to shape the digital realm. She stressed that informed decision-making by parliamentarians is crucial for developing effective and balanced digital policies that serve the interests of all stakeholders.

As von Weizsäcker aptly noted, “The internet is global and legislation is national. That creates an inherent tension in all of our efforts and it creates the need to put efforts into harmonisation.” This observation encapsulates the ongoing challenge in digital governance: balancing national interests with the global nature of technology and data flows.

The discussion pointed towards a need for continued dialogue, targeted capacity building initiatives, and collaborative efforts to develop flexible, effective frameworks for governing the digital realm. The engagement of parliamentarians in this process was deemed crucial for ensuring that digital policies are shaped by informed, democratically elected representatives who understand both the potential and the risks of emerging technologies.

Session Transcript

Rima Al-Yahya: Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to welcome you all once again to Saudi Arabia. It is a country where visions become concrete and dreams become reality. My name is Dr. Reema Al Yahya, and I am a member of the Shura Council, and I will be moderating today’s session on building parliamentary capacity to effectively shape the digital realm. So, wow, what an amazing two days it has been so far, and there’s still so much to come. But what I noticed while attending the previous sessions, whether the discussion was on navigating an era of digital transformation or global digital cooperation and priorities or developing large-scale AI systems and digital innovations, is that the ultimate core of the talk will always stress the importance of building capacity. Yesterday, Senator Shuaib, and I’m going to quote you, Salisa stated, what you don’t know you can’t give. And that is totally true. This session will discuss what parliaments and parliamentarians need in order to play a full role in shaping digital policies and how to build capacity in parliaments, as well as navigating the challenges and the opportunities of the digital transformation era. I would like to introduce my experts today. On my left, I have Mr. Franz von Weizsaecker, Head of Program Citizens’ Engagement and Innovation Data Use for Africa’s Development, GIZ. Mr. Wesiker is heading the Digital and Economic Portfolio of GIZ Office to the African Union based in Addis Ababa. This includes the data governance in Africa and initiative, a multi-donor action funded by the European Union and five European Member States. On my right, Ms. Beckwith Burr, ICAN board member. Ms. Burr is a partner of Harris, Wiltshire & Granus LLP. Her practice focuses on data protection, data governance, and cybersecurity. Prior to joining the firm, Burr was Nostar’s Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer and has been involved in internet governance issues for more than 25 years. She was also the Director of the Office of the International Affairs of ITIA during the creation of ICAN. Also on my left is Ms. Olga Skorokhodova, Government Affairs and Public Policy Emerging Markets, Head of CACASIS, Central Asia, and Russia, Google. Ms. Olga is responsible for government affairs and public policy in a number of countries of Central Asia and the CACASIS. She also leads strategic AI policy engagement projects within the Emerging Markets team covering 100 plus countries at Google. Also on my right, Mr. Cedric Wachholz, Chief Section for Digital Policy and Digital Transformation in UNESCO, which includes multiple artificial intelligence workstreams and the use of frontier technologies for attaining the UN Sustainability Development Goals through advocacy, capacity, and public policy developments, as well as other workstreams. So, with that said, let’s start with Ms. Burr. Ms. Burr, what is exactly ICANN’s role in the internet ecosystem and how can members of Parliament collaborate with this global organization?

Beckwith Burr: Thank you for the question and thank you for asking me. participate. It’s a great honor to be here and to be in Saudi Arabia for my first time. ICANN has a limited but very critical role in the internet ecosystem. Its fundamental mission is to ensure the secure and stable operation of the internet’s unique identifier systems, the building blocks of DNS, including names, numbers, and protocols. If names, numbers, and protocols don’t work, your internet content messages will not get where they need to be. So the security and stability and operational resilience of the DNS is critical. ICANN accomplishes its mission in several ways. First, it coordinates the allocation and assignment of top-level domains, both the so-called generic TLDs like com, net, and org, as well as the two-digit country code TLDs such as .sa, .jp, or .fr. Second, ICANN coordinates the development of policies concerning the registration of second-level domains, so the beckyburr.com, but in this case, only in the generic, not in the country code domain namespace because country code domain namespace policy is established in-country. Third, ICANN facilitates the coordination of the DNS root name server system. Fourth, working with regional address registries such as RIPE, NCC, and LACNIC, ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of internet protocol numbers and autonomous system numbers used to route internet traffic. And finally, in coordination with the Internet Engineering Task Force, ICANN provides registries for the authoritative record of many of the codes and numbers contained in a variety of internet protocols, also often referred to as ICANN. to as RFCs. ICANN does not have regulatory authority. Rather, its role involves convening, coordinating, and facilitating the collaborative work of stakeholders, including the technical community, civil society, business, users, and governments. National governments, distinct economies, and international intergovernmental organizations participate in ICANN’s multi-stakeholder policy development processes and provide advice on public policy matters, primarily through the Government Advisory Committee, or the GAC. The GAC has 183 governments as members and 39 intergovernmental organizations as observers. GAC delegations may include lawmakers, and ICANN welcomes this, and we have often seen parliamentarians participating in the GAC delegations. There are many other ways that parliamentarians can participate in ICANN’s multi-stakeholder process. Parliamentarians are always welcome at ICANN meetings, which occur three times per year and rotate through ICANN’s five regions. Meetings are accessible. Everything is translated into the six UN languages plus Portuguese. ICANN also operates a robust capacity building program designed to lower barriers to participation while increasing diversity and effective participation of GAC members, including from underserved regions. Capacity building events have been held online, as well as in Nairobi, Johannesburg, Dakar, Nandi, Kathmandu, Abu Dhabi, Manama, San Juan, Panama City, Cancun, and many other places. Parliamentarians are welcome to participate in programming sponsored by ICANN and its partners, such as our annual Universal Acceptance Day, where we promote acceptance of non-ASCII scripts, so internationalized domain names, and other initiatives such as the Coalition for Digital Africa. While ICANN is headquartered in Los Angeles, it has a global presence with offices in Brussels, Montevideo, Singapore, and Istanbul, and smaller engagement centers in Beijing, Nairobi, and Geneva. The ICANN’s global engagement team welcome outreach from parliamentarians and would be very pleased to assist you in answering questions, connecting you with resources, and helping you participate. In addition to resources and engagement opportunities offered by ICANN and its programming partners, parliamentarians may want to engage directly with local ICANN stakeholders who are very knowledgeable about the ICANN process, who are very anxious to work with their government representatives and their legislators. And these include country code domain name operators, regional associations of country code operators, and regional at-large organizations and regional address registries. I’m happy to answer any questions you have or provide further information on how you can collaborate with ICANN in furtherance of a secure, resilient, and globally interoperable Internet. Thank you.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. That’s amazing. So, your job is really full because participating in meetings and attending ICANN events will expose parliamentarians to the best practices, as well as networking with others, so they will definitely benefit wherever they attend. All right. Thank you so much. All right. So, the second question is directed to Mr. WeizsÃ¤cker. Sir, the GIZâ¦ is a strong partner of the African Union and supporting capacity building activities of members of parliaments. How can parliamentarians effectively contribute to a harmonized digital landscape? And it would be great if you could give us some tangible concrete examples.

Franz von Weizsaecker: Thank you so much, Rima. And thanks also for welcoming me in Saudi Arabia. Coming back after 15 years being abroad and coming back to Saudi, I came back to a different, very different country. It’s really a much more modern place. Much appreciated. And I’m very excited to be here. Thank you. So I work for the GIZ office to the African Union. And GIZ is a part of the German government for international development. And so, yes, we do support the parliamentarian track of IGF and parliamentarian capacity development as part of the Data Governance in Africa initiative. And that is the EU project that has been funded by EU and five different European member states. And I do believe that Germany, since you might remember the IGF in Berlin, Germany was actively promoting the participation of parliamentarians in IGFs to be part of the dialogue, because in the end, it is the lawmakers that have to bring the governmental role and have to have to promote a well-informed governmental role into digital policymaking. And our support to the African Union and its 55 member states and the regional economic communities is around harmonizing the digital policies, in particular, the data policies, as well as supporting a number of other initiatives such as the African Digital Compact, and the African Union AI strategy, I believe Olga also was part of that. So the African Union Data Policy Framework is the effort to harmonize how data can be shared by government, by private sector, how it can be transferred across the border. And that is very important in Africa’s ambition to form a digital single market to allow also companies to work across borders and this is to encourage the investments in the startup ecosystem because in many cases these businesses need the opportunity to scale across borders as well in order to really reap the value of the data economy and the AI economy built on that of course. We do face a lot of the debates, and that might be an interesting discussion with Google, of data colonialism and of extractive business models taking data from African citizens and maybe generating profits elsewhere in the world. And we do take that very seriously so it is these national debates on economic policies that are going on of how can the value of the data economy be maximized, the value that is created locally and that the local economy and the tax collection and so on are benefiting from. So that is a very important debate to have and the right answer to that is in many cases to not limit the cross-border data transfer but rather to encourage it because more economic value can be generated by connecting and by sharing data across borders. So that is the policy of the African Union Data Policy Framework and we have now reached a stage where we have received from the 55 countries of the African Union, we have received 22 requests by 22 members. States that want to adopt the African Union Data Policy Framework at national level, as well as the regional economic communities of EAC, East Africa, SADEC for Southern Africa, and ECOWAS for Eastern Africa, who all want to be part of this harmonization effort. And I believe that’s a very important initiative to really reap the benefits of the data economy at national level and at regional level in Africa. And that’s what the German government, with its European partners, is happy to support. Along with that policy support, there is an infrastructure investment facility on data centers and investments in data centers, as well as a promotion facility for data use cases in various sectors. So agricultural data, climate data, financial systems data. And this is all about sharing models that work across the border and between different stakeholders, private sector, public sector, and so on. So this is what we are doing, and I believe it’s very important that parliamentarians be part of this debate in order to really fully support the role of the government, of lawmakers, to pass the necessary harmonization efforts at national level. Thank you.

Rima Al-Yahya: Amazing. Amazing. Can I ask, how far have you gone in harmonizing the digital landscape? I mean, from your experience, 55 African countries of the African Union is a large-scale project. So I know you mentioned 22 countries being interested in the policy framework, but have you seen any tangible harmonization so far?

Franz von Weizsaecker: Of course, the passing of legislation is nothing that happens from one day to another. So for example, there is policy drafting going on in Nagula for the new data protection law, in Zambia, and the Gambia. So those are one of the most advanced countries in those efforts currently of adopting the AU framework, as well as efforts onâ¦ region of ECOWAS in Western Africa, the regional framework is being updated to comply with the principles of the African Union framework. And there is from those 22 countries that have requested, it’s a long list, too long to read here, but nine of those countries have done an assessment to see how far advanced are they in the various aspects of data governance. And we have done several capacity development measures in the Gambia, in Nigeria and Zambia, as well as on regional level. So it is advancing very fast, but you’re right, it’s very ambitious. 55 countries, I think we will not get there to implement in all 55, but we follow the first come, first serve approach to provide support where it’s requested.

Rima Al-Yahya: Amazing. I raise my hat to you. All right. So moving on to Mr. Waschholz. Mr. Cedric, UNESCO is actively contributing to digital policymaking, capacities and inclusion, and has worked with members of parliaments on AI regulations and emerging approaches across the world. What regulatory approaches to AI can you recommend, especially to parliaments with less capabilities?

Cedric Wachholz: Thank you, Madam Chair. And the answer to your question is, there is no one-fits-it-all approach. But let me first thank you for giving us the floor and thanking Saudi Arabia for its hospitality, for hosting the IGF, but also for the parliamentary track to invite UNESCO to join. This is a really much appreciated cooperation. So we are talking about a very hot topic, which is rapidly evolving over the last years. There are more than 30 countries which have adopted AI regulation by parliaments. And just if you look at the Stanford AI Index from 2024, they saw that the the number of citations and proceedings across the globe where AI was mentioned in legislative proceedings doubled just in one year from 2022 to 2023. So it is really something which is gaining in importance. And we have worked together with the IGF, Parliamentary Track, but also the IPU on different capacity development activities for parliamentarians. But also we have looked at existing regulation and looked them at different approaches because that was your question. And so there are a number one can distinguish. There’s a paper we developed and we had actually inputs from more than a hundred parliamentarians from legal experts, but also from AI experts on that. And it is online available. And there we distinguish actually nine different approaches. And of course one needs to, I will rapidly map them, but of course it is all a question of context and to see what are really the best regulatory approaches. So one we would distinguish is, and probably all, there is not one approach most countries will adopt, but they will mix different approaches. So there’s that dimension. So the principle-based approach focuses really on the broad ethical principles to guide AI development. And some of you might be aware that UNESCO, UNESCO’s member states, but through a long multi-stakeholder process over three years has developed an ethics recommendation adopted by all member states. And that was a long process, but these ethical principles are for us the foundation and guiding principles. They’re also human rights-based, but this would be a principle-based approach as well. Then, there is of course a standards-based approach, which involves really creating specific technical standards for AI systems to ensure a certain safety and compliance. One can certainly also mention agile and experimentalist approaches, encouraging some flexibility and

Rima Al-Yahya: experimentation in AI regulation, also to adopt and be ready for a number of technological

Cedric Wachholz: rapid technological changes. The AI recommendation of UNESCO, for example, was launched, actually the process in 2017-18, it took three years, was adopted in 2021 before CETCPT. So you need to actually also have some flexibility in adopting. It is absolutely relevant also in CETCPT-H, it hasn’t changed, but we had some foresight in doing this work. But another approach would be the one of adapting existing laws and modifying actually already existing current legal frameworks. Then comes the one which we would call the access to information and transparency mandates approach, which ensures that AI systems really operate transparently and that information is really accessible to all stakeholders, which isn’t an easy exercise, but some of the regulations aim that. The risk-based approach is one, I mean, many of you are familiar with, because the European AI Act is very much based on that approach. Some might have heard about that. And it is about assessing and mitigating the risks associated to AI applications. Now, the rights-based approach is prioritised with really the human rights in the deployment of AI technologies, and the liability approach is the one. assessing or assigning responsibilities and also sanctions to problematic users of AI. Now, as I mentioned, these nine approaches represent different pieces of a puzzle, and I don’t know if I have a little bit more time to say why, when, and how to regulate, or if we should keep that for a later discussion. Yes? Okay. So, of course, there are more or less three reasons I would name to regulate, so the why. One is, of course, to address a public problem, and secondly is to really promote, respect, protect fundamental and also collective rights. And then the third one is really to create an enabling environment, but also shape a digital future which is safe and which corresponds to the desired, you know, also digital future. So, when you regulate, you need to, and this is a process probably some of you have gone through in different other contexts, but of course you need to have one of these justifications or several ones to go forward. But then also ask if there are any irregularities. Also, is it feasible from a legal and political and administrative point of view? And if you answer all these questions, you can say yes, then you probably should regulate. And then there’s, of course, the how-to, keeping human rights at the forefront and as a basis, and the core of it all is an important foundation. But then also considering agile methodologies as sandboxes and testbeds. There are some examples for that too. And then for us, it has very clearly shown that multi-stakeholder approaches are key in this domain. So, to consider multiple perspective, so that it is representative, but also inclusive and also realistic. So we have partnered, well, I will not go too much more now into details, I think, but just to say that we were very happy to have a few also capacity development workshops with the IPU and the IGF parliamentary track, just to recognize that.

Rima Al-Yahya: Great, remarkable. You were just saying that one hat does not fit all. So do you customize your regulatory approaches to AI, depending on the parliaments and those with less capabilities? Do you engage non-profit organizations or companies with corporate responsibility to help you out with the capacity building training for parliamentarians, I mean, especially with those with the countries with less capabilities?

Cedric Wachholz: Yes, we do. And I like this multi-stakeholder approach of this panel, too. I think it is very helpful. Now, there are different approaches. And for example, I mentioned the AI ethics recommendation and we have different tools developed, for example, to do first and country assessment, to have some facts as a background. And this has been rolled out in more than 60 countries to really assess the AI landscape, which is a helpful tool to then have some evidence to guide the way forward. We have a comparable tool also for companies where some companies have bought into adapting the AI ethics recommendation. So assessing first the country situation, the needs, the landscape, and then adapting different tools makes the most sense to me. Thank you so much.

Rima Al-Yahya: All right. So now, last but not least, Ms. Skorokhodova, how can members of parliament engage with Google?

Olga Skorokhodova: Thank you so much for the opportunity to be part of this panel. This has been an enormous. enriching and insightful conversation. So thank you so much, co-panelists. I actually quite like being the last one at the panel because you can enrich yourself with all that knowledge that has been shared before. And then it’s just really inspiring to hear all your perspectives. I wanted to start by expressing my gratitude on behalf of Google to the organizers of IGF and to Saudi Arabia as a host country for the hospitality and for having us at this parliamentary track. This is very special, and it’s a big privilege for our company. At Google, we believe that collaboration is the key to address today’s complex challenges from climate change to health care delivery. And we also believe, of course, it’s no secret that digital technologies and AI can play a crucial role in addressing these challenges. And in doing so, we are also deeply committed to working with the governments and parliamentarians around the world in two, I would say, roughly two very important areas. One is really shape the policies that will define digital age. And more and more, we are talking about AI policies. The African Union AI framework has been just mentioned as one of the examples. And I love citing this example in some other regions when I visit because I think that is remarkable what the African Union achieved. And this is something where we as a company are involved in really discussing the frameworks, national strategies, and regulation that shapes digital realm. And secondly, in terms of our work with parliamentarians and public. officials, we are committed to deliver impactful upskilling and capacity building programs for public officials. And we have to be honest, I would say, this AI ascent that happened very rapidly, it was a surprise, and it is still a surprise to many public officials. And they must not have all the capacity that you need to have to address these issues, to regulate them in a smart way. That’s why capacity building, specifically targeting public officials and parliamentarians, policymakers, regulators, is a very, very important aspect. And if we talk about AI, we now have already some figures of what is the price in hand. And one of those figures is McKinsey estimates. It’s $26 trillion. That’s an upside of full AI adoption in terms of potential economic impact. That’s higher, actually, this figure is higher than current GDP of the United States. And so to really leverage this potential and convert this potential into economic reality, especially in the emerging markets, we really believe that strategic approach is important. And to help governments of emerging markets, specifically, to charter the path forward, this spring we came up with a roadmap or policy recommendation set that we called AI Sprinters. We use this term to nickname countries that lead or leapfrog in terms of AI, in terms of economic opportunity by using AI and digital tools. And so our recommendation is that governments and specifically parliamentarians, as they think about how do we use AI for economic development. development, they should consider focusing on four main pillars. One is really infrastructure, and it’s about securing access to reliable internet and to cloud computing, because there is no AI without cloud computing. Second, it’s about innovation. And we talked briefly mentioned data colonialism, and what we think is important while we should be thinking and talking about how do we extrapolate the value of data to the local economies. What is also crucially important, and we really see it with our products, is that there is enough data locally available to power locally developed tools and AI applications, or adopting the global tools that already exist, but to the local reality. I will give you just one simple example. We have a special AI model that can actually help you predict flooding nine days in advance before it occurs. And the flooding is a big deal, and a big economic factor in Africa, in Central Asia, et cetera. But we were not able to launch this model and scale it in some countries of my region that I cover, Central Asia, just because there was not enough data publicly available for it, because the government sits on that data. They do have historical data of how rivers behave, but it’s not disclosed. So we can’t offer our model that can help you mitigate potential risks, potential human impact, economic impact, but you can’t do it without data. So really making sure the data is available for development locally is very important. And then policies and skills. And I want to touch upon what we are doing in terms of public official subscaling. Really three initiatives that I want to mention, because we do recognize and realize the responsibility as a global player to prepare public officials and parliamentarians to the AI-driven age. So what we are doing is that through google.org, it’s our company philanthropy branch, we gave a grant of more than 5 million US dollars to a political government AI campus. That’s a special program created to bring AI education specifically to public officials. Beyond global programming, the government AI campus has engaged with leaders across the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia, our host countries, South Africa and other countries to bring tailor-made education to the civil servants at scale. We also recognize that to ensure that these upscaling programs are truly inclusive, you need to have proper language coverage. So all the curriculum of AI campus is translated into 10 languages including Arabic, Spanish and others to make sure that actually countries that need this capacity building support have access in terms of language offering to our programs. We also recognize that policymakers and parliamentarians in emerging markets may need more tailored approach and we run as a company our internal bespoke AI academies, we call them, which is basically a crash course on AI applications but also on AI regulation that we offer internally to the policymakers across the world. In this year only we ran seven AI academies in practically in all of the emerging markets, Latin America, Brazil, the Middle East, North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and Turkey. Again, recognizing the need for more robust support specifically in Sub-Saharan Africa, we launched an AI Sprinters online course which is developed based on our recommendation and roadmap that we offer for emerging markets on how to drive AI adoption. This online course we launched at the UN General Assembly just this September and we already trained more than 300 African officials at the UN General Assembly but also with the support of UN Economic Commission for Africa and the World Trade Organization. So I think my… time is up already, but I just wanted to conclude by saying that we at Google also look at capacity building for public officials and also at really policy making once it comes to AI as a collective multi-stakeholder project, I would say. And here, definitely companies like ours have also a role to play and we are happy to be part of that ecosystem. Thank you so much.

Rima Al-Yahya: Amazing. That’s amazing. What you’re saying just reminded me of something that’s really similar that’s being implemented in Saudi Arabia. It’s not with parliamentarians, but it’s with our graduates. We have exceptional graduates who graduate and then when they apply for their jobs, they don’t get accepted because they don’t have the proper capacity building skills that they needed. So we felt that we needed to bridge the gap between academia and the industry sector. And so a collaboration of different academies, such as the Saudi Digital Academy by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, and we have like the Wake Academy and the Academy of Cybersecurity by the National Commission for Cybersecurity, as well as Sadae Academy, MISC Academy, and it’s a lot what Google is also doing. And they started boot camps for graduates between the age of 22 to 28, and this enabled them to be equipped with the proper skills required by employers when they lack hands-on experience. So certified degrees by Google, by Red Hat, by IBM are procured easily for these graduates and these graduates will become parliamentarians with time, some of them will. And so that’s really amazing what you’re doing. All right, so let’s open the floor to a discussion. We’ll start by four questions. And if we have time, we can have another round of four questions. So we’ll We can start. Ms. Maryam? Maryam?

Audience: Hi, thank you very much for this session. My name is Maha Abdel Nasser. I’m Egyptian parliamentarian. Actually, I know a lot of programs you are all running, but with the government. I’ve never heard about anything with the parliament or for parliamentarians. So I would love to have all what you’ve said. I don’t know if we can ask the IGF secretariat to write all these initiatives that can be used for parliamentarians and gather them in a document and send it to us, so we can actually benefit from it. I am from the ICT industry, so maybe I don’t need that very much. We all need to learn, of course. But the other parliamentarians, they know nothing about what we are talking about. And at the end of the day, they will be the people who will vote for any legislation regarding AI or any act regarding anything related to technology. So we need badly to have capacity building from them. I’m very happy that you raised the data colonization subject, but I don’t think that we still have an answer. We need to work together to, I don’t know, have some ethics regarding the data flow, regarding the data colonization, regarding not to benefit from our data because we have more people than the West. Again, the global South and the global North. And we need more for global South. Please, we actually need this.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. Any other questions? Yes.

Audience: Thank you very much. My name is Catherine Muma, I’m a senator from Kenya. And just to overemphasize that government is not just the executive. And parliaments play a critical role in shaping policy. And my colleague is right that over 95% of us do not understand this is a technical sector and we need deliberate greater investment in getting the competencies of parliamentarians across board, not just a few, to be able to contribute from an informed position when we are doing regulation on digital technology issues. And this is going to be cross board. It will be in the financial sector, it will be in the health sector, it will be in the water sector. So we can’t just say the ICT committees of parliament are the only ones which need competence. If we are going to do telemedicine and I’m sitting on the committee on health, exactly how should I shape that law in order to make it facilitative, not obstructive? So I think those working on this need to deliberately invest in this because there is a potential of parliament actually harming rather than assisting in the entire process. Coming to AI, don’t you think it’s too, it might be too early to say that we can define a particular law in a particular way? Might we want to focus on the possible harms that would come with AI and focus on strengthening legislation against those harms, whether it is a criminal activity, how do we bring, how do we improve child protection law, for instance, to deal with pedophile behavior, criminal behavior? Might we? be doing better strengthening the laws on offenses and criminals rather than coming up with a law we call an AI legislation that is not seriously informed that may very well stifle innovation. I don’t know what you think about that.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you, thank you. Very good question. Yes. Sorry.

Audience: Yes, good afternoon and thank you very much for the wonderful presentations across. First, I just want to thank. Can I have your name? My name is Honorable Al-Hajji, more from the Gambia and the Pan-African Parliament, which is an AU Parliament. I just want to thank you generally for this wonderful, wonderful information that we are hearing from across the presenters. Particularly ICANN, I must be grateful because they provided some training to about almost 30 members of Parliament in Rwanda this past July. And it was great, great initiative by the ICANN. We are really very thankful. Now, I agree with my colleagues because oftentimes when you deal with government, you are only dealing with the executive. The Parliament is actually exempted. And the book ends with us. At the end of the day, with laws, with regulations, Parliament has a big role to play in it. And that’s the reason why sometimes you bring a bill in Parliament and it takes ages. Why? Because Parliament do not understand. They need to make a lot of consultations and in and out of the country. And because of the fact that there is a gap, a knowledge gap, and that would make that bill stay there for a very long time. So this capacity building, particularly in the era of technology, I think is important if we can partner with various institutions to help bridge that gap. Because the government, the executive, they will not do that because of, again, we have our own budget. But again, at the end of the day, it’s the same country. So anything that we can do, we can collaborate to ensure that we bridge this gap. which is the knowledge gap in most members of parliament. We have very, very, very few members of parliament that actually understand technology. I am an exception because I’m a software developer and I’ve been in the field for 25 years now, but I’m one in maybe hundreds or 200 members of parliament, like my colleague from Egypt actually has said. So if we are able to do needs-based assessment, you will see some very interesting data on technology and anything we can do together to help close that gap in terms of capacity development, I think it’s gonna help a lot. In the long run, to ensure that at least we are all on the same terrain in this digital ecosystem. Thank you.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you, thank you.

Audience: Thank you, Jamal Fakhr Al-Bahrain. Today, this morning, we started with a session with the representative of the private sector. And those were focusing a lot on saying that we don’t need to have any regulations at this stage. This afternoon, we are listening to UNESCO representative who have kindly been so kind to share with us what UNESCO have been doing over the years and putting regulations. So the question is really, is there a timeframe for us to start to think of putting regulations to regulate the AI? Are we on hurry if we say we are going to regulate? Are we supposed to really go back to say, okay, we will, since we have got the data protection law, since we have got the privacy law, since we have got the consumer protection law, then we don’t need to have an AI law. But again, as the other says, AI is something new. Many of all the members of parliament are not aware of. Unfortunately, none of them attend all the sessions organized by IPU from time to time to learn out of that. So really, I’m in a bit of a dilemma today. this morning. I have a different idea when I’m closing my day today. I have a different idea. It would be nice to hear from the four speakers there. How do they see? Are we ready to put a regulation, a law, exactly as something like what the EU did a few months back? Or we are saying, no, leave everything as it is today and focus on the various laws you have? Data protection, privacy law, and consumer law.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. Thank you. All right. So let’s start with the first question by Dr. Meha. That has to do with what capacity building initiatives are directed to parliamentarians specifically and also discussing the data colonization issue and concerning the focus on maybe more focusing on the global south. So we can start with Ms. Olga.

Olga Skorokhodova: Thank you so much for your question. In terms of specific trainings that are available or not available to parliamentarians, all the initiatives that I listed, what we are doing at Google, they are open to parliamentarians. But definitely for me, the key takeaway, my colleagues and my company would be to really start thinking more strategically around how we engage parliamentarians. And here, definitely our colleague from Kenya also made an intervention on this topic. And we are happy to share with the IJF Secretariat all the information about the programs that we are running. And definitely, I’m not sure about Egypt, but we definitely had some parliamentarians from the African continent that took part in some of our initiatives and programs that we ran this year. Also, in terms of data colonialism and how we should approach this issue, I think there are two aspects that I wanted to highlight. First of all, when we think about specific… there could be some specific ways we can approach the taxation issue. And here, my colleague also brought this up. And I think that from the Google perspective, and I believe that’s also shared by the industry players, for us, it’s important that the approach towards the taxation would be synchronised or would be, you know, the one that would be universally applicable. And we definitely work very closely with OECD on digital taxation matters. What is difficult for us is to have 198 approaches to really taxing, you know, companies like Google. So we are definitely supporting the international, you know, internationally synchronised approach. And in terms of making, in terms of really making sure that Global South benefits from AI solutions, I think that at Google, we specifically focus a lot on making sure that our AI solutions, they are for social good. And I’m happy to see that many, many solutions that we actually develop, they are coming from the countries in the Global South. We have, for example, an AI office, an AI centre of excellence in Ghana. And from that centre, many solutions that we then apply, you know, in many different countries around the world, they are coming from that centre where we employ people locally, where we also leverage data locally. One of the solutions that I mentioned, our flood prediction solution is actually coming from the Global South in terms of where we developed it. And we have a bunch of solutions like that. So I think that’s also an important question of how big companies, big players approach that aspect, AI for social good. And I think that we may have so many use cases. that could drive real-life impact in the global South. And that’s something that we should definitely prioritize.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rezeker.

Franz von Weizsaecker: Okay, I will try. I mean, if four people answer four questions, we will have 16 answers. So I’ll try to summarize a little bit, if you allow me. Combining the questions related to data colonization, as well as AI laws. I mean, one of the key questions is, so who reaps the benefits? And usually, data is a resource that is very different from oil. In the sense that when you cannot burn it and it’s gone, but rather it develops its value by sharing and by transferring and by adopting, by updating and so on, by connecting the data. And that’s why it is a different type of good. Also to see in the context of the post-colonial debates is that a resource that shall be kept in one place. For a physical resource, that makes a lot of sense. And for this virtual resource, it makes less sense because it creates less value. And for that purpose, I have something in the pipeline. I hope to soon be able to launch a call for papers for, in this case, African researchers, economic researchers, to guide policymakers as to which policies are best to maximize the value creation happening in Africa, in the country. The value creation, as well as the related tax collection. Because I believe in many cases, the answer is not to shut down the borders for data transfers, but rather to enable local innovation, to enable ecosystems that harvest and generate value that can create benefit locally. So that is part of the answer. And what I’ve seen in many of the national debates in Africa, and the Kenyan debate is very advanced in that regard, is shall we put a focus on risks, like the… Europeans do, or is the focus more on economic growth and innovation? And I do see that the bias is in Africa much more towards innovation, whereas in Europe the focus of the legislation, the AI Act, is much a risk management system. And that is part of the answer to the colleague from Bahrain, is do we need the law at this stage? The European approach on AI is putting things into different risk categories. And when you’re dealing with biometric data of the entire population and very private information and so on, that’s a high-risk environment. So yes, you might want to regulate that, but you don’t want to regulate all the innovators and start-ups to death, essentially. So having a tiered approach makes a lot of sense in that way, and that’s maybe part of the answer. Maybe the Europeans are focusing a lot of attention on the risks, and I see that is not so much the priority. In another context, I don’t say it’s not important to look at the risk, but having also an agile way of regulating, because as you mentioned, there’s a lot of new developments happening all the time, and the legal, the lawmaking cycle is in many cases much slower than the innovation cycle of start-ups and entrepreneurs. So that’s why a flexible approach focusing on economic benefits that are happening locally with tiered risk management is maybe my recommendation.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you, thank you. Then let’s go on to Dr. Catherine’s question. She was asking about harmonizing capacity-building throughout the countries through different sectors, whether it’s health or economy. We as parliamentarians usually have these specialized committees, and we would need to need this expertise. So do you think you can answer that, Ms. Burr?

Beckwith Burr: Yes, and thank you for the question. I feel keenly the pain that you describe in the sort of tension between executive branch decision-making and legislation. I have been in an executive branch agency and worked in the legislature in the United States. And let me just say, at ICANN, we don’t advocate sort of particular policies or laws or legislation, but we care very much that when legislatures act, they understand what they’re doing and how the internet works and whether what they’re proposing to do will break the internet or how it will impact it. So ICANN is very actively engaged whenever it hears about legislation. If it can be helpful in providing information and providing training, you know, sort of non-partisan, not advocating one way or another, but educating, ICANN is there to do it. If your government agencies won’t include you in a delegation to ICANN, ICANN has a fellows program. You can apply. They will provide funding to bring you to an ICANN meeting, financial support, train you, introduce you to people so then you know who to reach out to. So I’m not sure exactly who put on the capacity building in Rwanda, but I know they care very much about doing that. You have some wonderful women in both of your countries who are very much involved in ICANN, and I’ll give you their names afterwards, but I bet you know them. And so I do think it’s absolutely important. Some parliamentarians have technical backgrounds and understand. Other parliamentarians see problems and concerns and they want to respond to it, but they need the tools and information. and to do that in a way that does no harm and that actually solves the problem. And that, if I can just respond to your question because this is, this feels like a deja vu moment. You may all recall in the mid 90s when privacy on the internet became a big thing and this debate about, do we regulate now? Do we wait until we understand it? It was a very big deal. And some countries took the, don’t regulate, let’s see what it does, let’s focus on the invasion. Some countries took the focus, took the, let’s focus on harms. I think there’s a balance that you need to apply, which is, if you can identify the risk there, can you identify principles that will guide your thinking and your regulation and your governance and the way that you enforce laws that are on the books? So I think it’s critical for every legislature to be thinking about the principles that affect AI. I’m not sure that it’s, there’s a very big risk that you develop technology specific legislation that locks you into a particular way of thinking about technology, which changes so rapidly so that you pass a law and it is outdated the moment it’s signed into law. There’s a lot of risk about that, but having sound grounding and principles and the work that UNESCO is doing on principles for AI, for example, is very important work. So I do think that in some of the most risky areas, doing something like a serious principles-based review makes sense. sense. But in other areas, you might want to let a thousand flowers bloom. So, but this tension, the tension of sort of when do you act, when is it too early to act, and when is it too late to act? If we study what’s happened in data protection, I think it gives us a very important lesson in how complicated it is to get that exactly right.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. Thank you. So, I guess when you speak about ICANN having that facilitating role as facilitators, that would probably answer Dr. Hadji’s question about how capacity building should be a collaborative effort between different entities.

Beckwith Burr: Yeah, and I am happy to provide information on our fellows program because, you know, get one parliamentarian to come and that provides a way for us to get to know you, you to get to know us, and we can provide the resources. Thank you.

Rima Al-Yahya: Mr. Cedric, could you also elaborate on Dr. Jamal’s question about regulations of AI, as well as Dr. Catherine when she spoke about how can we deal with harms, how can we strengthen the laws?

Cedric Wachholz: Thank you so much. So, I’m astonished to hear that the private sector in the morning said that there’s no need for regulation, because I think what we hear also from the private sector is really a strong need for clarity. It is not always lost necessarily, but there are many, many examples, and just an easy one from the UNESCO perspective. We work on education. We have an example of a European country which was working on educational management and information systems in the education system and invited companies to provide solutions. We used AI, which then became challenging. in terms of privacy, in terms of their modalities of return on investment, and so on. And then they wanted to regulate, and then the private sector said, well, you can’t change the rules of the game during the game. So sometimes the challenges arise, and one fully understands really only why things are evolving, and this is not about lawmaking here, but just to point out some of the concrete challenges. So I think what the private sector would like, if I may say that, but which you have sometimes stated also from the highest level, is just clarity for them to be able to move forward. Now, in terms of the judiciary also, and it responds also partly to the question or to the points from Kenya, but not only. UNESCO has developed a network of 36,000 judicial operators, meaning judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and so on, who we are training. And 8,500 we trained on AI and digital transformation, and I think the last workshop was actually about two weeks ago in Kenya with 35 judges, and so there are existing laws which can be used to also limit some of the risks and the harms, and we have many toolkits. We have MOOCs, so online learning platforms, but also many webinars and so on for judges, and face-to-face training and regional trainings to see, for example, how with human rights law you can actually already make decisions, and there are a lot of case studies which have been published in the global toolkit. So this is on the judiciary, because you asked that question too. But in terms of capacity development, also for Kenya, again, we are having a big project with other UN agencies too, which will, where we will… We have also a MOOC for parliamentarians in the mid of 2025. This is the aim. So this is an online training. It will just be 12 hours. So it’s not too comprehensive, but six modules which give a good base, I think, on also the legislation.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you very much for your answer. I think, Miss Olga, you want to just add something?

Olga Skorokhodova: Yeah, I just wanted to also kind of provide the private industry perspective on the regulation, whether this is the time or not the time to regulate. And again, I’m speaking on behalf of a public private sector, right? But it’s really the Google’s position. And it’s very short. AI is too important not to regulate, but it’s also too important not to regulate well. That’s our motto, the motto of Google. And then also the approach towards regulation that we suggest to consider is really responsible, bold and together. That’s basically responsible means putting responsibility really at the front and center and then bold meaning really thinking strategically about where we can use AI for economic development as well. And then together meaning the dialogue. And in terms of whether this is the right time to go after hard regulation or not, I think this is really eventually down to the countries to decide. We were very actively involved in the discussion around European AI Act that has been just adopted and we generally support the risk based approach. However, we also see that many countries and I just had today in the morning a meeting with the SADAR, which is a Saudi data and AI authority. They definitely don’t want to go after hard regulation. But rather, that’s very interesting, by the way, approach. They are very, very involved in discussions around standards and several. representatives of the authority of actually chairing the groups that are developing standards for AI certification that are really just coming up, you know, being released now. That’s also an approach. So we as a company definitely want to share our expertise. We see different models across the world, but really striking this balance between responsible, bold, you know, and together. This is difficult, but it’s something that we really need to, I guess, you know, do together. Yeah. Thank you.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. All right. I think we have time to wrap up with just two more questions and then we can have our final. Yeah. Your name, please.

Audience: I would like to thank the Kingdom for the leadership and the people for the program. Sorry, just a minute. We’ll just give you a minute to… I swear to God, your problem is that you left it in English. No, we don’t… All languages are available. With all respect. Anyhow, of course, I’m putting the subject in points, and it’s not a problem. As some of the other parliaments have said, the parliaments don’t have that much backing. So, I mean, if there is cooperation between the parliaments and the EU, for example, and UNESCO, whatever, all the interested parties. That’s the first thing. Second, We are not only talking about the security in terms of preserving private information, but we as the Middle East region, and especially in the Gulf, we have a heritage, and we are preserving this heritage, and not only preserving data, preserving data is a part of it. But we belong to other things that may not mean that much to some organizations, but we even belong to the owners of other religions, like the Jews are preserved, and in Christianity there are people who are preserved, and we also have something that we belong to and preserve. This is one of the points that should be taken into account in studies and projects, especially in the private sector. The private sector, as they said in the last session, META. META was a scandal, there were many things, no one talked about it, it was a scandal in the past. Telegram has problems in France, and it was put in prison by an order from the French authorities. These points should be put, not only on the preservation of privacy, but I suggest that there should be cooperation between the parliaments of the Gulf countries, by the way, all the parliaments of the Gulf countries, without exception, have put a lot of effort in preserving AR and security, but not only for this, we do not refuse to enter technology. and the people’s culture, so that it doesn’t become an economy. It’s okay. But there, the private sector always has other goals. I don’t want to get into their goals. So the private sector should be aware of these points, and the proposed situation should be between the EU and the UNESCO, or the United Nations, with the Arab parliaments, especially the Gulf parliaments, because they, with respect to the other parliaments, are taking very fast and strong steps in this area. Thank you.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you, Dr. Abadi. Please, Dr. Saleh, and then we’ll just answer the questions and wrap up.

Audience: Inshallah. Thank you very much. Since we are in Saudi Arabia again, welcome again to Saudi Arabia, since we are almost finishing. I just want to let you know, since we are in Saudi again, we have the agency that’s called SADAIA, which is Saudi Data and AI, or Artificial Intelligence Authority, and we have many laws already in place. One is data classification policy and regulations regarding AI, personal data protection law, and the implementation regulation. It was already last year approved in our parliament, all of these. Rules of procedures on commitments for reviewing violations of the provisions of personal data protection laws and implementing regulations. Also, we have rules for appointing personal data protection officer, data sharing policy and regulations, and so on and on. So my point, we have almost all the infrastructure, and maybe you know in SADAIA, they have what’s so-called readiness report, and they are working with UNESCO or with UN. So we already have some drafts with AI, but in the same time, we have a lot of discussions regarding to approve or not to approve. You know, there are two schools in the whole world, and we are trying to work together. to be in the middle for now to see what will happen but we have almost all these regulations and policies we have ethical you know policies and instructions and so on so just want to show you know to show you what what we have in Saudi Arabia and also again the problem not only the data as you know we mentioned this before it’s the processing of data which is the brain which is the algorithms so in Google or Meta or Twitter or X or whatever this is the most important that maybe next we will see what these joint companies or big companies will do to read to be more transparent with the parliaments of different you know countries and also with the governments and with the people first of all thank you very much thank you thank you very much

Rima Al-Yahya: so if I think I will direct the the question for Dr. Baddy to Mr. Cedric because he spoke about how parliaments need more capacity building skills and he wants more collaborations with the the European Union or the United Nations or UNESCO and between parliaments themselves and he specified having more collaborations between the GCC parliaments as because their their objectives are usually very similar and their needs are so could you answer that Mr. Cedric?

Cedric Wachholz: We are of course delighted to work with Qatar and and I think we do have a comparative advantage as a neutral broker we have no vested interest that we are civil servants and try to bring a multi-stakeholder approach to the table but in the end we we have no vested interest in that for Qatar we had already four trainings of judges of 60-70 people of judges so we’re very popular it’s a different domain but just to say we are involved in in some capacity development and we’ll be happy to extend to broader parliamentarian group and work, and we really are delighted about this cooperation and to strengthen that further, including with Qatar.

Rima Al-Yahya: Yes. We’ll do that. All right. So, and the last question from Dr. Saleh is the problem of the processing of data and whether these companies can do more to be more transparent. Ms. Olga?

Olga Skorokhodova: Thank you so much for this question and for really describing that well, the Saudi Arabia approach so far towards regulation. In terms of transparency and algorithmic transparency, right, I think that’s the question is around it. I think there are two aspects that are important. Algorithms at the end of the day is also commercial information, right? And this is a very competitive space, right? Google and other companies, we are competing with each other. And so, yes, of course, there is this aspect that needs to be taken into account that full disclosure of algorithm is a commercial secrecy. That’s one question. That’s one aspect. On the other side, we do see that there is more requirements. And I think we are moving towards really disclosing more information about how we are working and what goes into the algorithm. But also, and I think this is really underappreciated, how much users who use our products can actually be part of it. Can you raise your hand if you checked your, if you use YouTube, if you checked your YouTube settings recently, last quarter? Oh, we have at least one person. But actually, actually, inside the products such as YouTube, you have a lot of, as a user, a lot of tools. how you can minimize algorithm, let’s say, interference in your user experience. And in fact, if you don’t want to see any algorithm recommendations on YouTube, you can now just turn it off. And I think this is something that sometimes is not maybe on the spotlight. But actually, users are also part of that story. But definitely, as an industry, we hear and we see there is more push towards the transparency. And I think that we are making good progress towards disclosing more as much as we can while staying still competitive in this very much competitive space.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. So I hope our experts gave the proper answers that everybody was looking for. We have a couple of minutes. And I would, if it is possible for each panelist, to give any final messages in two minutes or less. We’ll start with Cedric.

Cedric Wachholz: There are many ways forward. And I would just like to warmly invite you to join us in Paris on 4th and 5th June, where we have a capacity development event on AI and digital transformation in the public sector, including parliamentarians. And also, the end of June, last week of June in Thailand, our global forum on the ethics of AI for those who want to continue building their capacities. And I just wanted to thank all of you on behalf of UNESCO for this great panel, but also for all the interest. And we are very happy to work with all of you closely.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. Becky?

Beckwith Burr: Yeah, there are enormous amounts of resources out there. It can be very difficult to find them. But I think if you identify trusted sources, UNESCO has done some, as I said, some wonderful work in this area. You know, AI is the hot topic, the flavor of the month, but it’s very closely connected to all of the other kinds of regulatory concerns that we have. So I think looking at it simply in a vacuum could lead us into trouble, and it’s important to look at it in context, understand what laws you have on the books right now. So Saudi Arabia does have a new data protection law that has benefited from years of development of data protection law and reflects best practices up to the moment. It’s very new. And so you can learn also from the work of other parliaments what’s worked, what hasn’t worked. And I think I just want to say, to the extent that I’m here representing ICANN, with respect to the DNS and internet technology work, he’ll appear to help, but also there are lots of resources out there. And I know how important it is to get those resources in a digestible way so that you are not wading through oceans. So I think it behooves all of us to provide some information on where to look and be responsive when you need it.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. Thank you, Franz.

Franz von Weizsaecker: So the internet is global and legislation is national. That creates an inherent tension in all of our efforts and it creates the need to put efforts into harmonization. It will never be a 100% harmonized world, for sure, legislatively, but a certain degree of harmonization, a rough consensus, a dialogue between different stakeholder groups, informed policymaking, coordinated policymaking. has a huge benefit to economic development, to the development of the Internet, to the Internet not falling apart, as our colleagues from ICANN know very well. And so that is why we very much support the international coordination efforts at the level of the African Union and its regional economic communities and member states. And we do believe that only when there is a coordinated effort, also the negotiating power of individual countries, vice versa, global companies, global platforms is improving. If one small company makes a difficult regulation, the big tech titans might just switch off the service in that country and end of story, and nobody is benefiting from it. But if there is a coordinated approach, roughly aligned regulatory frameworks for platforms, for data, for AI, that is hugely beneficial to the overall economic benefit as well as to the negotiating power that individual countries have, vice versa, the tech industry.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you, thank you. Olga, last but not least.

Olga Skorokhodova: Thank you so much. I think I would vote for, you know, team sports. Innovation has always been a team sport and AI is a team sport too. So getting AI right will take a team effort. And I think we are on the right track, well, at least within this, you know, panel. And definitely just to kind of piggyback on the comment of my honourable co-panellist, for us, the more harmonised approaches are out there, the easier it is to deploy our solutions. And this is something that we really want you parliamentarians to ask us, you know, to support with. Thank you.

Rima Al-Yahya: Thank you. Thank you very much. So in conclusion, what we have dealt from this session is that building parliamentary capacity. to effectively shape the digital realm involves equipping lawmakers and parliamentary institutions, as well as the private sector with the proper knowledge, the tools and frameworks necessary to govern and oversee the rapidly evolving digital space. This will ultimately ensure that digital policies promote inclusivity, innovation, privacy, security and accountability, and by this the desired outcomes will surely be a more enhanced digital sovereignty and informed decision-making by lawmakers, as well as inclusive growth that benefits all sectors of society, while protecting everyone against misuse and harm. That said, I would like to thank all my panellists on their extremely informative contributions, so please join me in giving a round of applause to our speakers. Thank you. Thank you for attending.

Audience

Speech speed

145 words per minute

Speech length

The speaker suggests cooperation between the EU, UNESCO, and Arab parliaments, especially Gulf parliaments, to address digital policy issues.

Major Discussion Point

Multi-stakeholder Collaboration in Digital Policymaking

Beckwith Burr

Speech speed

126 words per minute

Speech length

1540 words

Speech time

729 seconds

ICANN offers training programs and resources for parliamentarians

Explanation

ICANN provides various capacity building initiatives and resources for parliamentarians to enhance their understanding of internet governance. These programs aim to lower barriers to participation and increase diversity in ICANN’s multi-stakeholder processes.

Evidence

ICANN operates a robust capacity building program, holds events online and in various cities worldwide, and welcomes parliamentarians to participate in its meetings and programming.

Major Discussion Point

Capacity Building for Parliamentarians in Digital Policy

Agreed with

Cedric Wachholz

Olga Skorokhodova

Agreed on

Importance of capacity building for parliamentarians

Principle-based review is important for high-risk AI areas

Explanation

For high-risk AI applications, it is crucial to identify principles that will guide thinking, regulation, and governance. This approach helps in addressing potential risks while allowing for technological advancements.

Evidence

Burr mentions the importance of having sound grounding in principles, citing UNESCO’s work on principles for AI as an example.

Major Discussion Point

Approaches to AI Regulation

Agreed with

Olga Skorokhodova

Franz von Weizsäcker

Agreed on

Need for balanced AI regulation

Cedric Wachholz

Speech speed

137 words per minute

Speech length

1713 words

Speech time

746 seconds

UNESCO provides capacity building workshops and online courses for parliamentarians

Explanation

UNESCO offers various capacity building initiatives for parliamentarians to enhance their understanding of AI and digital transformation. These programs aim to provide a foundational knowledge base on legislation and digital policies.

Evidence

UNESCO is developing a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) for parliamentarians to be launched in mid-2025, consisting of six modules totaling 12 hours of training.

Major Discussion Point

Capacity Building for Parliamentarians in Digital Policy

Agreed with

Beckwith Burr

Olga Skorokhodova

Agreed on

Importance of capacity building for parliamentarians

Existing laws can be used to limit AI risks and harms

Explanation

Current legal frameworks, particularly human rights laws, can be applied to address risks and harms associated with AI. Judges and legal professionals are being trained to use existing laws to make decisions related to AI and digital transformation.

Evidence

UNESCO has developed a network of 36,000 judicial operators and trained 8,500 on AI and digital transformation. They have also created toolkits, MOOCs, and case studies for judges.

Major Discussion Point

Approaches to AI Regulation

Differed with

Olga Skorokhodova

Franz von Weizsäcker

Differed on

Approach to AI regulation

Olga Skorokhodova

Speech speed

138 words per minute

Speech length

2407 words

Speech time

1039 seconds

Google runs AI academies and online courses for policymakers in emerging markets

Explanation

Google provides various training initiatives for policymakers in emerging markets to enhance their understanding of AI and its applications. These programs aim to bridge the knowledge gap and prepare public officials for the AI-driven age.

Evidence

Google has run seven AI academies in emerging markets this year and launched an AI Sprinters online course for African officials, training over 300 people.

Major Discussion Point

Capacity Building for Parliamentarians in Digital Policy

Agreed with

Beckwith Burr

Cedric Wachholz

Agreed on

Importance of capacity building for parliamentarians

AI is too important not to regulate, but regulation must be done well

Explanation

Google acknowledges the need for AI regulation but emphasizes the importance of doing it effectively. The company advocates for a balanced approach that is responsible, bold, and collaborative.

Evidence

Skorokhodova states Google’s motto: “AI is too important not to regulate, but it’s also too important not to regulate well.”

Major Discussion Point

Approaches to AI Regulation

Agreed with

Beckwith Burr

Franz von Weizsäcker

Agreed on

Need for balanced AI regulation

Differed with

Franz von Weizsäcker

Cedric Wachholz

Differed on

Approach to AI regulation

Local data availability is crucial for developing AI applications

Explanation

Access to local data is essential for developing and adapting AI applications to specific contexts. The lack of locally available data can hinder the deployment of beneficial AI solutions in various regions.

Evidence

Skorokhodova mentions Google’s flood prediction model, which couldn’t be launched in some Central Asian countries due to lack of publicly available local data.

Major Discussion Point

Data Governance and Economic Development

Getting AI right requires a team effort across stakeholders

Explanation

Developing and implementing AI effectively requires collaboration between various stakeholders, including industry, government, and civil society. This collaborative approach is essential for addressing the complex challenges associated with AI.

Evidence

Skorokhodova states, “Innovation has always been a team sport and AI is a team sport too. So getting AI right will take a team effort.”

Major Discussion Point

Multi-stakeholder Collaboration in Digital Policymaking

Franz von Weizsäcker

Speech speed

140 words per minute

Speech length

1629 words

Speech time

694 seconds

Data sharing across borders is important for economic development in Africa

Explanation

Cross-border data sharing is crucial for realizing the full potential of the data economy in Africa. Encouraging data transfer rather than limiting it can generate more economic value and benefit local economies.

Evidence

The African Union Data Policy Framework aims to harmonize data policies across 55 member states to enable cross-border data sharing and create a digital single market.

Major Discussion Point

Data Governance and Economic Development

Risk-based and tiered regulatory approaches can balance innovation and risk management

Explanation

A tiered approach to AI regulation can help balance the need for innovation with risk management. This approach involves categorizing AI applications based on their risk level and applying appropriate regulations accordingly.

Evidence

Weizsaecker mentions the European AI Act as an example of a risk-based approach, categorizing AI applications into different risk categories.

Major Discussion Point

Approaches to AI Regulation

Agreed with

Beckwith Burr

Olga Skorokhodova

Agreed on

Need for balanced AI regulation

Differed with

Olga Skorokhodova

Cedric Wachholz

Differed on

Approach to AI regulation

Harmonized data policies can help negotiate with global tech companies

Explanation

Coordinated and harmonized data policies across countries can increase negotiating power with global tech companies. This approach prevents individual countries from being disadvantaged when dealing with large tech corporations.

Evidence

Weizsäcker states that if one small country makes difficult regulations, big tech companies might simply switch off services, but a coordinated approach gives countries more negotiating power.

Major Discussion Point

Data Governance and Economic Development

Agreements

Agreement Points

Importance of capacity building for parliamentarians

Beckwith Burr

Cedric Wachholz

Olga Skorokhodova

ICANN offers training programs and resources for parliamentarians

UNESCO provides capacity building workshops and online courses for parliamentarians

Google runs AI academies and online courses for policymakers in emerging markets

All speakers emphasized the need for and importance of capacity building initiatives for parliamentarians to enhance their understanding of digital policies and AI.

Need for balanced AI regulation

Beckwith Burr

Olga Skorokhodova

Franz von Weizsäcker

Principle-based review is important for high-risk AI areas

AI is too important not to regulate, but regulation must be done well

Risk-based and tiered regulatory approaches can balance innovation and risk management

Speakers agreed on the need for AI regulation, but emphasized the importance of a balanced approach that considers both innovation and risk management.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of data availability and sharing for economic development and the effective deployment of AI solutions.

Franz von Weizsäcker

Olga Skorokhodova

Data sharing across borders is important for economic development in Africa

Local data availability is crucial for developing AI applications

Unexpected Consensus

Multi-stakeholder collaboration in digital policymaking

Olga Skorokhodova

Audience

Getting AI right requires a team effort across stakeholders

Collaboration between parliaments, international organizations, and industry is needed

Despite representing different perspectives (industry and civil society), both speakers emphasized the importance of collaboration between various stakeholders in shaping digital policies.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the importance of capacity building for parliamentarians, the need for balanced AI regulation, and the significance of data availability and sharing for economic development.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on key issues. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the challenges and potential solutions in digital policymaking, which could facilitate more effective collaboration and policy development in this area.

Differences

Different Viewpoints

Approach to AI regulation

Olga Skorokhodova

Franz von Weizsäcker

Cedric Wachholz

AI is too important not to regulate, but regulation must be done well

Risk-based and tiered regulatory approaches can balance innovation and risk management

Existing laws can be used to limit AI risks and harms

Speakers had different perspectives on how to approach AI regulation. Skorokhodova emphasized the need for balanced regulation, von Weizsaecker advocated for a risk-based tiered approach, while Wachholz suggested using existing laws to address AI risks.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement centered around approaches to AI regulation and the balance between innovation and risk management in the digital realm.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers was relatively low. Most speakers agreed on the importance of capacity building for parliamentarians and the need for some form of AI regulation. The differences were mainly in the specific approaches and emphases, rather than fundamental disagreements. This suggests a general consensus on the importance of addressing digital policy issues, with room for collaborative efforts in developing effective strategies.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agreed on the importance of data availability and sharing for economic development and AI applications. However, they differed in their focus, with Skorokhodova emphasizing local data availability and von Weizsäcker stressing cross-border data sharing in the African context.

Olga Skorokhodova

Franz von Weizsäcker

Local data availability is crucial for developing AI applications

Data sharing across borders is important for economic development in Africa

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of data availability and sharing for economic development and the effective deployment of AI solutions.

Franz von Weizsäcker

Olga Skorokhodova

Data sharing across borders is important for economic development in Africa

Local data availability is crucial for developing AI applications

Takeaways

Key Takeaways

There is a significant need for capacity building and technical knowledge among parliamentarians to effectively shape digital policies.

A balanced approach to AI regulation is needed, considering both innovation and risk management.

Data governance and cross-border data sharing are crucial for economic development, especially in emerging markets.

Multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments, industry, civil society, and international organizations is essential for effective digital policymaking.

Existing laws and principles-based approaches can be used to address some AI risks and harms while more comprehensive regulations are developed.

Resolutions and Action Items

ICANN, UNESCO, and Google offered to share information about their training programs and resources for parliamentarians with the IGF Secretariat.

UNESCO invited participants to join capacity development events on AI and digital transformation in June in Paris and Thailand.

Unresolved Issues

How to balance the need for algorithmic transparency with protection of commercial secrets in AI systems

Specific approaches for preserving cultural heritage in data governance frameworks

The appropriate timing and scope of AI-specific legislation across different countries and regions

Suggested Compromises

Adopting a tiered or risk-based approach to AI regulation that focuses on high-risk applications while allowing more flexibility for low-risk innovations

This comment succinctly captures a fundamental challenge in regulating the digital realm.

impact

It broadened the discussion to consider the need for international cooperation and harmonization in digital regulation, influencing subsequent comments about coordinated approaches.

Overall Assessment

explanation

Balancing algorithmic transparency with business competitiveness is a key challenge in AI governance that requires further exploration.