IGF2024

Summary

This discussion focused on digital platforms connecting private sector businesses with development opportunities in Africa, particularly highlighting the Hefez platform in Egypt. Tamer Taha introduced Hefez as a revolutionary platform bridging information and financial gaps for Egyptian companies seeking to expand into African markets. The platform provides structured information about projects and available financing, making opportunities more accessible to local businesses.

Maneesha Gardizi, representing GIZ, emphasized how such platforms enable smaller and medium-sized companies to access development cooperation projects, fostering innovation and creating a win-win situation. Alan Ananulu shared experiences from iVenture, a platform connecting startups in East and Southern Africa to regional opportunities, highlighting success stories and challenges faced.

The discussion explored how these platforms overcome infrastructure limitations in Africa, with Alan explaining the use of low-level tech and social media to reach entrepreneurs. Tamer introduced a new matchmaking feature on Hefez to enhance engagement between different stakeholders. The conversation also addressed regulatory obstacles, with Maneesha and Alan emphasizing the need for mutual agreements on e-signatures to facilitate cross-border trade and market entry.

An interactive poll revealed audience perspectives on barriers to cross-border collaboration, the role of digital platforms in improving Africa’s investment climate, and sectors needing solutions for development and growth. The discussion concluded with questions from the audience about incorporating venture capital opportunities and strategies for raising awareness about these platforms, especially in rural areas.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The Hefez platform connecting private sector with development partners in Africa

– Challenges and opportunities for intra-African trade and investment

– Digital solutions to overcome infrastructure limitations

– Regulatory obstacles and potential solutions like e-signatures

– Importance of information sharing and trust-building for cross-border collaboration

Overall purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how digital platforms and solutions can facilitate private sector engagement, cross-border collaboration, and development opportunities in Africa, with a focus on the Hefez platform and similar initiatives.

Tone:

The tone was generally informative and collaborative, with speakers sharing insights from their various perspectives. There was an optimistic undertone about the potential for digital solutions to overcome challenges, but also a realistic acknowledgment of existing obstacles. The tone remained consistent throughout, maintaining a professional and solution-oriented approach to discussing complex regional issues.

Speakers

– Tamer Taha: Representative of the Hefez platform

– Mahitab Assran: Moderator, GIZ Egypt

– Manija Gardizi: Representative from GIZ

– Allan Ananura: Representative of iVenture platform in Uganda

Additional speakers:

– Mariam Walid: Moderator, GIZ Egypt

– Ahmed (no surname available): Audience member from Egypt

Digital Platforms Connecting Private Sector with Development Opportunities in Africa

This comprehensive discussion explored the role of digital platforms in connecting private sector businesses with development opportunities across Africa, with a particular focus on the Hefez platform in Egypt. The conversation brought together representatives from various sectors, including Tamer Taha from Hefez, Manija Gardizi from GIZ, and Allan Ananulu from iVenture in Uganda, moderated by Mahitab Assran.

Introduction to Digital Platforms

Tamer Taha introduced Hefez as a revolutionary platform designed to bridge information and financial gaps for Egyptian companies seeking to expand into African markets. The platform provides structured information about projects and available financing, making opportunities more accessible to local businesses. This addresses a crucial challenge highlighted by Taha: “Actually they’re like Egypt and the Egyptian private sector have a lot of opportunities and potential to expand to the African region especially in sectors that we know Egyptian companies are competitive in like construction and manufacturing and so on yet there was a challenge on who to talk to in Africa or in any other country”.

Manija Gardizi, representing GIZ, emphasised the importance of such platforms in enabling smaller and medium-sized companies to access development cooperation projects. She noted, “For us as GIZ it was very very important to enable access actually also to smaller and medium-sized companies since in the development sector a lot of same and similar players and it’s basically often a dozen of them and the big ones like McKinsey etc are actually using the bidding and the tender situation of development companies”. This perspective highlights how digital platforms can foster innovation and create a more inclusive environment for businesses of all sizes.

Allan Ananulu shared experiences from iVenture, a platform connecting startups in East and Southern Africa to regional opportunities. He highlighted the success story of Marifa Sasa, a startup that offers future feed trainings to young people, as an example of how iVenture’s platform has facilitated growth and expansion for businesses.

Overcoming Infrastructure Limitations

The discussion explored various approaches to overcoming infrastructure limitations in Africa. Allan Ananulu explained iVenture’s strategy: “How we’ve been able to overcome this challenge is number one, to use low-level tech, not real-time tech. That means you get to post these opportunities on the platforms where these entrepreneurs are even in their leisure. For instance, Facebook”. This approach demonstrates the innovative ways platforms are adapting to reach entrepreneurs in areas with limited internet access.

Tamer Taha introduced a new matchmaking feature on Hefez to enhance engagement between different stakeholders. This feature aims to connect businesses with relevant opportunities and partners, further addressing the challenge of connecting businesses with opportunities.

Regulatory Obstacles and Solutions

The conversation addressed regulatory obstacles, with Manija Gardizi and Allan Ananulu emphasising the need for mutual agreements on e-signatures to facilitate cross-border trade and market entry. Gardizi stated, “From a very, very clear legislation perspective, the governments need to be here on board, and the governments basically need to have a mutual recognition of their own different e-signatures in order to facilitate more trade opportunities for these small, medium and large-sized business entrepreneurs”.

Allan Ananulu highlighted the challenges faced by startups when entering new markets, particularly in understanding different regulatory environments. Tamer Taha suggested the implementation of soft landing programs to help entrepreneurs navigate these challenges when expanding across borders.

Audience Perspectives and Concerns

An interactive poll revealed audience perspectives on the role of digital platforms in improving Africa’s investment climate. The audience identified South-South collaboration as the main way digital platforms can improve the investment climate in Africa. Additionally, traditional industries were identified as the sector most in need of solutions to bridge the gap to relevant opportunities.

Questions from the audience raised important points about incorporating venture capital opportunities and strategies for raising awareness about these platforms, especially in rural areas. In response, Tamer Taha mentioned Hefez’s plans to work on capacity building with businesses, focusing on how to write solid proposals for development partners.

Conclusion

The discussion provided a comprehensive overview of how digital platforms like Hefez and iVenture are transforming private sector engagement in development across Africa. While challenges remain, particularly in infrastructure and regulation, there is a strong consensus on the potential of these platforms to create more inclusive and innovative approaches to development cooperation in the region. The conversation highlighted the importance of adapting to local conditions, such as using low-tech solutions and social media platforms to reach entrepreneurs in areas with limited internet access. The speakers emphasized the need for continued collaboration between various stakeholders, including governments, development agencies, and the private sector, to fully realize the potential of digital solutions in fostering intra-African trade and development.

Tamer Taha: especially in our region. I will leave you with the QR codes if you would like to have a look on the on the platform and I’m looking forward to discussing with you about the platform and the private sector engagement in general. Thank you so much.

Mahitab Assran: Thank you Temer for the presentation and it’s it’s a very impressive platform the first of its kind I would say in in the region and maybe in the world connecting the private sector with development partners who previously would not be able to access such opportunities. So I can start with the first question with you Temer. How do you how do you I mean Hefez as as a revolutionary platform how would does it leverage these digital solutions to provide the private sector in Egypt specifically on the underserved sectors and underserved regions with opportunities from Africa and from the world?

Tamer Taha: Thanks for your question. Actually they’re like Egypt and the Egyptian private sector have a lot of opportunities and potential to expand to the African region especially in sectors that we know Egyptian companies are competitive in like construction and manufacturing and so on yet there was a challenge on who to talk to in Africa or in any other country and we worked with some different partners in terms of getting more information about the opportunities and the need for let’s say projects to be supported or implemented by companies by local by the private sector in general and I have been I show one example which is the ORA project in Grenada and the idea is to just find the right partner who has the right information try to translate this information in a language that can be understood by the local business and inform the local business in some way that the this is the project and this is the potential financing for the project available from the development partner and connecting the dots and I think it’s it’s always a matter of a gap an informational gap and a financial gap so the beauty of the platform it has filled in both gaps so it when when you visit the platform you’ll find a list of projects but also a list of financial entities who are available and who would support the implementation of the project whether in terms of guarantees whether in terms of financing the project and having a tender so companies can apply for the tender and it’s almost guaranteed that financing is almost guaranteed so in a nutshell I think what we did we the information was there we gathered the information in a well-structured way so that the companies can benefit from it and encourage also inform the companies or the existence of such platform and we saw a lot of companies for the first time they knew about the existence of such financial instruments the existence of such opportunities and it helped them really to expand more broadly and more regionally and the benefit from the existing tools.

Mahitab Assran: That’s fantastic. From the other side of the table here we have Manisha Gardizi representing a development partner that uses the Hafez platform and here it’s interesting to hear the other side my first question to you is how do you feel like Hafez platform has better served you as development partner and the second part of the question would be how do you think such a platform can guarantee equal access to all levels of businesses small, large, located in a big city, located in a small rural village.

Manesha Gardizi: Thanks a lot Mahitab. For us as GIZ it was very very important to enable access actually also to smaller and medium-sized companies since in the development sector a lot of same and similar players and it’s basically often a dozen of them and the big ones like McKinsey etc are actually using the bidding and the tender situation of development companies. So in the end of the day for us it was predominantly the idea behind of this matchmaking platform to enable access and equal access actually to a lot of smaller players in the bigger field of development cooperation and I think this is very much also the case if we are speaking about all the six different sectors in development cooperation if it’s education or we are speaking about digitalization or support of the private sector but also energy and climate all the different sectors often are in the hand of a dozen development consulting agencies. For this reason we think this has got a twofold perspective of supporting the countrywide or Africa wide even business market. On the one side you’re supporting small and medium enterprises which would normally never understand about the existence even of such a development cooperation and order finance platform or order finance projects because they normally never get in touch with this sector. On the other side you also enable an access of and also a sustainable kind of facility of opening this market to a various setup of smaller startups for instance. We saw startups which actually never cooperated with development actors and for this reason now they entered the market and we can foster innovation in a much bigger size also in our development projects. So I think it’s like a very perfected win-win situation for both sides of the party.

Mahitab Assran: Thank you Maneesha. Our third question is to Mr. Alan Ananulu, our virtual participant. Can we see him here on the screen? Alan could you turn on your camera? We should be able to see you. Before I ask you the question I just want to make sure that the participants here can see you. Hi Alan, yes we hear you but we still cannot see you. Oh I’ve switched it on, I don’t know. Let’s just give the technical team here a minute. Yeah well I could start with a question. Speaking Maneesha of small and medium enterprises and small startups, my question to you. Yes Alan, yes we well we see you in the top corner. Yes. Yeah. They’re working on it. We can almost see you now, almost. Okay so speaking of small and medium enterprises, your platform connects startups, small and medium enterprises in East and Southern Africa. to opportunities in the region. If you can tell us more about this initiative, and also if you can share with us a success story of how these startups have successfully collaborated together. Yes, finally, we see you on screen. Go ahead.

Speaker 1: Yes, it’s a pleasure to join in from Uganda. A good afternoon to you all. Yes, straight to the question. iVenture has been able to connect a startup called Marifa Sasa to opportunities in Southern Africa, in Botswana and Southern Africa to be specific. Some of the issues that we’ve faced, of course, barriers to entry and a lack of acceptance into the community with government support and that type of thing, which has been tremendous challenge for us. However, we’ve tried to address it through, number one, digitizing the services and trying to work remotely, which doesn’t nearly cut it as much as a physical interaction would do. But yes, we’ve had success with Marifa Sasa, which offers future feed trainings to young people. Future feed trainings are marketable jobs that they get to access as soon as they finish these courses that are offered on Marifa Sasa. And that’s one huge success that we’ve had. Thank you.

Mahitab Assran: Another question to you. Hello. Yes, can you hear us?

Speaker 1: Yes, yes, yes, I can hear you.

Mahitab Assran: All right, I have another question to you, Alan. Now, Africa as a continent has varying levels of infrastructure, not all countries and regions within even the same country are the same. How do you think digital infrastructure as well as physical infrastructure, so how do you think such digital solutions and digital platforms like iVenture, which I mean, if you can give us a minute and explain it to the audience, how do you think such platforms overcome these obstacles of lack of infrastructure sometimes and reach these underserved communities?

Speaker 1: Yes, that’s a beautiful question. And a big hurdle that I’m sure that even Haifa has faced since its launch. How we’ve been able to overcome this challenge is number one, to use low-level tech, not real-time tech. That means you get to post these opportunities on the platforms where these entrepreneurs are even in their leisure. For instance, Facebook. A lot of these entrepreneurs in Uganda specifically and East Africa are on Facebook a lot even in their leisure. So one way we’ve been able to overcome that is to put these opportunities there. But we’ve also been able to, that is essentially leveraging technology, but we’ve also been able to use things like WhatsApp, which we use to broadcast these opportunities to startups and SMEs. So it’s the leveraging of technology, which even in its low level of penetration, I mean, at least once a week, somebody will be able to get access to Wi-Fi or internet access. Maybe not daily, but somewhere, somehow they will get access to this information once they get onto social media, even in the lowest of the low internet-penetrating places. Thank you.

Mahitab Assran: Thank you, Alan. My next question is to you. You’ve told us that there is a new feature that’s going to be added to Hefez, a matchmaking feature. Can you tell us more about this feature?

Tamer Taha: Sure. After launching, we received a lot of requests, especially from the private sector and also other governments, especially in Africa, that they want to see products that they are looking for a partnership with the private sector, whether as implementers or as a triple-B private partnership and so on. From the other side, sometimes the government is looking to engage with the private sector, not as a service provider, but as a partner, as a partner who can not necessarily implement the product, but participate in a certain project with their expertise or their in-kind contribution and so on. So we thought of, in order to enhance the engagement and the dialogue between the different corners of the pyramid, whether the government partners, the private sector, or development partners, are looking actually for bankable projects and bankable partnerships between the government and the private sector. So we thought of having this business matchmaking hub, where any partner can think of an idea and a project, and they explain exactly what is this product about and what kind of partnership are they looking for. Are they looking for a financial partner who can finance and provide financing to the product? Are they looking for a government partner to implement the product? And they have, especially for startups, they have a technology, a certain technology that they want to have implemented by the government and to be piloted in a certain area and so on. So there are different types of partnerships, and this matchmaking hub should be able to, from one side, list what kind of requests exist, whether coming from the companies or coming from the government and so on, and what are the details, what is the… It shows also what some metrics, what is the ROI, what is the size of the product, what’s in which sector. So if I’m a company and I’m looking for a certain product in a certain sector, I can see a list of relevant products in my sector. Again, it’s all about creating a platform for venture partnerships and potential dialogue, and it’s all about also filling the information gap.

Mahitab Assran: Thank you, Taimur. Actually, just to both Maneesha and Alan, we can get him back on the screen. So maybe Maneesha, if you can maybe first start first. My question is, there are regulatory and legislative obstacles, or let’s say steps still to be taken. in order to better support intra-African trade and investment. In your opinion, what more in terms of regulation could be done to support private sector enterprises, regardless of their size, in intra-African trade?

Manesha Gardizi: Thanks a lot for the question. From a development perspective, and as a development partner for us, it’s quite interesting to have a more sustainable situation here. For this, we basically need more mutual agreements, for instance, like on e-signature. We think that the digital signature or the e-signature is an absolute way forward for a new, let’s say, more sustainable cooperation on a bilateral level, but also on a regional level for the different trade companies and also for different consulting agencies, but also for the ODA players from a general perspective. From a very, very clear legislation perspective, the governments need to be here on board, and the governments basically need to have a mutual recognition of their own different e-signatures in order to facilitate more trade opportunities for these small, medium and large-sized business entrepreneurs. For this reason, I think this is one of the prerequisites if we’re speaking about a pan-African perspective of how to foster an improved system for the platform logics and also for e-trade in general, and this would be basically my first suggestion. Thank you.

Mahitab Assran: Adam, I think some of your partners and your beneficiaries have had some experience actually attempting e-signature, so can you tell us more about your perspective?

Speaker 1: Yes. For sure, an e-signature would take us a long way, push the needle, if you like, in the right way to achieve scalability, because in my sector, which I’m most familiar with, I deal with a lot of startups which are characterized by, number one, the ability to scale and scale far and wide. So entry into new markets has been a big hurdle for us as entrepreneurs who would like to enter new territories. There are already issues of cultural norms that you have to understand. For instance, if I was to come and start selling in Egypt, there are already cultural norms which I would need to first understand as an entrepreneur. So when these other non-tariff barriers like market entry restrictions get in the way, it becomes quite a problem. Again, we’ve faced that in South Africa, where entrepreneurs even have a hard time getting a visa from Uganda getting into South Africa, just to start the conversation of understanding the culture, and that has been quite a bit of a problem. And yet, conversely, just neighboring Kenya, Kenyans can get into South Africa without a visa, so there’s a bit of an issue. And yet, if this e-signature was made available, then maybe we wouldn’t need visas and all these issues, and it would ease market entry and growth, for sure, for SMEs and startups who would like to scale and explore these new markets. Yes, those are my thoughts.

Tamer Taha: Depending on what Manija and Alan mentioned, I think there is a huge opportunity for the local platforms to connect together. What Alan mentioned, we’re discussing it also on a national level in terms of our startup policies, how to have soft landing programs where entrepreneurs from Alan’s network can come and know more about the regulatory environment in Egypt, how they can have incentives to expand their technologies or partner with local startups in Egypt. And I think it’s all about the trust, and access to information. And I think having such platforms, even if they’re digital in the beginning, but they can create long-lasting relationships that would actually enhance the inter-African trade, because we don’t need to build a lot of infrastructure, especially in the sectors that are tradable and that can be expanded fast, like startups and technologies.

Mahitab Assran: Thank you, Tamer. I think we’ll wrap up this part of our session. We now have an interactive exercise to do together. We’d like to hear from our audience your view on this topic. Mariam, yes, if you can share your screen and the QR code. Thank you for your support in moderating this online, Mariam. Thank you. Fantastic. So, we have a QR code here. You would like to scan it. There’s three poll questions that you can answer. Help us participate. The first question, I’ll read it aloud to you. What do you see as the main barriers to cross-border collaboration with regards to the private sector in Africa? The first answer or the first choice is legislation, infrastructure, lack of connectivity, or another option that you can add. We can’t view the other answers. We can’t see others, so let’s go for infrastructure. The second question, I’ll read it out. How can digital platforms improve the investment climate in Africa? We have three options of South-South collaboration, localization of funds, and fostering innovation. Thank you. Okay, I think the answers are coming in a very specific direction of South-South collaboration. Okay, shall we move on to our third question? Read it out. Read it out. So the third question is, which stakeholders or sectors do you think need solutions to bridge the gap to their relevant opportunities with the aim of further development and growth? Civil society, traditional industries, agriculture, or other? Okay. So far we have 100% on traditional industries. Very clear choice. All right. Thank you, Mariam. Ah, we have competing starting agriculture, so we give it a minute for more answers to come in. I think we still have a winner with traditional industries. Okay, so to wrap up this part of the session, are there any questions to our panelists? You can also turn on your camera, so if anyone wants to ask you a question. Also, if you want to go ahead and enter any of your questions in the chat, I can ask if anyone wants to unmute and ask a question. You can type your answers directly. We have a question here. Thank you. Just introduce yourself. Go ahead and take my mic if you wish.

Audience: It’s working now. Thank you very much. My name is Ahmed. I’m from Egypt. Thank you very much for the presentations. HAFES sounds like a wonderful platform. As a startup ecosystem, I was wondering if HAFES also incorporates opportunities that are provided by venture capitalists or angel investors, or is this something done on a separate platform? My other question is, I’m sure the information was done very neatly, but there’s always challenges. You mentioned making the tool for its users. I was wondering if you were, in collaboration with GIZ, spreading the word through a media campaign, some targeted door-knocking, especially in the rural areas of Upper Egypt, to make SMEs aware of this platform. Thank you.

Tamer Taha: Thanks a lot, Ahmed, for your important questions. Regarding the first question, as I mentioned, the development partners play an important role in the startup ecosystem, whether through funding investments, VCs who invest in Egyptian startups, or by providing capacity building, and also provide knowledge about certain sectors. What we do at HAFES, all the services, whether financial or capacity building, are divided by type of beneficiary. There’s always a category for startups, so they can check which type of financing or what type of opportunity is available. Around 90% of the opportunities are targeting startups, actually, and early-stage businesses, because they are the ones who need the most in terms of capacity building and so on. Regarding your second question, this is exactly what we’re going to do in 2025. We’re going to have roadshows across the country in partnership with business associations, chamber of commerce, and so on. All the governments will have a big media campaign, because we recognize that not everybody knows about the platform. Once they know, they say, okay, why didn’t I know about it before? Adding to this, what we heard also from the participants or the users of the platform, they said, okay, I’ve checked the tender, or I applied for this opportunity, but I wasn’t accepted. Another bigger company or a company with more experience have actually competed with me, and they got the contract, or they got the financial result. What we’re going to do, in addition to awareness, we’re also working on capacity building with businesses on how to have a solid proposal and how to write a proposal that would be of interest for the development partner to support. This will be done in the next year. We have a plan for this, and hopefully, we know the ecosystem, especially for startups and also for SMEs.

Mahitab Assran: For our online participants, I know there’s an issue with the audio now. We’re working on it, but if you want to send us your questions in the chat, I can read it out to our speakers. I’ll maybe give it a few minutes, and if any of our participants here have any questions. All right, then. Thank you to our speakers. Thank you, Alan, for joining us from Uganda and for your valuable insights. Thank you for having me. It’s been a real pleasure. Thank you. I invite anyone who would like to partner in accessing the East Africa market to reach out to you, and then maybe you will be able to connect them. Yes, for sure. Alan, thank you, Manisha. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you for your insights. It’s a pleasure having you. Thank you for our audience. Thank you all. Bye. Bye.

Agreement Points

Digital platforms enhance private sector engagement in development

Tamer Taha

Manija Gardizi

Speaker 1

Hefez platform bridges information and financial gaps

Platform enables access for smaller players in development cooperation

iVenture connects startups to opportunities across Africa

All speakers agree that digital platforms play a crucial role in connecting private sector businesses, especially smaller players and startups, with development opportunities across Africa.

Need for improved regulatory frameworks to facilitate cross-border collaboration

Manija Gardizi

Speaker 1

Need for mutual agreements on e-signatures to facilitate trade

E-signatures would help startups scale across borders

Both speakers emphasize the importance of implementing e-signatures and mutual agreements to facilitate cross-border trade and collaboration for businesses in Africa.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the potential of digital solutions to overcome infrastructure limitations and enhance inter-African trade, particularly for startups and technologies.

Tamer Taha

Speaker 1

Digital solutions overcome infrastructure limitations

Connecting local platforms can enhance inter-African trade

Unexpected Consensus

Focus on smaller enterprises and startups

Tamer Taha

Manija Gardizi

Speaker 1

Platform enables access for smaller players in development cooperation

Platforms foster innovation by enabling startups to enter development market

iVenture connects startups to opportunities across Africa

There was an unexpected consensus among all speakers on the importance of focusing on smaller enterprises and startups in development cooperation. This emphasis on smaller players challenges the traditional dominance of large, established companies in the sector.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the importance of digital platforms in connecting private sector to development opportunities, the need for improved regulatory frameworks to facilitate cross-border collaboration, and the focus on smaller enterprises and startups in development cooperation.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers on the potential of digital platforms to transform private sector engagement in development across Africa. This consensus implies a strong foundation for future collaboration and policy-making in this area, potentially leading to more inclusive and innovative approaches to development cooperation in the region.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to overcoming infrastructure limitations

Tamer Taha

Speaker 1

Hefez platform bridges information and financial gaps

Digital solutions overcome infrastructure limitations

While Tamer Taha focuses on bridging information and financial gaps through a comprehensive platform, Speaker 1 emphasizes using low-level tech and social media to overcome infrastructure limitations.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement were minor and primarily focused on different approaches to addressing infrastructure limitations and the specific implementation of e-signatures.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers was relatively low. Most speakers presented complementary views on improving private sector engagement in development and facilitating intra-African trade. The differences in approach reflect the diverse perspectives of development partners, platform providers, and startup representatives, which could lead to more comprehensive solutions when combined.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of e-signatures for facilitating trade and expansion, but Manija Gardizi emphasizes the need for government-level mutual agreements, while Speaker 1 focuses on the benefits for startups scaling across borders.

Manija Gardizi

Speaker 1

Need for mutual agreements on e-signatures to facilitate trade

E-signatures would help startups scale across borders

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the potential of digital solutions to overcome infrastructure limitations and enhance inter-African trade, particularly for startups and technologies.

Tamer Taha

Speaker 1

Digital solutions overcome infrastructure limitations

Connecting local platforms can enhance inter-African trade

Key Takeaways

Digital platforms like Hefez and iVenture are playing a crucial role in connecting private sector businesses, especially SMEs and startups, to development opportunities across Africa

These platforms help overcome information gaps and infrastructure limitations, enabling broader participation in development projects

There is a need for regulatory improvements, particularly around e-signatures, to facilitate intra-African trade and investment

Collaboration between local platforms and soft landing programs can enhance inter-African trade and help businesses expand across borders

Awareness campaigns and capacity building for SMEs are necessary to maximize the impact of these digital platforms

Resolutions and Action Items

Hefez to implement a new matchmaking feature to enhance partnerships between different stakeholders

Hefez to conduct roadshows across Egypt in 2025 to raise awareness about the platform

Hefez to provide capacity building for businesses on writing solid proposals for development partners

Unresolved Issues

How to address varying levels of digital infrastructure across different African countries and regions

How to ensure equal access to opportunities for businesses in rural or underserved areas

How to overcome cultural and regulatory differences when expanding businesses across African borders

Suggested Compromises

Using low-level tech and social media platforms to reach entrepreneurs in areas with limited internet access

Creating soft landing programs to help entrepreneurs understand regulatory environments in different countries

Actually they’re like Egypt and the Egyptian private sector have a lot of opportunities and potential to expand to the African region especially in sectors that we know Egyptian companies are competitive in like construction and manufacturing and so on yet there was a challenge on who to talk to in Africa or in any other country

speaker

Tamer Taha

reason

This comment highlights a key challenge in cross-border business expansion and sets up the need for platforms like Hefez.

impact

It framed the discussion around the importance of information sharing and networking across African countries, leading to further exploration of how digital platforms can address these challenges.

For us as GIZ it was very very important to enable access actually also to smaller and medium-sized companies since in the development sector a lot of same and similar players and it’s basically often a dozen of them and the big ones like McKinsey etc are actually using the bidding and the tender situation of development companies.

speaker

Manija Gardizi

reason

This insight reveals the current imbalance in access to development opportunities and the need for more inclusive platforms.

impact

It shifted the conversation to focus on how digital platforms can level the playing field for smaller businesses, leading to discussion of specific features and benefits of such platforms.

How we’ve been able to overcome this challenge is number one, to use low-level tech, not real-time tech. That means you get to post these opportunities on the platforms where these entrepreneurs are even in their leisure. For instance, Facebook.

speaker

Allan Ananulu

reason

This comment provides a practical solution to the challenge of limited digital infrastructure in some African regions.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include innovative ways of reaching underserved communities and highlighted the importance of adapting to local conditions.

From a very, very clear legislation perspective, the governments need to be here on board, and the governments basically need to have a mutual recognition of their own different e-signatures in order to facilitate more trade opportunities for these small, medium and large-sized business entrepreneurs.

speaker

Manija Gardizi

reason

This comment identifies a specific regulatory challenge and potential solution for enhancing cross-border trade.

impact

It steered the conversation towards the role of government and policy in facilitating digital trade, leading to further discussion on regulatory obstacles and potential solutions.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting the main challenges in cross-border collaboration and trade in Africa, such as information gaps, unequal access to opportunities, infrastructure limitations, and regulatory barriers. They also introduced potential solutions through digital platforms, innovative tech approaches, and policy changes. The discussion evolved from identifying problems to exploring practical solutions and considering the roles of various stakeholders in implementing these solutions. This progression provided a comprehensive view of the complexities involved in enhancing private sector engagement across Africa and the potential of digital platforms to address these challenges.

How can digital platforms like Hefez and iVenture overcome obstacles of lack of infrastructure to reach underserved communities?

speaker

Mahitab Assran

explanation

This question addresses the challenge of varying levels of infrastructure across Africa and how digital solutions can be adapted to reach areas with limited connectivity.

What more can be done in terms of regulation to support private sector enterprises in intra-African trade?

speaker

Mahitab Assran

explanation

This question explores the regulatory and legislative steps needed to better facilitate trade and investment between African countries.

How can e-signatures be implemented across African countries to facilitate trade and cooperation?

speaker

Manija Gardizi

explanation

The implementation of e-signatures was suggested as a way to improve sustainable cooperation and trade opportunities on a bilateral and regional level.

How can soft landing programs be developed to help entrepreneurs expand into new African markets?

speaker

Tamer Taha

explanation

This area for research focuses on creating programs to help entrepreneurs learn about regulatory environments in different African countries and partner with local startups.

Does the Hefez platform incorporate opportunities provided by venture capitalists or angel investors?

speaker

Ahmed (audience member)

explanation

This question seeks to understand the scope of financial opportunities available on the Hefez platform, particularly for startups.

How will awareness of the Hefez platform be increased, especially in rural areas?

speaker

Ahmed (audience member)

explanation

This question addresses the need for outreach and communication strategies to ensure widespread knowledge and use of the platform.

How can businesses be better prepared to compete for opportunities on platforms like Hefez?

speaker

Tamer Taha

explanation

This area for further research involves developing capacity-building programs to help businesses create more competitive proposals for development partner opportunities.

Summary

This discussion focused on the challenges and opportunities of global digital adoption, addressing both the need to connect the unconnected and the implications of bringing large populations online. Panelists emphasized the importance of connectivity for economic empowerment, education, and healthcare, sharing personal stories to illustrate its impact. They highlighted barriers such as infrastructure costs, device affordability, and lack of relevant content and skills.

The conversation stressed the need for collaboration between governments, private sector, and civil society to create enabling policy environments and incentivize investments. Speakers discussed various approaches, including community-centered connectivity solutions, open-source technologies, and digital public infrastructure. The role of emerging technologies like AI in bridging digital divides was explored, with examples of how they can enhance accessibility and create localized solutions.

Panelists also addressed the challenges that come with increased connectivity, such as online safety and mental health concerns, particularly for young users. The importance of digital literacy and skills development was emphasized, along with the need to involve youth meaningfully in shaping digital policies and technologies.

The discussion highlighted successful examples of technology use in civic participation, healthcare, and education from various countries. Speakers stressed the importance of creating inclusive digital ecosystems that respect local cultures and languages. The overall consensus was that while technology presents challenges, it also offers powerful tools for solving global issues when implemented thoughtfully and collaboratively.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of connecting everyone to the internet and bridging the digital divide

– Challenges in providing connectivity, including infrastructure, affordability, and digital literacy

– The need for public-private partnerships and multi-stakeholder cooperation to expand connectivity

– Leveraging emerging technologies like AI to provide inclusive access and services

– Ensuring online safety, digital skills, and meaningful use of technology, especially for youth

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore ways to expand internet connectivity globally while also addressing the challenges that come with bringing large populations online rapidly.

The tone of the discussion was largely optimistic and solution-oriented. Speakers highlighted positive examples of how technology is being used to empower communities and improve lives. At the same time, there was acknowledgment of the significant challenges that remain in bridging digital divides. The conversation maintained a constructive tone focused on collaboration and innovative approaches to expand meaningful connectivity.

Speakers

– Timea Suto – Global digital policy lead at the International Chamber of Commerce, moderator

– Gbenga Sesan – Executive Director at Paradigm Initiative

– Thelma Quaye – Director of Digital Infrastructure Skills and Empowerment at Smart Africa

– Sally Wentworth – President and CEO of the Internet Society

– Takuo Imagawa – Vice Minister, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan

– Alaa Abdulaal – Chief of Digital Economy Foresight at the Digital Cooperation Organization

– Jose Renato Laranjeira de Pereira – Co-founder of the Laboratory of Public Policy and Internet, researcher at the University of Bonn in Sustainable AI Lab

– Shivnath Thukral – Vice President for Public Policy for META in India

– Tami Bhaumik – Vice President, Civility and Partnerships at Roblox, Chair of the Board of the Family Online Safety Institute

Additional speakers:

– Audience members (various unnamed individuals who asked questions or made comments)

Revised Summary of Global Digital Adoption Discussion

Introduction and Key Themes

This discussion brought together experts from various sectors to explore the challenges and opportunities of global digital adoption. The conversation focused on strategies for connecting the unconnected, addressing the implications of rapidly bringing large populations online, and leveraging technology for development. Speakers shared personal experiences and case studies to illustrate the impact of connectivity on economic empowerment, education, and healthcare.

Key themes that emerged included:

1. The critical importance of internet connectivity for development

2. Challenges and opportunities of expanding digital access

3. The role of different stakeholders in advancing digital inclusion

4. Leveraging technology for development and public services

5. The importance of digital literacy and safety education

6. Including youth and local communities in technology development and policy-making

Importance of Connectivity and Digital Inclusion

Speakers unanimously agreed on the critical importance of internet connectivity for development. Gbenga Sesan emphasised that “connectivity could be a matter of life and death”, highlighting its role in enabling access to healthcare and education. Thelma Quaye provided context, noting that only 40% of Africans are connected to the internet due to infrastructure and affordability challenges.

Different approaches to achieving connectivity were discussed:

– Sally Wentworth advocated for community-centred connectivity approaches, empowering local communities to build and maintain their own networks.

– Takuo Imagawa highlighted Japan’s success in achieving near-universal connectivity through a mix of competition policy and government support. He also mentioned Japan’s initiatives in promoting research and development of non-terrestrial network technologies.

– Shivnath Thukral discussed the potential of open-source technologies and AI to bridge connectivity gaps and language barriers.

Challenges and Opportunities of Bringing People Online

While expanding connectivity was a primary focus, speakers also addressed the challenges that come with increased internet access:

– Thelma Quaye emphasized the need for relevant content, affordability of devices, and political will to solve connectivity issues.

– Sally Wentworth stressed the importance of ensuring people have the skills to participate safely and securely in the digital economy once connected.

– Jose Renato Laranjeira de Pereira highlighted that indigenous communities face both benefits and risks from increased connectivity.

– Tami Bhaumik emphasised the importance of digital literacy and safety education, especially for children and parents.

Speakers also noted positive outcomes of increased connectivity:

– Gbenga Sesan pointed out that technology enables civic participation and political engagement for young people, citing the example of the ReVoter app used for election monitoring in Nigeria.

– Alaa Abdulaal mentioned the potential of platforms for sharing digital solutions between countries to accelerate adoption, highlighting the Digital Cooperation Organization’s Digital Economy Navigator tool and Impact platform.

Role of Different Stakeholders in Advancing Digital Inclusion

The discussion highlighted the need for collaboration between various stakeholders:

– Thelma Quaye argued for government intervention and public-private partnerships to connect underserved areas.

– Takuo Imagawa emphasised the importance of multistakeholder cooperation to address digital divide challenges.

– Tami Bhaumik discussed the responsibility of technology companies to develop safety tools and digital literacy resources, mentioning Roblox’s partnership with the UN to develop helplines for developing nations.

– Sally Wentworth noted that civil society coalitions can leverage technology to advocate for better policies, citing the example of the global encryption coalition.

Leveraging Technology for Development and Public Services

Speakers provided various examples of how technology is being used to address development challenges:

– Shivnath Thukral discussed how AI and open-source technologies can enable localised solutions for agriculture, education, and government services in India.

– Jose Renato Laranjeira de Pereira mentioned platforms connecting homeless workers to job opportunities as an example of appropriating technology for social good.

– An audience member highlighted how technology facilitates transparency and citizen engagement in governance and constitution-making, citing a digital platform for constitutional feedback in Guinea.

– Thelma Quaye shared how AI-powered drones are improving healthcare delivery in remote areas of Rwanda and mentioned Smart Africa’s work in using AI to harmonize policies across countries.

– An audience member emphasized the importance of maintaining analog options alongside digital solutions for public services.

Importance of Digital Literacy and Safety Education

Throughout the discussion, speakers emphasized the critical role of digital literacy and safety education:

– Tami Bhaumik stressed the need for comprehensive digital literacy programs targeting both children and parents.

– Sally Wentworth highlighted the importance of equipping people with skills to navigate the digital world safely and securely.

– Speakers agreed that digital literacy should be integrated into education systems from an early age.

Including Youth and Local Communities in Technology Development and Policy-Making

Several speakers emphasized the importance of involving youth and local communities in shaping digital technologies and policies:

– Tami Bhaumik advocated for including teens and youth in the development of online safety policies and technologies.

– Jose Renato Laranjeira de Pereira stressed the importance of involving indigenous communities in decisions about technology adoption.

– Gbenga Sesan highlighted how young people are leveraging technology for civic engagement and political participation.

Key Takeaways and Action Items

1. Develop platforms for sharing successful digital solutions between countries.

2. Integrate digital literacy into education systems from an early age.

3. Create safety tools and resources for parents and children using online platforms.

4. Involve youth meaningfully in technology policy development processes.

5. Use a mix of government support and market competition to expand connectivity.

6. Maintain analog options for public services alongside digital solutions.

7. Leverage open-source technologies to enable localised and sovereign digital solutions.

8. Address affordability issues for devices and connectivity in low-income areas.

9. Ensure equitable access to emerging technologies like AI across different regions.

10. Use AI tools to make constitutional drafting and legal processes more interactive and accessible to citizens.

Conclusion

The discussion highlighted the complex and multifaceted nature of global digital adoption. While there was strong agreement on the importance of connectivity and the need for collaborative approaches, the conversation also revealed the challenges of balancing rapid digitalisation with safety, cultural preservation, and equitable access. The speakers’ diverse perspectives and experiences underscored the need for context-specific solutions and ongoing dialogue to ensure that digital technologies are leveraged effectively and responsibly for global development.

Moving forward, priorities should include:

1. Developing comprehensive strategies to address connectivity gaps, particularly in underserved areas.

2. Investing in digital literacy and safety education programs.

3. Creating mechanisms for meaningful youth and community involvement in technology policy.

4. Fostering international cooperation to share best practices and digital solutions.

5. Ensuring that digital transformation respects and preserves cultural values while promoting development.

By addressing these priorities, stakeholders can work towards a more inclusive and equitable digital future that harnesses the power of technology to drive sustainable development and improve lives globally.

Timea Suto: managing the challenges of global digital adoption. My name is Timea Suto, I’m going to be your moderator today. In my day job I am global digital policy lead at the International Chamber of Commerce. Today we are gathering for this main session under the theme of the IGF, harnessing innovation and balancing risk in the digital space, which I think is one of the main themes of all of the conversations we’ve been recently having on digital policy and internet governance, so it’s quite timely that we address this here at the IGF. What we will try and do in this session is connect two parts that I like to say that come with bringing people online. First of all, what can we do to actually make sure that everyone, everywhere, every day has connectivity, that they are able to connect to the internet, that they are able to access services that are relevant to them, that they are in their own languages, and that they can actually make use of, that want them to come online. And then of course that everybody has the skills to make sure that they can participate once in the online world, once they are online, whether that it’s for a social activity, whether that it’s for an economic activity, or whatever other service they want to access. But then once we bring populations online, and as we carry on doing, what happens then? Is that the end goal, to bring people online? Have we solved everything once everybody is connected? And that is going to be the second part of our session. What are the challenges of actually bringing a lot of people online at the same time, and what happens once they are online? So these are the two actual main themes that we would like to discover in this session together, and I have a distinguished list of panelists here to help me answer those questions. I’m very glad I don’t have to bring the answers, I will be just asking the questions today. So first we will have Mr. Gbenga Sesan, Executive Director at Paradigm Initiative. Then we hope we will be joined by Ms. Thelma Quay, we’re waiting for her to join our session, Director of Digital Infrastructure Skills and Empowerment at Smart Africa. Then we have Ms. Sally Wentworth, President and CEO of the Internet Society. Dr. Takuo Imagawa, Vice Minister, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan. Ms. Alaa Abdullah, Chief of Digital Economy Foresight at the Digital Cooperation Organization. Mr. José Renato Laranjeira de Pereira, Co-founder of the Laboratory of Public Policy and Internet, and a researcher at the University of Bonn in Sustainable AI Lab. Hi Thelma, so great to have you. Then we have Mr. Srimad Tukral, Vice President for Public Policy for META in India. And then last but not least, Ms. Tami Bhaumik, Vice President, Civility and Partnerships at Roblox, also the Chair of the Board of the Family Online Safety Institute. So without further ado, we are going to jump into our first segment of the panel, trying to figure out how we make sure that we bring everybody online, what is still left to do in this very important task. And after we hear first from the half of the panel, we’ll turn to questions and comments from the floor. So please know there will be microphones circulating around the room. room when you are ready to ask your questions. So as the speakers are speaking, think of what you might want to ask them as they speak. So my first speaker today is Gbenga Sesan, and, Sibenga, I’d like to ask you a little bit about why is it so important that we connect everybody? Why is it so important, especially to connect those who are living in remote or hard to access areas, and how does this work in your region?

Gbenga Sesan: Thank you. I’m tempted to say, and I will say, connectivity could be a matter of life and death. We write an annual report on digital rights and inclusion at Paradigm Initiative, and one of the stories that really, really, really paints this picture for me is a story of a woman who was three minutes away from missing medical intervention, because the telecom services in our country were shut down, but someone just knew that it was just mobile phone connectivity that was shut down, and they could get Wi-Fi signal to make a voice over IP call. It sounds like when we talk about connectivity, at times it sounds like, oh, it’s nice to have, but in many cases, in health care, it could be a matter of life and death. In education, it’s a matter, it’s a difference between somebody who was born into poverty and who walks to literally eradicate poverty in just one generation. We do training programs for young people, and one of the stories that I love is the story of Famous and also the story of Esther, but let me tell one of the stories. Famous was told by his parents, you’ve gone through secondary school, that’s it, that’s all we have. Your younger sister has to go to school, so when you get to SS3 and you graduate, go find a job somewhere at a factory and just work there. Famous walked down the street and found our training center in his local community, a slum in Lagos, Nigeria called Ajegunle. He walked in, saw that we had computers, showed interest, signed up for a six-week training program. After six weeks, Famous paid, for some reason, paid attention to Microsoft Excel. He just loves spreadsheets, and we asked him, why spreadsheets? Well, he says, it sounds cool, spreadsheets. That was what made a difference in his life, because a few months after he finished, he saw an advertisement for an internship. He applied for it. He got the internship at the UK Deputy High Commission in Lagos. While he was on that internship, he saw another opportunity for a full-time job at the UK High Commission in Abuja, and when he told me he was going to apply, I was like, well, maybe not. You don’t have a degree, and there are not too many people who will be able to apply for this. But of course, he was so sure of his knowledge of spreadsheets, he applied, and he got the job. To cut a long story short, Famous got the job. His excitement was that the embassy sent a car to his house, because he needed to fly for the interview, and that if he didn’t get a job, that was fine. But he got the job, spent six months on that job, resigned because he had saved enough, went to the university, graduated, got a job at KPMG. That was in 2009, sorry, not 2009. Today, Famous is a manager at KPMG in New Jersey. That is what is possible with connecting people. It is not theory. It is my story. It is Famous’s story. It is a story of every young woman, every young man who gets access to opportunities. It is a story of every person who has access to healthcare, because they can connect with the services, even though they have as many doctors in the village. But this is why it is important. Every time we say we must connect the rest of the world, the last third of the world, we’re not saying that because it’s nice to have, because we would like to say that in Riyadh, so that everybody will hear it. It’s because just as we found out during COVID, businesses, education, healthcare will come to a standstill, especially in the times of emergency, if we do not have connectivity. And that is why it’s important. It is important because if the story of Famous were told without connectivity, it would most likely be working in a factory, which is not a bad thing, if that is the only chance you have. But right now, his entire family has moved, one generation has moved out of poverty because of his chance connection to training, mentorship, and connectivity. And that is what we must do for the rest of the world.

Timea Suto: Well, I think that’s a very inspiring start for this conversation. There is no better stories than the personal development stories to actually illustrate and make it real of why we are doing what we are all doing in our day jobs and why we are talking about this up on this stage. With that, I’m going to turn to Thelma, and to follow the same sort of question that I’ve addressed to Pramila, I’d just like to ask a little bit about your views and Smart Africa’s views of connecting the next billions, and what do you think are the barriers that exist still for us achieving the goal of connecting everybody?

Thelma Quaye: Thank you very much. And apologies, I was in another session that took a bit of time. So you know, there are a lot of Famouses, and another perspective to it is, I also have a story of a lady called Aisha, and for her, she hasn’t gone through training, but for her it was just the access to a phone and WhatsApp, that’s changed her life in terms of her business. She sells shea butter in Ghana in her small locality, but when she was able to afford a phone, which we know is one of the barriers, when she was able to afford connectivity, So, for me, it’s a utility, just like we are fighting for electricity, water, Internet, it’s equally a utility. But then, what are the barriers? Why do we still have only 40% of Africans connected to the Internet? Why do we still have so little access to the Internet? So, for me, it’s a utility, just like we are fighting for electricity, water, Internet, it’s equally a utility. Why do we still have only 40% of Africans connected? Traditionally, it has been the mobile network operators investing. Africa is connected because we have a lot of mobile network operators investing. But then, they are at the point where it doesn’t make business sense now. Putting up a tower in that village where Aisha lives doesn’t make business sense. Because the number of people there will just not make the return on investment. So, we need government intervention now. It doesn’t have to be a private sector thing anymore. It has to be a PPP where government is now investing in infrastructure, for instance, and giving this infrastructure to the private sector to build upon. It has to be also a collaborative effort, for instance, where private sector or the Internet service providers are now agreeing that let’s share infrastructure to reduce our costs, for instance. So, that’s one challenge. The other challenge has been, you know, the likes of Aisha, when you give her a phone, what does she do with it? If you look at the content structure of Africa, a lot of our content, Internet content, is on entertainment. And so, a lot of them will not understand what they have to do with it, if it’s just entertainment. But if we then now put content that allows them to learn, or even allows them to trade their words, or we teach them how to sell their words, the economic activity, if we give them content that are relevant, then they are able to, you know, make use of it. And then, finally, is, you know, the cost of handsets. I think this morning, Ms. Bogdan-Martin mentioned it, how expensive it is to get a handset. We tried in Rwanda, with Marathons, to try and assemble phones, so it becomes cheaper, but it wasn’t cheap. The cheapest was around $120. That’s very expensive for the average African. So, we need to also see how we make devices cheaper. Now, I’m not talking about future phones, because we did a survey with the youth, and they said, look, I want that iPhone that you’re holding, but I want it at the cost that I can afford. I don’t want to buy it at that amount. So, we need to talk to, and I know there are stakeholders here, the Googles of this world, the Qualcomm’s, the people in, part of bringing a device, but also the government, on the government side. What are the taxes that can be taken out? What are the incentives that can be taken out to make these smartphones, not future phones, smartphones affordable so we can all use it? In fact, if you look at the coverage, you know, situation of Africa, over 80% has mobile coverage. But 40% are connected, and that’s because of affordability. And then there comes skills, and then, you know, relevancy of the content. And these are all things that we can do about, we can do something about. The only thing that I think we’ve talked too much about and done nothing is the investment part. In terms of the government coming in to invest, we have the universal service access funds. If you check the status of these funds across some countries, some are dormant, some are being used for all sorts of other things that are not, you know, that they are not supposed to be used for. So why don’t we go back to why these funds were created to solve the situation? For me, I think we’ve spoken about it for too long. The solution lies in front of us, and governments are able if their will is there. So the issue, one other barrier I’ll add before I end is the political will. We need to have that political will to solve this issue. Let’s not, you know, continue talking. We can do something about it, and let’s do something about it. Thank you.

Timea Suto: Thank you very much, Thelma. There’s quite a lot in a very short intervention, but I think what is important to bring out, because it showed up a number of times as you were speaking, is this need of the private sector and the public sector cooperation, and creating those policy incentives together to make sure that the market works in every region and in every circumstance, and that actually requires a lot of collaboration between the government and the private sector. So I’m going to turn to Sally, who has worked on this issue for quite some time now, and in coming into this role that you have now with ISOC, I’m just asking what is ISOC’s perspectives on these issues, and what are some of the work that you have done in this area together?

Sally Wentworth: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this topic. This topic of connectivity is one that’s very near to the Internet Society’s heart. Our mission and vision is that the Internet is for everyone. And so the fact that we still have over a third of the world’s population not connected to the Internet means that we have a lot of work to do, and that’s work that the Internet Society is very committed to. I was taken with the stories of my colleagues before me, and particularly the story of Aisha, where she’s in a community where there may not be a business incentive to connect. The Internet Society has been in the space of connecting hard-to-reach communities for whom there may not be an initial business incentive, and what we do is really look at a community-centered approach, a bottom-up approach to connectivity that ensures that people in their local communities are empowered, are resourced, are trained, and are skilled enough to build the community networks or to build the networks for themselves. We believe that with a small investment, and we have quite a bit of experience with this, that local communities that are supported in this way can build the networks, they can maintain the networks, they can sustain their connectivity, and ultimately they can defend it. And that is a hugely powerful model of connectivity that I think we need to look more at as a global community as we think about how we bridge this final digital divide. We have done this since 2020. We have provided funding and technical assistance to over 60 community-centered connectivity solutions around the world, and this is a major part of our strategy going forward. And I was asked to provide a few examples, and just a few minutes before I walked in here, I stopped by the booth of the Internet Society chapter in Tanzania, who last year was awarded with the WSIS Prize for the Tanzania Digital Inclusion Project, which really does embody this community-centered connectivity approach. And here, what they say is that they have connected over 1,800 citizens to affordable and meaningful broadband internet, trained 4,000 youth and women… on essential digital skills, are training teachers on e-learning skills. This is all being done by the local community for themselves. They understand what is needed, they understand what the gap is, and by ensuring that through, in this case, a chapter, that ensures that that connectivity is sustainable over the long run. They’re actually, interestingly now, looking at a program to make the smartphones more affordable, particularly for women entrepreneurs, through a financing program that allows them to use this technology then for their own social enterprises and the like. We’ve seen these kind of solutions work both in Africa, outside of Africa. We were very happy to deploy the highest community network in the world, in Mount Everest, to connect the Sherpa communities in Nepal, who are feeling the effects of climate change on their economy, and the lack of connectivity has been a real barrier for their people to participate in the digital economy going forward. By connecting that community, they now have access to medical care, but also to skills and training opportunities that might expand the economies in those communities. Airbnb is coming in. Some of the Sherpas are now opening their homes via Airbnb, and again, providing different kinds of opportunities for that community to participate in the global digital economy. So this model of community-centered connectivity, we don’t have to wait for the solutions to come in. Communities can connect themselves, I think is a powerful approach to this, and one that, again, as I said, the Internet Society has been committed to and will continue to be committed to. Going forward, and I know this is the topic for the second part of this panel, what we wanna really think about and work with partners on is, as we’re bringing these populations online, how do we ensure that they have the skills and the expertise to participate in the global digital economy safely and securely? So it’s not enough to just bring connectivity in. We need to ensure that people have the skills to participate safely and in a way that gives them confidence that their information is protected and that they feel safe and secure. So these are things that we’re taking very seriously and I think are important as we think about how we bring connectivity to the final 2 billion people who are not online.

Timea Suto: Thank you, Sally. You’ve mentioned the importance of making sure that in the communities, there are ways of building up networks. There’s the importance then to connect the small networks to the larger grid and also making this work in a way that it works in investment, it works for the trainings, and it works for the long-term sustainability and resilience of these networks. So there’s a lot of works between the various different partners and stakeholders on making all of this happen. I’m curious, Dr. Imagawa, how do you see this from the Japanese perspective and from your perspective in sitting in the government? What are the actions that governments can take to help incentivize connectivity?

Takuo Imagawa: Well, thank you, Chair. I looked at a little bit different point of view in this panel. Well, despite the advancement in digital technology, there remain. the world. We have a global network of 2. 6 billion people worldwide who are not yet connected to the Internet and there are still many people who can fully enjoy the benefits of digital technology. It is crucial to further accelerate international cooperation to build an inclusive digital society. As you know, emerging technologies such as AI can only be effectively utilized when connectivity is realized. It is important to ensure that we have a global network of 2. 6 billion people worldwide who are not yet connected to the Internet and there are still many people who can fully enjoy the benefits of digital technology. Also, we should avoid letting these emerging technologies create a further divide. In addition to providing physical access, it is essential to ensure that these technologies are affordable and that individuals have the necessary literacy and skills. Also, we should continue the work on creating ASTRA and accessible networks for everyone. It is still overview, but the U.N. summit, the first thing listed in the IDBC and importance of UMC is mentioned. Commitment can’t be accomplished through the IGF. It is a very important issue and the IGF has been mentioned many times. Significant efforts have already been made and we need to continue building on these achievements. In particular, next year makes the WSIS plus 20 review. The WSIS initiative should be complementary to the follow-up of the GDC. During this upcoming review, it is necessary to consider the importance of multistakeholder efforts. The IGF provides a vital platform for diverse stakeholders in digital technologies to gather and engage in active discussions. This forum exemplifies the importance of multistakeholder efforts and we firmly believe that extending the IGF’s mandate is the right thing to do. Thank you. the digital divide. The role of the ITU is significant. We recognize that ITU is a substantial contribution to bridging the digital divide, especially in developed countries through their various initiatives. Japan will continue to support these efforts by the ITU. Please allow me to briefly introduce Japan’s domestic initiatives. Japan has significantly advanced its ability to strengthen individual journeys. In 2012, we saw the development of mobile phones, where the national coverage rate of optical web service for households reached 99. 9% of the population in 2023 and the coverage rate of mobile phones for households reached 99% of the population in 2003 and 2014. We believe that the most important coverage of both fiber and mobile are coming from the good mixture of competition policy and the government’s support for non-profitable regions. We have been promoting competition between the dominant incumbent and the entrance by the regulation as well as introducing the mechanism of so-called universal service fund and also financial subsidies to the players . In addition, Japan is promoting research and development of non-terrestrial or space network technologies, such as high altitude platform stations called HAPs, which provide connectivity in remote areas where communication infrastructure is not well established. This is part of our efforts to advance the next-generation communication infrastructure by beyond 5G or 6G. We are also assisting the capacity building programs of our digital users. the digitalization of the internet and the digitalization of the internet and the digitalization such as the use of the smartphones and the digital ID card called my number card or protection against cyber attacks and so on. So through such initiatives of the regulatory and financial frameworks as well as the digitalization of the internet, we are trying to bring in the digitalization of the internet and we would like to contribute to enhancing the global connectivity. Thank you.

Timea Suto: So as this was the first sort of thought starters ideas from the first half of our panel, so what we’re trying to take away here and what I hear a lot about is the need to try and find solutions that are sort of universal in spirit, but work at the local level. So I’m hearing calls for partnerships at the grassroots level to reach out and train and find the people and talk to them in their own, not just their own language, but the way that they live in their own situation. What I’m hearing calls for enabling policy environments to make sure that we work together, government, government-to-government partnerships, and we’re trying to make sure that we work together, governments, businesses, civil society, the technical community, to make sure that we incentivize investments, we incentivize trade and commerce to actually help facilitate affordability of connectivity and of devices. Incentivizing investment in skills and in training programs and, of course, then making sure that we incite the business cooperation at the global level and we come together in a forum to have these conversations and then cooperate with partners outside our local communities, outside our nations, to make sure this all works the same way that the Internet works at the global interconnected level. So we have a little bit of time to turn to the audience for some reactions on this, and then we’ll turn to the second panel. If you have any comments or questions, please wave your hand high so that my colleagues can see you. And when you speak, please introduce yourself.

Audience: Hello. My name is connecting ordinary citizens to the Internet. No, I’m just kidding. My name is Dr. Naza, Nicholas Kirama from Tanzania. And I wanted to make a comment on the effect of connecting schools to the internet. As when you get time, you go through our booth, you will see that we’ve been able to connect about 10 schools to the internet. And what we are getting from the schools that we have been able to connect in Tanzania is that the school students, there is a lot of improvement in terms of their grades that they are getting from their exams. And also, the teachers that we have engaged in our programs, they have been able to go online, access different courses, and through these courses, they have been able to improve their skills, their teaching skills, as well as upgrade, taking different free courses online. And before the connectivity, teachers were not able to access free courses online because the access was very limited. They didn’t have any broadband internet access in their schools. And with that, it was impossible for them to stay online for a long time to be able to study the courses online. So connecting schools, connecting the the communities, the ordinary citizen to broadband internet has enabled the communities that we save in Tanzania access digital opportunities online. So we have a lot of improvements in terms of grades, and also the teachers now can be able to read and improve their teaching skills online without ever looking over their shoulder that their data bundle is going to exhaust. So it is very important to continue to build alliances around the world to finance the connectivity for schools, connectivity for the rural communities, and also the underserved urban communities as well. So I think the idea of connecting people to digital opportunities online is very important because ultimately you will find yourself in a situation where when you connect people, the next frontier will be what sort of empowering skills that we need to deploy to these communities so that they can stay safe and they can feel comfortable to stay online. Thank you so much.

Timea Suto: Thank you for that comment. Indeed, I think a lot starts once we are able to get a school online or get a library online, because they are the hearts of the communities they function in, and then the ripple effect is clearly palpable. Do we have any other comments or questions? I don’t see anybody. There you are, sorry. Yes.

Audience: Hello, everyone. My name is Arjun Singh Bjoria. from Vizoria Foundation India. My question is that it’s based on the use of international AI in evaluation, the examination. Now, I just want to let you know. I want your opinion on how we can create a uniform framework for the evaluation of the students’ examination. Is it possible to create a uniform framework for the evaluation throughout the world? I just want your opinion on that. A uniform digital evaluation framework on the evaluation of students’ examinations.

Timea Suto: Thank you for that question. Would anybody from the panel care to respond to that question? Are we able to? The panel is asking if you could clarify your question.

Audience: Yes, certainly. In the education system, every degree having the final examination, right? Now, can we create a digital platform or a digital framework through which we can use the technology to evaluation of the students throughout the world? That is my question. Based on the technology, internet, and AI. Every country is having different evaluation process.

Timea Suto: Please, go ahead.

Shivnath Thukra: I can try and answer that question. Since you said you’re from India, there are many AI evaluation-based frameworks which have been created in the education space, both in the private sector and the civil society sector in the not-for-profit space. I can tell you one example. One of the partners that Meta in India works with is a foundation called Rocket Learning Systems. And all that they do is use AI evaluation on actual physical answer sheets by deploying thousands of teachers who… have based their evaluation by first physically evaluating them, and then they have created a machine learning tool to assess how they can give feedback digitally to improve upon the evaluation ecosystems. As a result, the feedback loop that the teachers have created is going back to the student at the end of it. And using AI analytics tool, they are able to point to them where they need to work harder. This is in the civil society space, not-for-profit space, and I’m happy to connect you with rocket learning. Similarly, in the private space, many of the edtech companies are doing the same thing. So one is to deliver education. The other is to assess education programs based on the tutorials that they run, how AI analytics can help them. I’m happy to share those examples async after the session as well. But yes, to answer your question, the possibility definitely exists. It is already being deployed. And what that would do is, which I was going to respond to when Tamir comes to me, is it solves two issues. One is of scale, given that in a country like India, for example, over a billion people, let’s say about 300 to 400 million students coming online every year, you will be able to solve the problem of scale of giving real-time feedback used on AI tools. And the second is the complexity of the language, which is a point I’m going to talk about in detail subsequently, is how using AI analytic tools, you can solve the language issue to give feedback to those, even if the teacher doesn’t know the language, AI tools can help understand better assessment of such frameworks.

Audience: Thank you, sir.

Timea Suto: Thank you for jumping in on that, Shivnath. I think we have time for one last question on this first segment of the panel, if there is anybody from the floor. My colleagues are getting a workout to make sure we get the microphone to you.

Audience: My name is Professor Nabi, I’m presenter of Creators Union of Arab in United Nations. So I was last year in Kyoto and the same problem was, we were talking about the same problem but actually I didn’t see any action plan. I’m sorry to say that I have some plan to do some rules, enforcement rules, and I’ll give you some examples. Why not we do like, if you need to promote as a faculty member in this area, so you have to teach some people in that area. We have to draw some rules in order to help some society in order to be educated enough to use the internet and so on. In Arabian Gulf for example, in all the countries, if you have a company, then you have to have some local people in your company in order to proceed. And this is their rights. And also their rights, the people who don’t have any connection in the internet, to enforce the people who has internet, to teach them in order to take your rights in your job, in your promotion, in your salary sometime, I’m sorry to say this. So we need an action plan in order, it’s called enforcement action plan in order to help those people in a different area. Thank you very much.

Timea Suto: Thank you for that. Would anybody from the panel like to address the important question, skills development? Can we have the microphone here? I can also speak.

Gbenga Sesan: Oh, it was switched off. Oh, it was switched off. I’m happy to speak to that and I think two things. One is the importance of skills. We can’t overemphasize that. The story I told earlier of Famos, the reason he was able to advance is because he picked the first skill in using spreadsheets and that led to others. But the second, which also ties into the story of skills, is the need to empower communities. You know, Sally spoke earlier about, and I think it’s really important. because learning is not just about the content, it’s also about the agency. It’s also about realizing the fact that this is not something given to me by others because they pity me. This is something that I am given access to. And I think this is really important. This is why one of the things, you know, when Thelma talked about the universal services funds earlier, I was pretty excited because we did a whole report on, and I will actually be speaking about that tomorrow at one of the lightning talks, about 26 African countries and what they have done with USFs. And you’re right. Many times, the solution we need to connect the last mile is already there. You’ve collected the money from the taxes, but we need action. And I think that’s the phrase you just used. We need people to be literally forced to act. So I think it’s important to have a sense of agency in learning, and it’s absolutely important to make sure that the community buys into it because we have done projects that were literally protected by the community. In one of those times, I was leading a project called Lagos Digital Village, and there was a situation where people were fighting and it became very violent. The security guards in the area who had children who were learning from the center came to my office, locked the door, locked the gate, and when everything happened and everything settled down, I asked them what was going on. They said, well, we were protecting you because you’re the one training our children, and we are protecting this center because if they destroy the computers in this center, our children and their children and the next generations will be as poor as we are. So I think when communities get a sense of agency and ownership, it not only helps to learn, it also helps to protect and to make this sustainable.

Tami Bhaumik: I can also add to it. Go ahead, please. So I couldn’t agree with you more. I’m Tami Bhaumik. I’m from Roblox, and I’ll get into a little bit more. I’ll explain what Roblox is, but I can’t agree with you more. I lead an area called civility at Roblox, and our sole focus is to bridge the education gap between children, parents, and teachers. And if we’re going to create a global community that will thrive in this next generation of the internet, we must educate everyone. And so our focus really is working with partners from around the world to make sure that we’re getting evidence-based data to be able to inform and educate parents. teachers and, you know, children so that they can grow up in a much safer place. But I can get into that during our session.

Timea Suto: Yes. Thank you so much, Tami. And I think that’s a great segue in going into the second half of the panel. We’ve heard a lot as we were talking here together with the audience, but also as I was listening to the first part of the panel on what happens once people are online. Whether it’s for education, accessing important services like healthcare, or their own maximum potential on the job market, or actually developing in entrepreneurship or making businesses grow. So those are all the positives, the great stories, what we want to happen. But of course, there’s also sometimes challenges with coming online. And so that’s what we try to address in the second part of the panel. So once people are online, what is it that we still need to do to make sure that connectivity is meaningful, that that actually works? So to start us off and sort of make the connection between the first half of the panel and the second, I’m going to turn to Alaa Abdullah from the Digital Cooperation Organization. And we’d love to hear from you, from the DCO perspective a little bit, how do you work to address digital divides, and what are the challenges that you see that come with rapid connectivity?

Alaa Abdullah: Hello, everyone. Good afternoon. I’m very honored, first of all, to be in this session, and even to be the first speaker to connect both aspects. And I would like to highlight some of the important points that my colleagues here in the panel have mentioned, which is looking at that there is almost more than a third of the people are still not connected. And then we talked about some skills that they need to be from a digital literacy perspective, and how it’s very important for everyone to have that. digital economy was and will be moving in the digital world as in the real world where we have to engage and share knowledge data and connecting data with personal data. So we had in two different countries to specifically this work about electronic information technology, to attend conversations about critical metals of course, from the start to the conversation in terms of the digital divide and the digital divide and the digital divide and the digital divide and the digital divide. So it is part of our objective and goal is to also bridge the digital divide and make sure that everyone is part of this ecosystem and the acceleration of digitalization that is going on. And for us to do that, let me go back. We are a four years old organization, so we are actually a four-year-old organization, and we have been doing this for a long time. We have been doing this for a long time, and it is very important for us to understand. Understand what are the different challenges that are hindering the progress and the participation to be part of this digital economy growth or even digitalization growth. And this is why we have done a lot of global roundtables. We have been doing it internally with leaders, nations, when in finals to know what is going on and decision-making regarding those challenges. And the insights were similar to what we are seeing, which is there is a lot of countries are struggling with, do they have the right infrastructure for them to be connected. Do the nations have the right skills when they are already connected? Are the policies and regulations from the country coming together to address these issues? And also, they are already facing a lot of challenges. And a lot more is there is cooperation between different countries and organization. Are the businesses involved in that process to combat these accidents. I was involved in learning but they So, I think that we need to start measuring things. I mean, we need to start measuring things, because, again, if we want to really make sure that everyone has a fair opportunity, we need to start measuring things. Because, again, just saying that there is a gap, there is a divide, we already have numbers that people, 2. 6 million people are not able to vote, 2. 6 million people are not connected, but, okay, how can we start measuring how countries can start progressing? And this is why we put it among ourselves in the DCO. We have that goal, okay, let’s first of all create a framework to look at the digital economy. Have that, and I think one of the audience who have asked, do we have a unified framework, and, yes, we do, but we need to build a unified framework, definition on how to measure the digital economy, what is needed for each country for them to progress, to grow, to have all the nation connected and have that fair opportunity. And we launched recently during the UNGA in New York, the digital economy navigator, which is a tool that we put the framework on how to measure the digital economy. We assessed 50 countries for them to understand where do they currently stand from a digital economy perspective. We put different level of categorization from a maturity perspective, identified that we have three dimensions, we need the right, we need to tackle it from a business perspective, from a society perspective, and then having a unified framework that we put the framework on how to measure the digital economy from a society perspective, and then having that dimension of what would enable identifying 11 pillars, different pillars from infrastructure, from digital transformation, having the right regulations, having the right digital skills, education, health, and different sectors. And then we assessed those 50 countries and gave where do they stand, what is the gap, how they can move forward. We’ve done that huge analysis through different lenses, through the 11 pillars that we have. We looked at different regions, because again, you need to create synergies. Not every country should work alone. We can work together, and you find all of these findings in the report that we have launched, and I hope that everyone had the chance to look at it, which is the Digital Economy Navigator report. With that set of recommendation, where we can start creating synergies targeted to government, targeted to private sector, where we all have to work together. Because again, we believe in the approach of cooperation. We are the Digital Cooperation Organization. Cooperation is our middle name, and this is how we try to work. Because we believe that we are in a world, we do not want to leave anyone behind. How can we guarantee we don’t leave anyone behind? We have to work together. So again, the Digital Economy Navigator, I think we believe that this navigator will help in starting to measure the maturity. To have that, if we identify what is the gap, let’s build actionable plan, which is also one of the audience was mentioning, and then let’s measure are we progressing or not towards those different pillars from, as we said, connectivity, skills, infrastructure. And for us, we took all of those findings. Those findings were not just a one-year work. We have been working for three years to gather the data and to really have that understanding to bridge the digital divide. And we created what we call the digital space accelerators. Those accelerators are focused on the challenges and the gaps that we are finding. Again, going back to finding the synergy between different stakeholders and different countries. The digital space accelerator, we identify each year specific topics that are very important that will help making sure that the future is inclusive and sustainable and that everyone has that fair opportunity to grow. And we try to have that multi-stakeholder approach where we create different topics with different groups. We bring governments on the table. We bring private sector, academia, experts, and we try to solve that challenge. We created a group for, which I have mentioned, women, women empowerment, how they can be empowered in the ICT and through the ICT. We created a group for misinformation online and how it’s important to solve that issue. Also AI, ethical use of AI, and differently, and we almost covered along 11 topics last year and this year. It’s all built on one mechanism, which is bringing all the right stakeholders, not only government, but government, private sector, think tanks, experts, and not only focusing on one country, rather than going, we go through different global roundtables to really capture the different aspects, different insights from and angles that each expert and each region can bring to. And we try to build those solutions. And again, there is a report in our website that reflects that journey. of the digital space accelerators and the different topics that we have, and it produced, this mechanism produced almost 11 publications that are giving specific, some of them are toolkits, some of them are for unified frameworks, policy recommendation, and we hope by this mechanism we really would help in bridging the digital divide. In addition, last but not least, that I want also to highlight of some of the cases that we are working on, which my colleagues mentioned the skills, and even enabling digital transformation for different businesses. We have what we call We Elevate, it’s a program that we have where we enable women-led businesses and help them to have the right skills to transform digitally from regular businesses to businesses online. This is giving them an opportunity not only to have a digitalization for the sake of digitalization, but even expand their businesses. Being online means having bigger outreach, being cross-border, and this really has been already launched in different countries of our member state, and we are targeting to digitalize 300 women businesses, giving them even the right skills and the courses that will enable them to be online. Just as a final point, I really iterate that we believe that cooperation is the solution. No one nation can work alone and solve all of the issue. It has to be a collaborative approach where countries work together, private sector, international organization, NGOs, all of us try to work together hand-in-hand to solve those challenges and bridge the digital divide.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much for that comprehensive presentation of all your work. What strikes me is the fact that you’re talking about collaboration between nations, which is very important, especially as we see how difficult it is sometimes for nations to agree on the way forward, so producing incentives, toolkits, opportunities for them to meet and collaborate and identify perhaps common challenges that require their common solutions is very important. But you’ve also mentioned sort of building blocks of the digital economy itself, starting from connectivity but working all the way up our way to the most recent technologies. So how do we move from bridging the divides for connectivity so that we can make sure that we are not widening the divides as we move rapidly along with the development of technology? So this brings me to José Renato because you work a lot on emerging technologies and how do you see connectivity as a prerequisite to where we need to arrive with AI and digital technologies and what do we need to enable access to everybody to those technologies as well?

José Renato Laranjeira de Pereira: Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here. Okay, it was a bit too loud maybe. Okay, thank you very much for having me. And yes, I have been looking a little bit, have been looking to this topic and I think that connectivity is, we have talked a lot about access, have talked about how we should universalize connectivity, access to digital tools as a whole and I think that we have been working on this for a while and we haven’t yet achieved it. We have not achieved this universalization yet but I think that we should also start thinking about how can we include, how can we have the allies of this community so they can also help shape the digital agenda, shape the digital futures. And we have, despite the many benefits that we can see that digitalization brings and I think that most of my colleagues here mentioned a lot of them, having access to job opportunities, having access to the possibility of learning, of reaching wider audiences. I think it also relates to like how can we include these people so that they can also think about how is the future of technology that they want in order to serve their own purposes and which includes also the purposes that we need in order to like solve climate issues, environmental issues as a whole. So for this I think that it’s very important that we look for instance to how local communities are using these technologies and are being impacted by them and I think that the Brazilian Amazon, especially among indigenous peoples, bring very important clues on what, where are we going and what are the challenges that we have and the opportunities out there. And most recently, especially in the last two years, we have been having what I see as a transformation out there. For years we have more indigenous communities being connected either through community networks or more traditional ways of having access to internet. But nowadays, especially when we look into the Amazon, where traditionally the Brazilian state and telecommunication companies have been failing to provide connectivity to these people, one new factor is out there which is low-earth orbit satellites, especially when you think about Starlink. And to some degree these technologies are allowing many of these peoples to communicate between themselves, to have access to social benefit, but at the same time they bring a whole new challenge which is they are also facilitating access to people who end up being enemies of these communities. And I’m talking here about invaders of indigenous territories, of illegal gold miners… land grabbers and so on. So this brings us to a paradox here. On the one hand these technologies are facilitating the capacity of indigenous to resist to these people but at the same time they’re contributing to the cycle of violence to be perpetuated and this is even more problematic when we think that, for instance, if you think about the Yanomami people in Brazil, their territory has been witnessing the invasion of many of these gold miners sometimes even to fuel the digital economy. They have been extracting gold and selling to many big corporations, big tech corporations that are across the world. So how can we be their allies in resisting against these challenges, especially when we consider that, and this is the case of many of the Yanomami communities, that they had to decide and sometimes even go against their own habits, their own ontologies to connect in order to resist these problematic features of both these invaders but also of how the industry develops itself as a whole. So something has to be changed and I think that it’s very important that these people end up participating in the design of these digital futures, both on a degree of developing these technologies but also of thinking about policymaking. And I think that forming issues should be pushed forward and we’re here in a form of multi-stakeholder forum and I think that we should think about possibilities for us to be allies of these groups. And I think that, first of all, and I think that has already been mentioned by many of my participants, digital literacy is fundamental and not just to use correctly these technologies but also to help them develop and critically assess what’s going on among them and also with regard to their infrastructure, so the infrastructures that relate, that are on the basis, on the fundamentals of these technologies. So the first, digital literacy. The second is their ability to help them address the risks of monopolies and I think that state action here is fundamental, thinking about how can we create alternatives, especially considering that Starlink is controlled by Elon Musk, who has been frequently challenging Brazilian authorities and failing to comply with many institutional demands that are made to him. Third would be to think about governance measures that allow for popular digital sovereignty. There are many movements happening in this regard. One of them is the homeless workers movement, which talks a lot about popular digital sovereignty, which is not only digital sovereignty on a state level but also to communities to control their data, to control their platforms. And finally, enabling, help build bridges so they can also participate in policymaking efforts. In Brazil, for instance, in the debates on AI regulation, we have already had three years of debate and only one indigenous representative, who was Chimeia Vaite, managed to participate. My organization is very happy to have been an ally in this stance, but this has to change. This has to change. And I think that as Davico Penao e Yanomami, who is a very important indigenous leader in Brazil, says, all of these mechanic machines should also be appropriated by these peoples, because it is their blood and their metals, the resources in their land, that are feeding them. So they should also find ways, should help them find ways to appropriate them, in order to shape these digital futures that I’m talking about. Some initiatives are already underway. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee is working a lot to connect these communities, along with many other organizations, including the Instituto Socioambiental. ISOC also participates in many community networks being built there, and beyond. But I think we should give a step further, and I think that COP30, which is going to take place in the Brazilian Amazon in 2025, is a very important forum for us to bring the discussion, how to find ways to bridge, to create bridges, so that these communities can participate in the shaping of these digital futures. Thank you very much.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much for that input, and for highlighting the need of not only connecting people to the… and the technologies but also connecting them to the conversations that we have about these technologies and make sure that we shape those together with those who we are trying to target. We have also mentioned emerging technologies and AI and we’ve kept hearing AI creep in in these sessions and I think it creeps in into every session that we have at the IGF recently. So I want to turn to Shivnath and ask a little bit about what you feel are the persisting challenges to achieve inclusivity not only in connectivity but at the end of the spectrum that we have, maybe not at the end of the spectrum generally, but where we are now with the development of technology. How do we connect people inclusively to the latest developments when we already see that we are facing challenges at the beginning of the spectrum also?

Shivnath Thukra: Thanks to you and thanks for inviting me, Meta from India on this panel. I will, in the spirit of being a very very diehard optimist, I’ll try to paint a more realistic, pragmatic and positive picture of what I see as the future and hopefully will address some of the concerns my friend Jose has but more importantly I want to pick a one-one line each from each of the speakers to try and create a framework of why we must use technology for the sake of technology. It is very important to sometimes sit back and think why have we failed over 2.3 billion people of this world so far. I’m sure Sally will agree that even if we give them network, even if we give them connectivity, it may still not solve for the need of the Internet because the Internet as we know in our languages may not be the Internet that we will be able to provide for them in their language or in the complexity of the environment they live in which is affordability, access to to device, et cetera. So I think if you step back, and Mr. Cezanne said, no one should be left behind. Internet is that critical if you provide it to people. Thelma said, the over-pivoting on private sector investment has not really led to the result that you want to see on the ground. Our friend from Japan said, could it be the futuristic technology like AI which helps us solve it? Ms. Abdullal said, cooperation between nations. Fully agree, and I’ll tell you why one by one. At Meta, we definitely feel the answer to this future is open source technologies, which Meta professes. And I will tell you two examples why so. Let’s take the issue of language. You said no one should be left behind. Today, it is possible using a program like NLLB 200, which Meta runs. It’s a program called No Language Left Behind, where almost 200 languages can be translated directly with each other. Normally, the framework of translation is you take a language, get it down to English, from English to the other language. Today, NLLB makes possible 200 languages to be translated directly. There’s an offering in the open source world called Universal Translator, where languages, which are known as low resource models, where you do not have a written script of a language. Those languages can be trained using AI models so that these languages become inclusive as a part of the general internet ecosystem. What is it that solving for is inclusivity. It is solving for those very people who are outside the world of the internet to be brought into the world of internet. So while we solve for physical connectivity, physical infrastructure, you must solve for this. Let’s look at some more examples of where open source technologies, like our large language models, Lama, has been able to help. And I will give you some Indian examples. I was telling my friend from India about examples in education. And we’ll talk about agriculture in our part of the world agriculture is a serious issue, right? But if you deploy open source technology, you can actually give the information relevant to the farmer on the device using llama There is a low-cost model of llama which you can deploy on the device It doesn’t need to be on some fancy computer with some fancy server supporting it. You can deploy it There is a startup in India called Kisan AI. Dr. Abdullah will talk about the startup ecosystem These are the kind of examples which can solve for it whereby they get relevant crop information Climate information in the era of climate disruption using their phone. They can have large language models So you said AI is the fashionable world AI is being deployed on the device not through some very sophisticated Ecosystem and they get real-time information. So that’s agriculture for you Student-led inclusivity Josie you talked about how do we make sure representation happens? One of the reasons representation doesn’t happen is because they feel overwhelmed by the lack of connectivity to the language of English For example in India, we are running a program with the Institute called Wadhwani Institute. It’s a very famous AI Institute where how to teach children English at local state level which Has largely education system delivered in local language. How can they learn? English skills similarly for the government one of the partnerships that Meta has deployed using AI tools is how to make sure somebody in a remote area finds the right skill set Training available on the government website governments actually have done a fabulous job of running programs But the missing link is how do people access it? So if let’s say in your region you’re running skilling programs But somebody doesn’t know how to go find that right skilling program this pilot that we are running allows them to connect by just Verbal assistance saying I am so and so from this region. I am in this language. I would like to learn about welding and the AI assistant can help them find the right course in the nearby geographical region. The long and short of this story is, with open source technologies, what are you achieving? Inclusivity, you’re achieving a lot of real-time feedback, making these models better, and the best part, which addresses, and I think, Josie, you mentioned about sovereign AI, we do not think it is in contradiction. When you adopt open source technologies, you can have local deployment. You don’t have to worry about your data floating elsewhere. You can use a large language model locally and create those solutions. Why is this possible? I think you talked about policy framework, super critical. Why do we need supportive policy frameworks? In India, for example, India’s now decently famous for what is known as digital public infrastructure. It was a government initiative. Government created the digital rails based on the identity layer to deliver solutions like payment. Today in India, almost on a daily basis, we have billions of transactions purely cashless using your phones. How is that possible? Because you created what is called digital infrastructure, which the government did, private sector built on it, and I think the DPI approach, the digital public infrastructure approach that the government took to AI, will be the next frontier, and I’ll tell you how. Government will build open compute resources, support open source technologies, open data sets, and support language translation models. If you combine all these four from a DPI perspective, many low-income countries, middle-income countries could leverage what they have not been able to do for 20 years within a few years. They don’t have to go through the whole evolution cycle. They can crunch that. I was at the India IGF last week. Mr. Changat, I spoke there, and he was talking about how the world is so diverse. For these 2.6 billion people, there is no uniform solution. AI could be that bridge. AI could be that glue which will bring all these people in. You start connecting the dots, create low-cost, localized solutions in their language to deliver not just citizen services from the government, but support an ecosystem, like a startup ecosystem like we have done for agriculture, for education, for payments, financial sector. I’m sure in our part of the world, small-ticket lending is an issue. Farmers want small-ticket loans. How do you use AI-based analytics to do that? I think the world is full of possibilities, according to me, and I think the next frontier of the 2.6 billion people will be solved for much faster if we are able to adopt and embrace open-source technologies, which is in sync with what the world needs. Thank you.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much for that, as you said, very optimistic perspective, but I think also a very tangible and real one on what technology can help us achieve. You said technology for the purpose of technology, but I don’t think you’re right. It’s not technology for the purpose of technology. It’s technology for the purpose of developing the potential that individual societies and businesses have. It’s not just to have the next one and the newest one, it’s to actually use it in a way that is helpful for the communities that are so diverse, as you said, and build the bridges to help them bring them along on where they feel they ought to be in their potential. I want to continue with that line, and Tommy, when you spoke, responding to the question you mentioned, how we need opportunities to empower people to have the relevant skills and training to access AI, and through that skills and training, we can actually help them address some of the safety issues that they might face when coming online, or the big unknown of connecting to the internet and the newest technologies. So perhaps you can expand a little bit on that now, and you have more time here to expand a bit what you and what Roblox does.

Tami Bhaumik: Thank you so much. What an honor to be here with all of you and hear your interesting perspectives. So what I’d like to do is focus, maybe take a little bit of time to share a little bit about what Roblox is. We are not quite as big as Meta. So I’d like to take some time to explain what Roblox is. So Roblox is a technology platform. It’s a place where people can come to learn, to work, to create, to communicate with one another. And a lot of people come to actually design and create games and experiences, publish it out on our platform to millions. We now have over 6 million active developers developing experiences. We have tens of millions of games and experiences on Roblox. Every type of game you can imagine. And it is a place where young people and children are thriving. It’s where they’re learning, it’s where they’re connecting with one another. And if you take a future vision of where this next generation will go, it is they will be in immersive worlds such as Roblox, learning with one another and doing things. It is, we have now 90 million daily active users on our platform. So we are large and we are global. And so from a connectivity standpoint, it’s so important to enable people from all generations to be able to connect with one another and learn from one another. The Roblox platform is someplace where they can do it. Because there are so many young people on our platform, we prioritize safety. So the area that I lead is called civility. And it is focused on, as I mentioned before, bridging the education gap between the generations, which is so important. It’s giving parents the tools and the knowledge to be able to help their children to thrive. online. So I have two daughters, and I actually laugh because I am in the technology industry, and when people talk about, you know, if you see something that bothers you, go to a parent or a trusted adult. I’m not this expert, right? So I’m not a doctor or an academic. How do I know? Parents have no idea how to guide their children in this new internet world. It is up to us collectively to make sure that we have the power to be able to educate parents so they can help their children to thrive, and that is through industry. Industry needs to be responsible. Technology companies need to be responsible to make sure that they have the education materials available and getting it out there. It is the responsibility of governments to make sure that they’re prioritizing digital literacy, not just as an afterthought, but truly and meaningfully integrating it into their education systems from the very beginning. By the time a child gets to 15 or 16 years old, it’s too late. We need to start thinking about educating them the moment they get a digital device into their hands, making sure that it’s age-appropriate and making sure that the information going to the child is evidence-based and it’s vetted. And so one of the things that we do at Roblox is we work with governments, we work with teacher organizations to make sure that we’re developing curriculum. As an example, in South Korea we’re developing a curriculum, a digital, a civility digital literacy curriculum for teachers and a separate one for parents. So many parents come and say to me that they are so scared of the world that their children the digital world their children are going into. But fear is driven by the unknown. And if we can educate them, the more that we educate parents, the less fearful they are. And so, at Roblox, our civility initiative is based on three different pillars. The first is safety. You gotta know how to use the safety tools. You need to know that they’re there, and that you need to know how to use them. If a bad actor comes on or you see bad content, you need to know where to report it. You need to know how to process it. That is something very important. The second is mental health and well-being. Loneliness is a global epidemic. Anxiety and depression, global epidemic. We need to wake up, we need to take this seriously, and we need to make sure that anywhere where there are young people, children, that we need to make sure that we’re giving them the lifelines necessary in order to help them thrive. That is helplines, that is, and I know that United Nations, in fact, we’re partners with United Nations in developing helplines for developing nations. That is, we need to make sure that those lifelines are available and easily accessible. I’ll give you an example. On Roblox, one of the things that we do in this world, we have a partner, Alo Yoga. They’re an exercise brand. They developed a mindfulness experience. It’s beautiful, beautiful music. It’s about meditation and the importance of meditation. Within the first five days, we had eight million people come on and learn how to meditate. The feedback that we got from that was amazing. we got from children was unbelievable. There was one child who said, my parents are getting a divorce. I’m so anxious and I’m so upset. But when I come into this experience, this Alo Yoga experience, and I put on my headphones, I can shut all that out and I can find peace. So technology is an area where we can bring that to young people. We have a responsibility to opening up these worlds that are positive and good so that they can learn from them. And then the final pillar that we focus on in civility is digital literacy. And so, again, knowing how to respond to a scam, knowing how to identify a scam, knowing when to, again, have a healthy relationship with technology, to know yourself. Every single one of us sitting here is different, and our relationship with technology should be different. Maybe the amount of time that I spend online maybe is not as much as somebody like you. Maybe you can actually handle it, handle a little bit more. So not everybody is the same. So again, technology firms have the responsibility to continue to innovate. Congress is continuously innovating and making sure that we’re developing safety tools, mental health support tools to allow people to adjust based upon their situation. So I think that one of the things that we all have to recognize as we start focusing on bridging the gap, the digital divide, is also thinking about the education because we need to get that flywheel started now. We’re already behind. And so the fear that I have is that we won’t collectively as a world wake up to the necessity of prioritizing digital literacy, mental health, and safety before it’s too late. So I’m really glad we’re having this discussion now.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much for that. And I think you’re bringing it full circle from what we’ve been discussing in the past hour and a half together. And you’re also bringing in somehow to me the spirit of the IGF. Because as I listen to you talk, it strikes me that it’s not when you say Roblox does this or one company does that, it’s not about you going away and thinking about it by yourself. Because for you to be able to develop a curriculum, you have to work with the teachers. For you to be able to find the right partner to develop a mental health application, you have to talk to mental health specialists. You have to talk to the children themselves. You have to talk to the parents. We all have to have this thing that we come together and do at the IGF, where it’s the true meeting of the minds and the meeting of the perspectives from very different backgrounds for us to then realize what are the challenges that we have and how can we bring these unusual partnerships together to actually find a response, whether we are talking about a tool for agriculture or a tool for children to navigate their online lives. It’s very different perspectives, but it’s technology in all its different forms. And technology is clearly a challenge, but it can also be the solution if we know how to use it wisely. So on that, I’d love to turn over to the audience and see if they have any reactions to what we’ve heard from our last four speakers. Yes, please, we can hear you.

Audience: Okay. Très bien. Je suis honorable Dr. Alfa Abdullahi. Hello. I’m Dr. Abdullahi. Hello. I’m Dr. Abdullah. Hello. French channel is channel two. Thank you very much. So I’m Dr. Abdullah Yaloh. I work in the Parliament of Transition in Guinea and I’m very happy to participate in this forum. This is my first time. First, I would like to give my salutations of the Parliament of Guinea to all of you. And I would like also to salute the King of Saudi Arabia and the Crown Prince. And also I would like to salute all your panel and all the participants that are here today with us. I was very interested in all the comments, especially in what the Indian panelist was saying and also the rest of the speakers. It is very important to agree in one fact. It is true technology is very important, but I completely agree that what the colleague from India said, that the use of the technology is also very important. It is as important as technology. So it is very important today to the literacy. It’s very important today. And the reason for that is because today in Guinea, we are writing a new constitution. And the use of technology has helped us to disseminate the content of the new constitution to the population, but also to foreign countries. And this has been enabled with technology and with the platform that we created, with the interactive platform that was created. And today, I can say that all Guineans know the content of our constitution, thanks to technology. And the good use of technology allows also that population adhere and agree wherever they are. And so the population agrees with the constitution. So recently, in all our country and all our members of parliaments have traveled everywhere in the country, and they knew them. And that was thanks to all the videos that was on the platform that I was talking now. All the works of the parliament were broadcasted on this platform. So everybody in Guinea and outside Guinea could follow the works of the MPs. So I agree with you. So technology. is important, but the use of technology is even more important. And literacy in the use of technology will allow to multiply this positive side of technology. And also it will decrease its negative effects. And especially when we talk about young people, teenagers and children, we are very happy to participate to this forum. And I would like to request to all the panelists to give some examples regarding the good use of technology, above all with Internet, in your own countries. So we can share your experiences. So we could share all your good practices. Thank you very much.

Timea Suto: So what we’ve heard here is the importance of civic participation, which I think was something that the panel didn’t mention, but it clearly is one more element of where technology can be of help. And we were asked as panelists to give some examples that the rest of the world could learn from, some good examples of the use of technology in your regions, in your countries or in your organizations. So if anybody would like to take up that request from our speaker from the Parliament of Kenya.

Shivnath Thukra: Yeah, firstly, I want to thank my friend from Kenya for acknowledging some of the things that I talked about. I can give you many examples of successful use of technology, but I’m sure everybody’s much more competent than I am to talk about the successes. So I’ll give you a bit of a fun example if you, in the light of governance, for example. If you’re writing the new constitution, how about using AI tools to make it interactive? Ask them how they would be able to apply the principles of constitution in their real life, right? Just as an example, when you do law writing, when you write a new legislation, in India now, there is a trend that when they publish the law, they use illustrations. How will the law actually apply? I think it’s a commendable exercise for people to have that connect when you write a law. Otherwise, law is written by lawyers and then we only get to use it when it is challenged in the court. But if you suddenly start writing laws with illustrations of your day-to-day example of how that law would be applicable to you, that is one very interesting use of technology that one can do. But in terms of what you talked about, sir, in governance and how the parliamentarians, when they went to different parts of the country and people could connect to them, there are many such examples. One closer to my heart, which I really feel strongly about, obviously related to a meta platform, it’s on Instagram, is how you can take up your own causes of your country, which you want to highlight and have the creator ecosystem kind of showcase it. Tourism is a great example in India, where the creators actually run a competition. India probably would be the only country which has a recognized national creator awards. So creators are given issues and ideas and then they run a contest and creators showcase different locations in the country. Well, the marketing department of government of tourism could spend a lot of money, but if you have these creators with millions of followers showcasing different locations in the country, that goes a very, very long way. So there are many such examples, but more in the space of artificial intelligence, I would say there are examples where in the medical field you are able to create solutions on diagnostic health. So for example, we are trying to work with a firm where the initial assessment of somebody in a remote area doesn’t need immediate medical interaction. They can talk to a tool and asking them their symptoms, the initial assessment, so primary health care can be solved at a very fundamental level. So there are many such examples we can talk about. I mean India with a population of 1.4 billion, there are many of millions such examples, but I’ll pause there, but just to say, I mean what Tami said I think is so critical that if technology companies do not take up these challenges, who else will? Because we recognize that our products have immense upside, but certain challenges which we have to all work together, collaborate together, so to solve for safety, literacy, awareness in itself. For example, in Instagram, there are 50 tools for parents to kind of help children, but how do we make sure everybody gets to know it? And every time we talk to a policymaker and we tell them about it, they’re super happy that we are doing something. So I think it’s about taking responsibility and driving it.

Timea Suto: Thank you.

Tami Bhaumik: And I just like to add on to this and in terms of a recommendation. So a year and a half ago, we hosted a workshop with the digital wellness lab at Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical, and we worked on a hypothesis. In five to ten years from now, the online world can be safer and more civil than in real life. If we were to make that a reality, what would need to happen in technology, innovation, policy, and education? We invited over a hundred thought leaders from around the world, from safety NGOs, to academics, researchers, child psychiatrists, and industry, and we brought in teens. And we learned a lot. To cut to the chase. The one thing that came out so strongly was to include teens meaningfully through everything that we do. And I can honestly say I work for a technology company, and while we certainly have focus groups, things like that, we don’t actually, from beginning to end, include youth meaningfully. This year, from that workshop, we changed things. We’ve announced a teen council that we are integrating into our work. One of the funny things about when we were in this workshop, all of these smart people were talking about things that should be done on the internet. What should be done to make platforms safer? And this young 17-year-old woman started shaking her head. And she looked at us, and I looked at her and said, what’s going on? She said, that’s not how we use it. That’s not how we use the internet. We got it wrong, all of these smart people. So as you’re writing and drafting this new constitution, please remember children, please remember teens, and incorporate them meaningfully through the development of that framework.

Timea Suto: Thank you for that. Jose, then Gbenga, and then Alaa.

José Renato Laranjeira de Pereira: Thank you. Merci beaucoup pour cette question. Thank you for this question. It is easier for me to speak in French. Thank you. Thank you very much for the question. I will give two examples and then reflect a little bit about this issue as a whole. I think that the example that I’m going to give is once again of the homeless workers movement in Brazil, because I think that they have a very good initiative. Maybe one of the members here is in the audience, Ale Barbosa, which is Contrate quem luta, work hire who fights. I think that’s a good translation for it. And the idea was to create a platform linked to WhatsApp through which people could hire for services in their houses, services in their office, or even for delivery services. Hire people who were homeless and were working together and were part of the initiatives of this movement, which is very big throughout Brazil. So I think this is a great initiative. And one thing that they always discussed was we need to appropriate these technologies in a way that they also serves our benefits when we do not have the means to reach another platform, other platforms, other delivery platforms, for instance, or services as a whole. So this was a very important initiative. And another one was a platform that was built with by incorporation between a an NGO in Brazil which works on research in the Amazon. I don’t want to be unfair here, but it’s better that I don’t say the name because I’m not 100% sure who I can’t remember exactly the name of the organization. But they did this platform through which indigenous peoples themselves would include data on deforestation for them to have like a better assessment on the ground and that does not rely on satellite imagery to map deforestation sites in Brazil. So like this was a very important initiative which I think it represents not only co-creation but also self-governed data. And I would say as a whole, especially when we think about providing public services through technology, is that we always remember to keep the analog. Many people do not know how to use technology, many people don’t have access to it. We talked a lot about connectivity, that’s crucial. And also when they have access to it, we may face challenges regarding, for instance, language, which has already been talked about in this panel, or even the possibility of the capacity of explaining oneself, of understanding what one’s rights are. That’s why the human aspect is fundamental to be maintained throughout this process.

Timea Suto: Thank you for that. Gbenga?

Gbenga Sesan: Yes, thanks. I mean that’s a direct question, it’s as direct as it gets. And half of my work is in digital rights, human rights and digital age. And over the last few years, one of the most important uses that I’ve seen young people put technology to, you know, used to, is in political participation, in civic participation. I spend my time worrying about how the digital civic space is closing and I see young people do creative things, conversations that you can’t have on TV stations because of concerns, conversations you can’t have on the radio, you can have those conversations in safe digital spaces. And I think that the example of writing a constitution and getting feedback from young people is a perfect example of political participation. It’s not just about elections, it’s not just about choosing leaders, it’s about envisioning the future together, participating in it and making sure that young people are not, you know, involved in tokenistic examples, but they can actually participate in this. And we’ve seen that, you know, happen with a very good example that I was involved with is in 2011, the electoral agency at the time in Nigeria had said, you have to wait for the voting to finish and then for four days before you see the results. I’m not that patient. My parents may be that patient, but I want to see the results immediately. And so a group of us gathered, designed a mobile app. We used the acronym of what the Electoral Commission had used, it was Registered Voter Database. So we called it ReVoter. We created an app such that while we were on the queue and people were voting and the results were announced in each location, we were able to use that platform to aggregate and to see what the result was. And when the results were eventually announced, to say, OK, you know what? We think this is correct because the margin of error is not large. And that is where technology is useful in participation.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much. Ala?

Alaa Abdullah: I think the example that I want to give, it highlights what you have been mentioning. The question was, how can digital or technology help? And let us as the panelists share our learning and example, and I think as DCO, one of the things that we thought is the exact same thing. How can we enable governments and countries to share their successes and their digital solutions that they are using in their digital transformation? This is why we created a platform called Impact, where all our member states can list their digital solutions that they are using for their digital government for other countries to learn from, to share their experience. And why reinvent the wheel? If a solution is deployed, for example, a digital ID solution is deployed in one country that is successful, that has been working very well. Another country in need of such a similar solution, why do we have to redo? I think it’s very important for us to have a platform where we can share the experience of another country and just take it and deploy it. And this is why we created the impact. And I think this wouldn’t be possible without the technology and without having those platforms that you can share the experience. Another life example is that before conferences, if we do not have access to the internet, we have to do it online. It means that all conversation, all questions is being streamed to a million of people without being physically here. So this is a life example of how technology is enabling us to share our knowledge, to even hear different voices at the same time.

Timea Suto: That’s a great example. Sally, you had your hand up first. And then we go to you. Thank you.

Sally Wentworth: Thank you very much. I think this builds on the last two comments, and I’m really impressed by the way that you spoke about using technology to improve transparency and engagement in your policy development. And building on that, I think there are important lessons and opportunities through that, which is the technology can allow coalitions to develop. And I think that’s a really important example, and I think it’s a great example of the global encryption coalition, for example, which has over 400 members around the world who spot threats to encryption or identify opportunities to promote better online security, and, as you said, they compare and learn from each other. So where one stakeholder may have encountered a particular challenge and successfully advocated and worked in their own way to address that challenge, there are other challenges that are shared online through this coalition. This is almost all done virtually, to support activities in other communities. And we see that kind of civil society coalition building happening online in really powerful ways, and I think my advice to our colleague is to be open to that kind of advocacy that happens from civil of the transparency that you’re providing in support of your constitution is not just about consultation but about building together and leveraging your civil society that is able to organize online to be part of that conversation. And if we circle back to some of the comments earlier about connectivity, I think what you’re speaking about in terms of involving parents is every bit as important as when we think about connectivity solutions. Being able to engage those communities, giving them agency in the conversation about the solutions that will work for them in the languages they speak, consistent with the culture that they are coming from, is what will make the connectivity powerful for them. This is not a drop connectivity in and leave. This is about enabling those communities to be part of that solution. And I think if that’s the approach we take, we will go much farther than we’ve been able to go so far. And those communities will be then part of building the digital economy of the future and not being on the receiving end of it. Thank you.

Timea Suto: Thelma, you wanted to say a few words as well.

Thelma Quaye: Thank you. And I think I’d also like to commend our colleague from Guinea. At Smart Africa, what we do is to leverage what countries are doing well to, you know, show the other countries so there’s leapfrogging and you don’t fall through the same mistakes that they may have done. So one practical example, for instance, in the healthcare is what Rwanda is doing using zipline where they are using drones powered by AI and what this AI does is to measure and check and know where blood supplies are low, for instance. And the drone takes it directly to these remote areas. And these are places that are usually hard to reach. And this is a practical example within the healthcare. But also even on the policy side, we are starting to use AI to harmonize. It’s much easier when, you know, you have so many different policies on the same topic. You can always leverage AI to harmonize. In the same vein, countries can also leverage the same technology to learn on what are the shortfalls of my policy, for instance. So these are some of the things. There are so many other examples, but these are what I wanted to share. Thank you.

Timea Suto: Thank you very much. Dr. Imagawa. Yes.

Takuo Imagawa: Thank you, Chair. I was very inspired very much by today’s discussion among the panelists and also from the audience. And it seems to me that there are a lot of discussions about using the digital technology in school or education process. And I think it’s very important to build up some specific projects to involve a lot of stakeholders. Let me introduce an example in my country. not my ministry, but the Ministry of Education, and we introduced a specific project called the Giga School Project, and it distributes a PC to every student in the elementary school and junior high school students. In that way, the vendors, the industrial sector, vendors and telecom operators are incentivized to join the project, because they can get money from the government. And also, teachers and students are of course involved, and also parents should be involved, because the homeworks have to be submitted through the PC or tablet, and also parents have to prevent the students from making access to the illegal or harmful information. So I think a specific project can involve a lot of stakeholders, and it’s very important for the government, and also the industrial sector, civil society and academia to build up a very good project involving a lot of stakeholders. Thank you.

Timea Suto: Thank you very much. So we’re coming up to the end of our session, actually we have one minute left for the two hours that we’ve had together. So I’m going to ask the indulgence of the audience to maybe bear with us at our panel for a little longer. I understand we have another intervention.

Audience: Thank you very much, I would also like to express myself in French, if you don’t mind. I wanted to share the experience of Senegal, I am the coordinator of a fund that is dedicated to access to universal services in the areas of disinheritance. I don’t, ma’am, please, because I don’t think we have interpretation. Can you hear English? So I am Mrs. Job. I coordinate a fund that has a fund for kids for digital inclusion. What you mentioned today is very important when we speak about ethical access for Internet where we have a positive change, actually. We reach zones sometimes where we search for connectivity, and some teenagers find a way to connect. So the state services are very important today in this digital world. My friend from Guinea mentioned the services they guarantee, but also we have societies that are not well structured. Because of this new component, digitally, in addition to databases and usage that is not really known for the community, so these actually are changing the modalities of the society, and these new AIs ask us and put new challenges, and we ask ourselves where are we heading, where our societies are heading, if we are really serving them, what are we doing? So these questions related to training to women, women who are… forgotten, or when we speak of uncomprehensive model of internet usage by teenagers, it makes us ask how and what is the future of societies that are already traditional in their way of living. So we should not forget that these training are important. Experiences are very important, their feedback also, to know how can we actually keep up with these transformations and have a positive transformation in society without unstructured values and destruction of values, cultural values, especially that are important for our life together. So how can this be an ally to us? This is my remark. That’s it. Thank you so much.

Timea Suto: I wanted to ask our panelists to each share a word in takeaway, but I am being told that we are running out of time, so I think I will share one word myself. Actually, two words, and those two words are thank you. Thank you to all of you here who have spent the last two hours in conversation with us, to all the speakers for making your way here to Riyadh and sharing your expertise and knowledge, to everybody in the audience who has listened and participated. Thank you to the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group who pulled this session together, and the coordinators, Manny and Chris, for bringing us together and inviting us for the conversation. And thank you to the IGF for making this possible, and I hope we can have many more conversations like this together. So a big round of applause to the speakers and to all of you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of connectivity for development and access to services

Gbenga Sesan

Thelma Quaye

Sally Wentworth

Takuo Imagawa

Connectivity can be a matter of life and death, enabling access to healthcare and education

Only 40% of Africans are connected to the internet due to infrastructure and affordability challenges

Community-centered connectivity approaches can empower local communities to build and maintain their own networks

Japan has achieved near-universal connectivity through a mix of competition policy and government support

Speakers agree that connectivity is crucial for development, enabling access to vital services like healthcare and education. They emphasize the need to address connectivity challenges through various approaches.

Need for multi-stakeholder collaboration to address digital divide

Thelma Quaye

Sally Wentworth

Takuo Imagawa

Alaa Abdulaal

Government intervention and public-private partnerships are needed to connect underserved areas

Civil society coalitions can leverage technology to advocate for better policies

Multistakeholder cooperation is essential to address digital divide challenges

Digital platforms can help share successful digital solutions between countries

Speakers agree that addressing the digital divide requires collaboration between governments, private sector, civil society, and international organizations. They emphasize the importance of knowledge sharing and joint efforts.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the potential of technology to empower marginalized communities and address specific local needs.

Shivnath Thukra

Jose Renato Laranjeira de Pereira

Open source technologies and AI can help bridge connectivity gaps and language barriers

Platforms connecting homeless workers to job opportunities show potential of appropriating technology

Both speakers emphasize the importance of empowering young people to engage safely and effectively in the digital world, whether for civic participation or general online activities.

Gbenga Sesan

Tami Bhaumik

Technology enables civic participation and political engagement for young people

Digital literacy and safety education are crucial, especially for children and parents

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of involving local communities and youth in technology development and policy-making

Jose Renato Laranjeira de Pereira

Tami Bhaumik

Sally Wentworth

Indigenous communities face both benefits and risks from increased connectivity

Digital literacy and safety education are crucial, especially for children and parents

Community-centered connectivity approaches can empower local communities to build and maintain their own networks

Despite coming from different backgrounds (academia, industry, and civil society), these speakers all emphasized the importance of involving local communities, especially youth and indigenous peoples, in shaping technology development and policies. This consensus highlights a growing recognition of the need for inclusive approaches in digital development.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agreed on the critical importance of connectivity for development, the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration to address the digital divide, and the potential of technology to empower marginalized communities. There was also consensus on the importance of digital literacy and safety, especially for young people.

Consensus level

The level of consensus among the speakers was relatively high, particularly on broad principles. This suggests a growing alignment in the international community on key digital development issues. However, there were some differences in emphasis and approach, particularly regarding the role of different stakeholders and the specific technologies to be prioritized. This implies that while there is general agreement on goals, there may still be debates on the best methods to achieve them.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to connectivity solutions

Sally Wentworth

Takuo Imagawa

Community-centered connectivity approaches can empower local communities to build and maintain their own networks

Japan has achieved near-universal connectivity through a mix of competition policy and government support

Wentworth advocates for a bottom-up, community-centered approach to connectivity, while Imagawa highlights Japan’s success through government-led policies and support.

Unexpected Differences

Focus on safety vs. connectivity

Tami Bhaumik

Thelma Quaye

Digital literacy and safety education are crucial, especially for children and parents

Only 40% of Africans are connected to the internet due to infrastructure and affordability challenges

While most speakers focused on increasing connectivity, Bhaumik unexpectedly emphasized the importance of digital safety and literacy, highlighting a potential tension between rapid connectivity expansion and ensuring user safety.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement centered around the best approaches to achieve connectivity, the role of different stakeholders, and the balance between expanding access and ensuring safety.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers was moderate. While there were different perspectives on how to achieve digital inclusion, most speakers agreed on the overall goal of increasing connectivity and leveraging technology for development. These differences in approach could lead to varied policy recommendations and implementation strategies for addressing the digital divide.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers acknowledge the potential of technology to bridge gaps, but Pereira emphasizes the need to consider potential risks and challenges, especially for indigenous communities.

Shivnath Thukra

Jose Renato Laranjeira de Pereira

Open source technologies and AI can help bridge connectivity gaps and language barriers

Indigenous communities face both benefits and risks from increased connectivity

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the potential of technology to empower marginalized communities and address specific local needs.

Shivnath Thukra

Jose Renato Laranjeira de Pereira

Open source technologies and AI can help bridge connectivity gaps and language barriers

Platforms connecting homeless workers to job opportunities show potential of appropriating technology

Both speakers emphasize the importance of empowering young people to engage safely and effectively in the digital world, whether for civic participation or general online activities.

Gbenga Sesan

Tami Bhaumik

Technology enables civic participation and political engagement for young people

Digital literacy and safety education are crucial, especially for children and parents

Key Takeaways

Connectivity is crucial for enabling access to healthcare, education, and economic opportunities in underserved areas

Community-centered and multistakeholder approaches are important for sustainable connectivity solutions

Digital literacy, safety education, and skills development are essential complements to connectivity

Open source technologies and AI can help bridge connectivity gaps and language barriers

Technology enables new forms of civic participation and political engagement, especially for young people

Collaboration between governments, private sector, and civil society is necessary to address digital divide challenges

Resolutions and Action Items

Create platforms for sharing successful digital solutions between countries

Integrate digital literacy into education systems from an early age

Develop safety tools and resources for parents and children using online platforms

Involve youth meaningfully in technology policy development processes

Unresolved Issues

How to make devices and connectivity more affordable in low-income areas

Balancing the benefits and risks of connectivity for indigenous communities

Addressing potential negative societal impacts of rapid digitalization

Ensuring equitable access to emerging technologies like AI across different regions

Suggested Compromises

Using a mix of government support and market competition to expand connectivity

Maintaining analog options for public services alongside digital solutions

Leveraging open source technologies to enable localized and sovereign digital solutions

Connectivity could be a matter of life and death.

speaker

Gbenga Sesan

reason

This powerful statement reframes connectivity as not just a convenience, but a critical necessity. It challenges the audience to consider the real-world implications of the digital divide.

impact

This comment set a serious tone for the discussion and emphasized the urgency of addressing connectivity issues. It led to further examples of how connectivity impacts education, healthcare, and economic opportunities.

We need government intervention now. It doesn’t have to be a private sector thing anymore. It has to be a PPP where government is now investing in infrastructure, for instance, and giving this infrastructure to the private sector to build upon.

speaker

Thelma Quaye

reason

This comment introduces a shift in thinking about how to address connectivity challenges, moving from a purely private sector approach to a public-private partnership model.

impact

This sparked discussion about the role of government in providing digital infrastructure and the need for collaboration between public and private sectors. It led to further exploration of policy frameworks and incentives.

Communities can connect themselves, I think is a powerful approach to this, and one that, again, as I said, the Internet Society has been committed to and will continue to be committed to.

speaker

Sally Wentworth

reason

This comment introduces the concept of community-centered connectivity solutions, challenging the top-down approach often taken in addressing the digital divide.

impact

It shifted the conversation to consider grassroots and local solutions, leading to discussions about empowering communities and the importance of local context in connectivity initiatives.

Today, it is possible using a program like NLLB 200, which Meta runs. It’s a program called No Language Left Behind, where almost 200 languages can be translated directly with each other.

speaker

Shivnath Thukra

reason

This comment introduces a concrete technological solution to language barriers, which is a key aspect of digital inclusion often overlooked in connectivity discussions.

impact

It broadened the conversation beyond physical connectivity to include linguistic accessibility, leading to further discussion on how AI and technology can address various aspects of the digital divide.

Parents have no idea how to guide their children in this new internet world. It is up to us collectively to make sure that we have the power to be able to educate parents so they can help their children to thrive, and that is through industry.

speaker

Tami Bhaumik

reason

This comment highlights the often-overlooked aspect of parental education in digital literacy, shifting the focus from just connecting people to ensuring they can navigate the digital world safely.

impact

It led to a deeper discussion on digital literacy, safety, and the responsibilities of tech companies in educating users. It also introduced the importance of intergenerational learning in the digital age.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening the scope of the conversation from merely providing physical connectivity to addressing the multifaceted challenges of digital inclusion. They highlighted the need for collaborative approaches involving governments, private sector, and communities, while also emphasizing the importance of addressing linguistic barriers, safety concerns, and digital literacy. The discussion evolved from a focus on infrastructure to a more holistic view of creating a meaningful and safe digital experience for all users, regardless of their background or location.

How can we create a uniform digital framework for evaluating student examinations worldwide?

speaker

Arjun Singh Bjoria (audience member)

explanation

This question highlights the need for standardized assessment methods in education using digital technologies across different countries and education systems.

How can we meaningfully include teens and youth in the development of online safety policies and technologies?

speaker

Tami Bhaumik

explanation

This area for research emphasizes the importance of incorporating young people’s perspectives and experiences when designing safety measures for digital platforms.

How can we use AI tools to make constitutional drafting and legal processes more interactive and accessible to citizens?

speaker

Shivnath Thukra

explanation

This suggestion points to the potential for using AI to enhance civic engagement and understanding of legal documents.

How can we ensure that analog alternatives are maintained alongside digital public services?

speaker

Jose Renato Laranjeira de Pereira

explanation

This area for research addresses the need to cater to populations who may not have access to or the ability to use digital technologies.

How can we leverage AI to harmonize policies across different countries and identify shortfalls in existing policies?

speaker

Thelma Quaye

explanation

This research area explores the potential of AI in improving policy-making and international cooperation.

How can we ensure that digital transformation positively impacts traditional societies without disrupting important cultural values?

speaker

Audience member (Mrs. Job)

explanation

This question highlights the need to balance technological progress with cultural preservation in diverse societies.

Summary

This panel discussion focused on Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) and its potential to be consumer-centric, particularly in the context of financial inclusion. The conversation centered around experiences from Brazil, India, and other developing countries. Panelists discussed the benefits of DPIs, such as improved financial inclusion and increased competition in payment systems, as exemplified by Brazil’s PIX and India’s UPI.

Key challenges were highlighted, including the need for meaningful connectivity, cybersecurity concerns, and the importance of effective grievance redressal mechanisms. The Indian experience revealed issues with fraud detection, language barriers in customer support, and the need for better digital and financial literacy among users.

Panelists emphasized the importance of transparency, accessibility, and user-friendly design in DPI systems. They stressed the need for clear communication about consumer rights and timely dispute resolution. The discussion also touched on the role of regulators and financial institutions in ensuring consumer protection.

The importance of a systemic approach to DPI implementation was underscored, with suggestions for integrating different DPI components (identity, payments, data) from the early stages of development. Panelists also highlighted the need for proper safeguards and policy frameworks before implementing DPIs.

The discussion concluded with recommendations for improving consumer-centricity in DPIs, including regular audits, effective monitoring systems, and building DPIs “in the open” with public consultation and feedback mechanisms. Overall, the panel emphasized that while DPIs have the potential to be consumer-centric, careful design, implementation, and ongoing evaluation are crucial to achieving this goal.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The benefits and challenges of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), particularly for payments systems like Brazil’s PIX and India’s UPI

– The importance of meaningful connectivity and digital literacy for DPI adoption and use

– Consumer protection issues related to DPI, including fraud, grievance redressal, and dispute resolution

– The need for safeguards, transparency, and multi-stakeholder involvement in DPI design and implementation

The overall purpose of the discussion was to examine whether and how Digital Public Infrastructure can be made consumer-centric, using examples from countries like Brazil and India to highlight both successes and areas for improvement.

The tone of the discussion was largely analytical and constructive. Speakers acknowledged the benefits of DPI while also critically examining its shortcomings, particularly around consumer protection. There was an overall sense of cautious optimism about DPI’s potential, balanced with calls for more safeguards and consumer-focused design. The tone became slightly more urgent when discussing fraud and consumer grievances, but remained solution-oriented throughout.

Speakers

– Luca Belli: Professor at FGV Law School, Director of the Center for Technology and Society at FGV

– Alexandre Barbosa: Researcher at the Weizenbaum Institute of the Berlin University of Arts

– Ritul Gaur: Policy Advisor for the Digital Impact Alliance (DIAL)

– Saroja Sundaram: Executive Director of Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group

Additional speakers:

– Audience member: From Ethiopia, discussing digital ID development

– James (surname is missing): From Bloggers Association of Kenya

Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) and Consumer-Centricity: A Comprehensive Analysis

This panel discussion explored the potential for Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) to be consumer-centric, with a particular focus on financial inclusion. Drawing from experiences in Brazil, India, and other developing countries, the panellists examined the benefits, challenges, and necessary safeguards for effective DPI implementation.

Benefits and Implementation of DPI

The discussion began with an overview of DPI’s potential to increase financial inclusion and consumer welfare. Luca Belli, Professor at FGV Law School, highlighted three main categories of DPI: digital IDs, digital payments, and personal data consent managers. He emphasised that DPIs can help break monopolies and promote competition in financial services.

Successful implementations of DPI were showcased, with Alexandre Barbosa, Researcher at the Weizenbaum Institute, discussing Brazil’s PIX system. PIX has been instrumental in promoting digital payments in Brazil, with over 140 million users and processing more than 2 billion transactions per month. Barbosa highlighted PIX’s success in fostering financial inclusion, noting that it’s free for individuals and has low costs for businesses.

Similarly, Ritul Gaur, Policy Advisor for the Digital Impact Alliance, noted that India’s Unified Payments Interface (UPI) has enabled widespread digital transactions, constituting 80% of digital payments in India. UPI processes over 10 billion transactions per month, demonstrating its significant impact on India’s digital economy.

Challenges, Risks, and Consumer Protection in DPI Implementation

Despite the benefits, the panellists identified several challenges in DPI implementation and emphasized the need for robust consumer protection measures:

1. Meaningful Connectivity and Digital Literacy: Luca Belli stressed the necessity of meaningful connectivity for DPI adoption, highlighting that without proper infrastructure, the benefits of DPI cannot be fully realised. Saroja Sundaram, Executive Director of Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group, pointed out that language barriers and lack of digital literacy hinder DPI usage, particularly in rural areas.

2. Cybercrime and Fraud: Ritul Gaur raised concerns about the increasing cyber crimes and frauds associated with UPI adoption in India. He described UPI as a “financial crime hotspot”, noting that the fraud helpline in India receives about 100,000 calls daily. This underscores the need for robust security measures and consumer education.

3. Consumer Redressal Mechanisms: Saroja Sundaram advocated for clear communication and user-friendly platforms for consumer redressal. She stressed the need for regular audits and monitoring of DPI systems to ensure they remain responsive to consumer needs. Sundaram also argued that ombudsman offices should be independent from regulators to ensure impartial handling of consumer complaints.

4. Online Dispute Resolution: Ritul Gaur suggested implementing online dispute resolution (ODR) for DPI-related issues, noting that this could provide a more accessible means of addressing consumer grievances without resorting to court proceedings.

Improving DPI Design and Implementation

The panellists offered several recommendations for improving DPI design and implementation:

1. Multi-stakeholder engagement: Alexandre Barbosa emphasised the importance of involving various stakeholders in DPI development and mentioned the UN DPI safeguards launched in September as a positive step.

2. Public consultation: Ritul Gaur suggested that DPI systems should be built openly with public consultation to ensure they meet user needs.

3. Digital literacy programmes: Saroja Sundaram called for customised digital literacy programmes for different consumer groups, recognising the diverse needs of various populations.

4. Proper safeguards: An audience member from Ethiopia stressed the need for appropriate safeguards and regulations to be in place before DPI implementation, citing their country’s experience with identity development driven by bank fraud concerns.

5. Integration of DPI components: Another audience member suggested integrating different DPI components (identity, payments, data) from the early stages of development to ensure interoperability.

Unresolved Issues and Future Considerations

The discussion left several issues unresolved, including how to effectively balance rapid DPI implementation with proper safeguards, address increasing cyber crimes, overcome language barriers in DPI usage and redressal mechanisms, and ensure the independence of ombudsman offices.

To address these challenges, suggestions included implementing a pre-legislative consultation policy for DPI-related regulations and creating a multi-stakeholder forum for ongoing discussions on DPI design and implementation.

Conclusion

The panel discussion revealed a cautious optimism about DPI’s potential to promote financial inclusion and improve consumer welfare. However, it also highlighted the need for careful design, implementation, and ongoing evaluation of DPI systems. The key takeaways emphasised the importance of meaningful connectivity, digital literacy, robust consumer protection mechanisms, and inclusive development processes in creating truly consumer-centric Digital Public Infrastructure. As countries continue to develop and implement DPI systems, addressing these challenges will be crucial for ensuring their success and maximizing benefits for consumers.

Luca Belli: update on our agenda. This session was supposed to be moderated by the… Oh yes, if we can also have the online participants on screen, that would be fantastic. So while we wait for the online participants to be put on screen, let me provide a little bit of update for our agenda. The session was meant to be moderated by the organizer of the session, Hannah Draper, that unfortunately had a last-minute impediment, so I will be taking over the moderation. My name is Luca Belle, I’m a professor at FGV Law School, where I direct the Center for Technology and Society at FGV. I was supposed to be a speaker of this panel, but I will also moderate it, together with me, Alessandro Barbosa, who is here with us in person, who is a researcher at the Weizenbaum Institute of the Berlin University of Arts, and with us online, we will have Saroja Sundaram, who is Executive Director of Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group, which is a 39-year-old civil society organization based in Chennai, India, and then we will have Ritul Gaur, who is Policy Advisor for the Digital Impact Alliance, DIAL. Now, to start our conversation, let me just provide a little bit of introduction to the topic, and then I will directly provide a little bit of insight from Brazil and India, and then I will pass the floor to my colleague. and friend, Alessandro, and then we will have in order Ritu and then Saroja. What are we speaking about when we speak about digital public infrastructure, or DPIs, that became a very hot topic since the G20 in India last year, where the Indian presidency did a very interesting job in bringing to the international floor this concept of DPIs that have been implemented, debated, and studied in India for almost a decade in the context of the India stack, the digital transformation plan of India. And then they are spreading quite rapidly around the world with very good examples also from other countries, especially developing countries. We will see that Brazil has been not only experimenting, but implementing with a certain success some of these DPIs. And so DPIs are digital systems that are interoperable, they are designed to be supposedly secure, and they are built on open standards, on open specifications, so that they allow the provisions of public services, but also of private services, through this infrastructure, this digital infrastructure that is public. But also we will see that this conception of public really depends, and it is not universally defined what is public. And the difference that I’m going to illustrate between India and Brazil actually provide a very good illustration of this. Brazil has become very well known in DPI debates for PICS, it’s Digital Public Infrastructure for Payments. So usually there are three main categories. of digital public infrastructures, digital IDs, digital payments, and personal data consent managers. India has been experimenting and implementing them for several years, all three of them, and actually is now in the process of implementing another one, the online digital network for commons, the digital network for online commerce, which is a sort of grand bazaar online built on a digital public infrastructure. So we will see that there are several types of digital public infrastructure, but this specific workshop aims at discussing financial inclusion through DPIs. So the use of DPIs to build public infrastructure, digital public infrastructure for payments, right? And so here, my initial considerations that I’m blending with this introduction is that we need to have a systemic approach to this to understand how they function, what are their benefits, but also what are their limits? And I think that the cases from Brazil and India illustrates very well, and I wrote a paper about this last year for the G20 in India, for the T20, actually. And we co-authored with Hanna Draper, the organizer of this session, a T20 policy brief this year on digital public infrastructure, also stressing that the digital public infrastructure, especially DPIs for payment, could be very good example of good digital sovereignty. So of a country, but can also be not necessarily a country, could be also a regional or a municipal government, could even be group of individuals understanding the technology they’re using, developing it and regulating it in a way that is in the interest and put forward the interest, or at least should put forward the interest of the local community. Could be the municipal community, we have very good example in Brazil, for instance, the city where I live, Rio, has a very good… digital public infrastructure for taxis. There is a competitor of Uber, which is a digital public infrastructure for taxis. So you can hail a taxi through a digital public infrastructure built by a municipality. But again, here we start to, if we want to have a systemic approach, we start to understand that what is the first obstacle? To use DPIs, you need meaningful connectivity. If you are not connected, you cannot use a DPI. And I’m speaking about meaningful connectivity, not mere connectivity, because there is a lot of examples, especially in the global South, of entire countries and population that are connected through still today, through zero rating mechanism. So not meaningful connectivity, but it’s connected only through a very limited selection of apps that are sponsored, typically meta family of apps, social media. In this case, it is, even if you have the best possible DPI built by the government, people will not be able to access it. So the investment in it is thrown into the bin. And that is a very good, Brazil is a very good example of this, because 70% of the population that is now, or 80, that is now connected, almost 80 connected to the internet, only 20% of them, they have meaningful connectivity. And so when the PIX was launched during the pandemic, our digital public infrastructure for payment was created by the Brazilian Central Bank, which is an organ that understands very well these dynamics. So during the pandemic, when everyone was sort of locked down, WhatsApp wanted to launch WhatsApp payments ahead of our digital public infrastructure for payments. And the Brazilian Central Bank suspended the launch of WhatsApp payments for six months, because this would have created detrimental effect on privacy, data protection, competition, because having WhatsApp, a sort of monopoly of connectivity. everyone in Brazil is connected through WhatsApp, but very few people are connected to the rest. So it would have meant, if WhatsApp payment had been launched before our system PIX, that everyone would have used WhatsApp payment, no one would have used PIX. So understanding meaningful connectivity is key. And I think this is why when India adopted net neutrality regulations in 2016, they prohibited zero rating. Every people, especially at IGF circle, was discussing this as a tool, as a measure for net neutrality, for freedom of expression. But actually it was a digital sovereignty measure adopted by India, because they acknowledged that if they had allowed the entire population to be connected only to a certain specific set of apps, rather than the full internet, no one would have ever used both locally developed apps and also digital public infrastructure developed in India. So meaningful connectivity is key. And then when we adopt it, we can also foster competition and increase enormously consumer welfare. And here we enter the core of today’s discussion. Before PIX in Brazil, as in most other developing countries, online payments were only possible through Visa and MasterCard. So to foreign companies that charged between 3% and 5% per every transaction that happens. So the Brazilian consumer has had reverted into its pocket 3% to 5% Brazilian consumers and also sellers of goods or providers or services, they receive directly, thanks to this, 3% to 5% of what they pay for each transaction into their pockets. And this money is reverted to the national economy. And few people understand that also… So Visa and MasterCard, over the past 10 years, they have become big data companies. So most of their income does not come from the 3% to 5%, but comes from the personal data that they are collected about consumers and what they buy and when, and the profiling of them and building of artificial intelligence out of this. So why am I saying this? Because the benefit is not only a direct benefit for the consumer picks, it’s also an enormous competition boost that the competition authority would never have been capable of doing. It broke the duopoly of Visa and MasterCard and put into the picture a very new innovative solution that increased enormously consumer welfare and allowed everyone else in the field to build innovation on top of it. And this kind of competition measure would never have been possible through traditional regulation. Antitrust authority analyzing the duopoly and sanctioning, that would not have been possible. So we still also, we have to understand also DPIs. And I think that in India, this is a very present narrative. DPI is a tool of regulation. So not regulating by sanctioning, by creating a law, but regulating by creating an alternative. And this is a very powerful tool and aspect of DPIs. Of course there are limits. And again, here I don’t want to speak too much, but just to conclude, and a very final point that I want to stress is that the Brazilian experience in my perspective has improved the Indian payment, digital public infrastructure, UPI, because in India, this has been built and is currently still managed by a non-for-profit organization, the National Payment Corporation of India. And being not a public entity as in Brazil, which is managed by the Brazilian Central Bank, it’s much less transparent and accountable. If you’ve tried to file a request. to a freedom of access of information to a non-public entity, they will reply to you, I’m sorry, sir, this is not a public entity. So we are not obliged to reply to you. So if I in Brazil, I asked the Brazilian Central Bank to tell me, which data about me do you have? With whom you are sharing them? What are your security measures? They are obliged to reply to me. And if they don’t reply, I can sue them because they are a public body and they have an obligation to be transparent and accountable. But if in India, an Indian consumer asked to the National Payment Corporation of India, tell me which data about me do you have and with whom do you share them? They can perfectly reply to you, we are sorry, sir, this is not a public body. We are not bound by law to reply to you. So it’s very interesting to understand also the institutional context behind it. Of course, there is a rationale to have a non-for-profit building this. You can be suspicious of bureaucracies being very effective in building services. It’s not really their cup of tea. So they might have problem, but this also represents risks. Now, not to speak too much, let me give directly the floor to my friend, Alexandre Barbosa, to have his insight and then we can expand the conversation to our Indian friends.

Alexandre Barbosa: Thank you, Luca. Hello, everyone, both online and offline here present. Unfortunately, we don’t have here Hanna, the one who organized the session and also Jordan representing Co-Develop. Co-Develop is one of the main organizations behind this recent advancements of DPI worldwide. I mean, not speaking from a governmental perspective, but also from private and philanthropic services sectors. I will speak mainly regarding PICS in the Brazilian scenario, also considering all the dimensions beyond the design and the regulatory. aspects of payment systems. But I’d like to emphasise first this quite recent, as Luca clearly expressed here, boom of DPIs led by the G20 discussions in India, followed by Brazil this year, and likely to take place at South African presidency that just started a few weeks ago. So representing this IBAS, the India, Brazil and South Africa dialogues within this BRICS structure, kind of setting the scene for how DPIs are really taking place, especially in developing contexts. I think it’s clear how DPI brings to the table the role of the state when we think of technology development. And as an academic here, I must emphasise that despite at the policy international level, there is this, Rito is going to speak about it probably, like the sort of consensus around the three major DPIs that Luca mentioned. It’s worth highlighting the need to consider the physical and intangible material dimensions of infrastructure. I always want to talk about digital public infrastructure. So where this data is being processed, who controls this data processing infrastructures, where they are located, and so on. Indeed, BRICS succeeded, it enables payment 24×7, overcame debt cards and cash as the very first, the main payment method in Brazil. A few weeks ago, over 70% of the Brazilian population uses BRICS. It reached 10 days ago, 250 million transactions in a single day, accounting for over 120 billion Brazilian reais. And it’s worth mentioning that it is partially a result of a set of regulatory and policy measures within the National Council for Monetary Council that was kind of updating the financial system since the early 2010s. And I completely agree with Luca that it demonstrates that DPI can be popular, and in Latin America perspective popular here is mainly linked to massive. So it’s a massive, efficient, inclusive, and accessible alternative to private solutions without raising concerns about market concentration and the implication of the consumer rights and choices. And also regarding somehow to consumer rights, but more in a macro level, it’s the Brazilian Central Bank, the institution who develops and regulates PICS, stated that in September in Brazil, the Bolsa Familia beneficiaries, the major Brazilian social protection cash transfers program, which is recognized worldwide, the Brazilian Bolsa Familia beneficiaries spent three billion reais, actually three million, sorry, billion, indeed, in bets program softwares in August. So also thinking the extent to which these DPIs can enable better policies, and also a better comprehension of how the economic and socio-economic development of the country is taking place. Additionally, I’m not going too deep on that. It’s also a converging debate that we are taking place in FGV with Luca, within the CyberBRICS project. There is this convergence among DPIs and artificial intelligence that we can also think of the other way around. Also artificial intelligence properly. Yes. And also the way around artificial intelligence to DPI. Particularly in terms of embedding AI systems in a broader sense, also consider automated decisions, softwares. Last week, a Brazilian private bank, Nubank, announced that they’re gonna be the very first pigs with embedded AI, exactly to integrate, to interpret clients’ priorities and intentions and also enable these automated transactions. And also using AI to detect risky data patterns and so on, but without an explicit risk impact assessment of this combination of AI and DPI. So it’s something that we need to take a look in a forward implementation of the brand new, approved at the CNA, AI regulation last week. And also concluding here, I like to provide a reflection on the broader view on digital literacy and financial literacy. This convergence that also can be pushed and enabled through DPI implementations and regulations. When I speak here about digital literacy, I’m speaking in a broader sense. Brazil developed PNCC. It’s a national common curricular base that has among its main skills, competencies, pillars, both critical thinking and digital skills. skills, so not only being able to use a software or a digital tool itself, but knowing where this tool has been developed and who controls it, is also key here. And also, BMCC also encompasses different aspects of financial literacy, such as, it mentions different times in the document, like exploring historical, social and cultural dimensions of consumption, and so on, so there’s also room for thinking of this convergence of these two already in place that can be also adopted in other countries and scenarios, this convergence on financial and digital literacy through DPI regulations. But for this to actually take place, financial DPI promoters should also be promoters of educational DPIs, right? We also launched a T20 policy brief specifically regarding the need of developing these DPIs for education, not treating them as just sectorial application of DPI, but actually as key to promote this mention digital, critical digital literacy, and so on. And I have more here. Thank you, Luca.

Luca Belli: Excellent, Ale, and so we can now directly pass the floor to our online speakers. First, we have Ritul Gawbur. Please, Ritul, the floor is yours.

Ritul Gaur: Hi, Luca. Hi, Ale. Can you guys hear me?

Luca Belli: Yes, we hear you very well. Can we put also Ritul on screen? Can we put Ritul on screen?

Ritul Gaur: That’d be great.

Luca Belli: Thank you.

Ritul Gaur: Is it there? Should I start my address?

Luca Belli: You can start. We are not… We can hear you very well, our remote participation assistants are trying to have you on screen as well. Yes, we can see you now very well. Thank you. Go ahead.

Ritul Gaur: Perfect. Thank you so much. It’s unfortunate that I’m not there, but right there in the third row is my colleague Ibrahim. So if you guys feel that there is anything that I said, which is wrong or controversial, please catch him, and I’m sure he’ll have more answers. So I think I’m going to start my address on something very interesting I came across on Twitter, now on X few days back, is the co-founder of my first job, Think Tank, who recently tweeted that, who recently Xed that, I think there’s a need for a new consumer rights movement. Consumers have become so disempowered that there’s almost no way to seek address, and public policy has forgotten the consumer. And with that, it is so great to be on a panel where we’re actually talking about consumer and DPI in the same length and breadth. I’ve been in this world for over two years now, but haven’t really come across this in the same breadth. So I’m going to broadly talk about DPI first, and then dive into what does Indian DPI landscape looks like, particularly UPI, and then what does it mean to be a consumer in that sense. So Luca and Ale both talked about the benefits of DPI. We’ve seen how it has, in both Brazilian, Indian, Singaporean, a lot of African contexts, it has empowered users with giving them an identity. It has allowed them with the ability to transact in a fast and secure way. And most importantly, also allowed the storing and sharing of data and credentials to then avail a lot of other services. And unlike most other countries, India, Brazil, Singapore, etc. have done significantly well. But when we talk about India, it has not been an exactly easy journey, and much remains to be done in our digital journey. To lay out what remains to be done part of it, I think when we look at the Indian DPI story, we all know it works. And we’ve seen that well. But we don’t know what happens the day it does not work. The day my transaction fails, the day my authentication fails. We honestly do not know what is the grievance redressal mechanism because it’s layered through so many things. There’s the payment service provider, then there’s an app on top of it, and then there’s a grievance is done by somebody else. So we don’t really know what happens when this does not work. And I think it’s a big learning for countries who are designing who are just building out their systems. Think of it from get go that your population has enough faith that when things do not work out to be what really happens when it goes. So broadly laying out some challenges of UPI and what really does it constitute. UPI constitute 80% of digital payments in 2024 in India with billions of dollars being exchanged. It is fantastic. There’s a high amount of trust outside. There are ingenious solutions which includes small voice box that pops up every time a small payment is made. But at the same time, UPI is also a financial crime hotspot. And we do the extent that we don’t even know what we’re talking about here. There was a recent study by Dwara Research, a think tank in India, which highlighted the challenges in getting a grievance redress. And some of the findings were absolutely stark. Out of the six apps they surveyed, only four had a grievance redressal in-app grievance redressal mechanism. And India is a huge country with many, many languages. and only one out of four had tutorials or FAQs in their native languages. So essentially there’s a lot of grievance redressal mechanisms out there, but only in English for a population that does not understand English. So some very interesting finding was more men approach the grievance redressal mechanism than women. Apps almost have no support except in English, no vernaculars, all the FAQs are in English. Navigation issues. Grievance redress is hidden across multiple layers. It’s actually very difficult to find where it is. It’s not on your premium real estate where you can click and then actually go towards that. Documentation required. Sometimes the complaint mechanism is such that you can only lodge for a predefined complaint. You can’t really write your issue. So you have to pick from what’s out there. You can’t really write. So often it does not even capture all the issues and the modalities of it. You can’t do it via voice. You can’t do it via text, et cetera. Also severely constrained. Some of these apps didn’t even have a mechanism to track your ticket for the grievance that you had for. And now with this landscape, add on top of it that digital financial literacy is around 27% in India. UPI related frauds contribute to over 35% of the complaints to our National Crime Records Bureau. Can you believe it’s one third of our complaints to the National Crime Records Bureau is UPI related financial complaints. Incidents of domestic fraud in UPI rose by 85% as compared to the last financial year. So 85% jump. So, and I think if you look at it, it’s not just the payments have become easier. The payment system has become sophisticated. It is that the fraudsters have become really smart. Like they can clone a screen, they can clone an app. They can let you click on a particular thing from far away every day. In fact, in my hometown, in a tier 3 city, I hear somebody losing money, etc. So this has become all too very common. Now, I think it would be unfair to not talk about solutions. So I think from a very broad point of view, the two overall objectives on financial sector regulations are provide adequate consumer protection and protection against systemic risk. So consumer protection would depend on the speed with which fraud is detected, which is extremely important, and at the speed at which judicial process or whatever resolution arbitration takes place to make it work. And clearly, there have been some steps in India’s case which are working towards it. The central bank has integrated an ombudsman scheme which has integrated all ombudsmen so that if any complaint which is unresolved within 30 days, they can take it up to the ombudsman. In the payment system vision lineup, they have also introduced something called ODR, online dispute resolution, so that people don’t have to go to court for the smallest of the court cases because court cases in India are humongous. They go on for years and years, and people don’t really have an out if they actually get into a litigation affair. But sadly, much has not moved on this. There are a lot of other use cases for DPIs. As Ali was talking about, ONDC, which is essentially a big bazaar, has integrated online dispute resolution, but that has not happened in the case of UPI. There are various platforms, etc., which is launched by different ministries to just track and report what kind of financial crimes are happening. There is a national helpline that has been launched. It’s called 1930, where you can quickly report a fraud. And then there is a central bank that has also launched a central payment fraud information registry, which essentially keeps a track of all the frauds and then circulates it across all network participants. I think some updates on this, that the 1930 helpline has been getting 67,000 calls every day. 67,000 calls for frauds every day. The central bank tracker of the different complaints that the dashboard has over 1.1 million complaints on digital payment fraud, including for different channels. So I think there is some things which the state has been trying to do. There is no overarching, we don’t have a data protection rules out yet. We have a legislation, but there’s no rules out yet. So that hinders the consumer to actually avail that route. We don’t have a overarching financial sector regulation, which actually protects the consumer at the end of it, but we have these small tidbits of schemes, et cetera, which allows the consumer to be protected. Now, if you were to ask me that, what is it that the top three things that we should focus on in order to make consumer the focus of a robust financial DPI in India, I think the first would be work on ODR. Online dispute resolution is a very good mechanism to not go to court, but also find out a way out where the dispute can be resolved and consumer can get essentially a faster recourse to justice. Simplify user experience. I think all the apps, regardless of whichever app you use for UPI transaction, should have a similar kind of experience in reporting a fraud or financial transaction misplacing. Because if every app has a different mechanism, it’s very difficult for a large illiterate population, not illiterate, but large, not financially literate population to go and resolve for that out. So make sure it is a consistent experience throughout all apps. And I think more importantly than not, which is where I think a role of a lot of other players come into, the telecom, et cetera, improve fraud detection. If my way to actually. identify and report fraud is easy, then if there could be tags, etc. Other entities can also loop in and make it a robust way that fraud detection becomes easy. Crowdsourcing or fraud detection, suspicious activities can be detected and tracked and reported. I think that could lead for a robust financial DPI with the consumer at the center. That’s about it. Over to you guys.

Luca Belli: Thank you very much, Ritu. Very interesting points, especially regarding the booming cyber crimes and frauds in UPI, which clearly is an issue that must be addressed with further and more seriousness. Now, speaking about redress in terms of how can consumers try to cope with this kind of unfortunate situations and more, we have Saroja Sundaram, who has been dealing with this and other internet, digital literacy issues that can be also plugged into this discussion for some years. So please, Saroja, the floor is yours.

Saroja Sundaram: Thank you, Luca. I think my colleague, my friend Ritu has covered most of the concerns that we are facing on the ground. And as he had rightly mentioned, there are several positive aspects to this, which has been, which was covered by him, actually. So we recently did a study of around 2000 consumers, of users of digital financial services from the rural areas. So the findings were actually quite interesting, because most of the people, even street vendors today use UPI systems. So digital transactions that way has penetrated to the lowest level. And like everyone, seem to like, enjoy using it because of its convenience. But then there are some challenges as well. As pointed out by Ritul, I think it is across the platform and especially from rural areas, there are specific challenges. And most of the, like the country is, the citizens are from these areas. And so it’s very important for the regulator and the government agencies to actually look at the ground scenario on what is actually happening on the ground, how consumers are like the regulations, the policies that they frame, how far, how effectively it reaches the last mile is something that they need to assess, I feel, before they assess to actually see how they could strengthen implementation of their policies and their regulations so that consumers stand to benefit, even from the remotest area of the country stand to benefit. So Luka, as you pointed out, in India, again, connectivity, as you mentioned, mindful connectivity, meaningful connectivity is very important, I feel, because network connectivity in rural areas appears to be a challenge. So UPI transactions, the chances of double transaction, and then difficulty in getting the money back, all these are some of the challenges that we saw when we spoke with the consumers, because the internet connectivity is intermittent or very poor, so they have challenges there. And also the other concern, as Ritul pointed out, is about the redress mechanism. People don’t know where to complain, actually. Even the first step as to where to go into the app, they know to make a transaction. So it’s only like a QR code scan or just enter the number and just the transaction is through. But then to make a complaint, how to register a complaint and how to take it forward in case someone helps them with registering a complaint to take it to the next level in case they don’t get an address, what happens? And again, they don’t have the content in vernacular language. So that proves to be a challenge. So especially from a country like India with multiple languages, it’s very difficult for consumers actually. So that is another challenge that consumers don’t know how to deal with. And digital literacy is very limited. So we need to have customized and tailor-made literacy programs for consumers. Only then it will be, and it should be a continued engagement. And only then consumers will know what they are up to and how they can get issues addressed. In fact, I wanted to suggest, I want to suggest a few steps that should be taken to improve this situation actually from the various stakeholders. First is actually about accessibility and transparency. Consumer, when we talk about address mechanisms, they should be easy to understand and should be accessible to consumers. And transparency about the process, about the timelines, about the eligibility criteria, and all these should be readily available to the consumer so that it builds the trust, consumer trust. And user-friendly, the platforms should be user-friendly. That is also very important. So consumers should be easily, readily able to file complaints, track the status of their case, and receive guidance. And any kind of complaint, they should be able to upload or inform someone about the, not everyone will be familiar with the typing or writing. So they should be able to, there should be some other process, way by which they could actually record their complaint so that they are, and they should have this multilingual support as well. And clear communication, actually, provide consumers with clear communication about their rights, the steps in the redress process, and the outcomes should be available to the consumers. Similarly, timely and effective dispute resolution is very important. If that is not there, time-bound redressal, if it is not there, then it is going to be very difficult for consumers, which is what is happening today, unfortunately. And we need alternative dispute resolution also. Under the consumer protection law, we have mediation as an option for consumers to actually seek redress. So I think, and India, the Indian government, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs is actively promoting mediation in all the consumer commissions, the consumer courts. Mediation centers are required to be made available so that consumers can, say, get redress through mediation. Similarly, something like this online, some alternative dispute resolution mechanism should be available for consumers so that they are able to quickly seek redress for their issues. And compensation also. If the consumer is entitled to compensation or reimbursement, then that should also be processed quickly so that they are not harassed further. They have already lost their money and they should not be harassed further. We do have certain regulations in place. It’s not that there is nothing at all. We do have, when it comes to online transactions, there is the zero liability. There are situations where the consumer is totally responsible. Limited liability of consumers. All these are there in place, but then it has to be time bound, whatever the mechanisms. They should not be further harassed is what I feel. And I think the service providers, the financial institutions also have a role to play. They need to be actually more proactive to ensure that the citizens, if they face a problem, their issues are addressed. They should come forward to actually help consumers in such scenarios instead of actually immediately going on the defensive. This is what happens. So this is a challenge that needs to be addressed. And ombudsman. So in India, we have this body. It’s supposed to be an independent body, but unfortunately, it acts as an extended arm of the regulator. And so it’s like not every consumer will be able to easily approach the ombudsman’s office. So this is another thing. They have to be independent. They need to stay away from the regulator, and they should not be housed inside the regulator’s office, which intimidates a common man, actually. So I think that is something that we should have. They sit separately, and they handle issues separately so that consumers feel confident and trust the ombudsman’s office to go and register, escalate their complaint. You cannot register a complaint before the ombudsman directly. So you need to exhaust all the other avenues, like approaching the branch or the service provider directly. And then there is this internal ombudsman mechanism as well, where they can escalate their complaint. And then as a next step, they can approach this integrated ombudsman, who’s available for the consumers. But then it’s very important that they are independent so that there is no bias. And another important thing that I feel is very important is the monitoring mechanism that needs to be in place. I think it’s very important to continuously assess the effectiveness of redress mechanisms by collecting feedback from consumers. Consumers, when I say consumers, the different category of consumers, urban consumers, rural consumers, businesses, the bigger companies, and also the small vendors on the streets. To everyone, we should be talking and we should be taking feedback on a regular basis. These regular audits and monitoring can ensure that the system remains responsive to the evolving challenges and are approved to be consumer friendly. So yeah, so these are some of the suggestions I think I would like to state. And when it comes to digital literacy, I think there are several awareness programs that are happening, several awareness materials that the regulator has come out with. And it is available on their website. And some programs happen haphazardly here and there. But I think we need to actually move from this situation to a more robust, more dedicated, customized digital literacy programs should be developed targeting the different stakeholders so that consumers are aware. As Ritu mentioned, the frauds that are happening, like people are taken completely unaware. They don’t even know what is happening. just like that they lose their money. Then it’s a big struggle, and many a time you don’t get your money back. This is the ground reality. So I think it’s very important to see how we actually educate at least to that extent. There are situations that go beyond control, but then there are situations where it could be the consumer’s fault and where we educate them and they know their rights as a consumer. So I think we need to organize these workshops and training programs, which should be a regular phenomenon. And of course we have the online platforms today, social media, where we should be actually reaching out to consumers. And there are several other ways also, street plays and other for rural consumers through those medium, board games and things like that, where we can reach out to school children, where we actually educate them on digital literacy and also engage through social media and community as I mentioned, and also incorporation of real life scenarios. If we could give examples, real life stories on how people lost money in case studies, including them in our campaigns so that people know actually how you could be, one could be cheated in this space. So this actually will help. Tailor-made literacy programs are very important for consumers to know, for them to understand what is the concern around the space and how they need to be careful. Digital lending is another major problem actually. Many people are losing, being threatened actually. When we were talking to consumers, especially women, they offer 10,000, 20,000, It was a small money without any documents. So women who are running small business or for some family reason, for purpose, they go and take this money without informing any other family member. I happened to come across these two cases, where this lady, in one case, particular case, this lady took the money, 10,000 rupees, small amount only. She borrowed this money without any papers for some personal use. Later, what happened was the fellow started threatening her, telling her that he’ll be posting her photo on social media and all. And so he kept taking money from her. She paid up to 60,000 rupees for the 10,000 that she had taken. And then, beyond that also, when he started demanding money, only then she realized that she couldn’t do anything more. And she went and told her husband about it. And then they went to the police. And these things happen. So I think this space needs to be regulated. It has to be addressed. Because there are many, especially women, many people who are suffering because of this digital lending problem. So yeah, with this, I would like to conclude. And if there are any questions, I’ll be happy to take. Thank you.

Luca Belli: Thank you very much. Thank you very much for this. And I’m sure there will be questions or considerations from the audience. We have here people in the floor that have been with us for the entire workshop. So if we have any considerations, questions, or even personal experiences that you would like to share to understand to what extent DPI can be consumer-centric or are not, or even to bring examples from your own countries, this is the moment, actually, where you can do so. So if you want, if anyone in the audience here in the room wants to contribute to the discussion, please. free to raise your hand and add your two cents or two rupees. Yes, sir. Yes, we have. Can we bring a mic to this gentleman here? Thank you.

Audience: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the nice discussion in the nice presentations. I really like the way both speakers have managed to frame the consumer centricity demand of DPI and look at the experience of Brazil in terms of picks as well. It’s quite solid. Many countries in Africa are looking at the experience of PICS, which is, you know, the public part of public driven DPI development process, which is quite essential in terms of putting proper safeguards on time on from the onset. Some countries are actually going deeper into the DPI development without proper safeguards being in place, policy and regulatory processes being in place. So PICS has a lot to learn from that, a lot to share from that perspective. One potential practice for consumer centricity of DPI in Africa, and I’d like to relate to the country that I come from, which is Ethiopia, in the process of identity development, right? One of the driving factors for ID development, which gave it an extra momentum for consumer centricity is the level of identity fraud available or identity fraud attacks that banks in the country were facing. The major challenge being the lack of digitally verifiable identification system in Ethiopia, has led to the actual creation of a digital identification process. And the amount of money the banks were losing annually was quite huge to the extent that it has driven them to get together and invest in the early enrollment technology that was supportive of the government’s partnership, the government’s plan for digital identification. development. And this has actually been a sign of a commitment and be a collaborative work between public private partnership for DPI development, and it’s a solid case. Now, still, it has a challenge of having a proper safeguard. But for me, it’s a major indicator of consumers, consumer centricity whereby identity fraud is not only affecting the banks but also account holders and transactors. And thereby creating a very fertile ground to create consumer centric digital public infrastructure system. But the challenge being and then this is something that I would like the other speakers to actually also address is the fact that DPI approach process. So, usually there’s a single track siloed approach of implementing DPIs without putting proper safeguards and that’s one of the major challenge ID systems are facing at this point in time, payment systems are facing at this point in time. So there’s a need to create integration there’s a need to create interoperability, but also there’s a need to create from the onset from the beginning at the design stage issues related to safeguard so for me, it’s just a comment and a question. The first is the fact that a yes there are multiple examples of the consumer centricity from the design from the intention of DPI itself. But then again, there’s a need to actually bring all these DPI components together ID payment data from the early onset on onwards to make sure that they, they integrate and work closely and in partnership. Thank you.

Luca Belli: Those are excellent comments. Do we have any other other here otherwise, as we, yes we have another gentleman here. Yes, please go ahead. Introduce yourself. Yes.

Audience: My name is James from bloggers Association of Kenya, and yeah, I’m from Kenya. I, I just want to make a contribution it’s a, it’s actually a comment. It’s, it’s quite interesting that you’re having this conversation about DPS being consumer centric. consumer-centric because we have an opposite experience in Kenya and that’s what we’ve actually been trying to get the government to actually see basically the point of having something consumer-centric because what is happening is, so for instance, the president will go out there and let’s say go to Google or go to any IT company, ETC, or maybe like one of the ministers is approached and then they have what is called a top-down approach. So you just have a solution, just dump it on you and it doesn’t work for anyone. And then also something else, instead of going, let’s say the Brazil way where the, let’s say the regulator comes up with an idea and builds it from the ground up, you know, they just, I don’t know how to say this, but they just dump this thing that they don’t know if it’s going to work and then now they start putting, you know, they start putting sort of clusters as you go along. The whatever, I don’t know whether it’s the gentleman or the lady who said that, you know, customer care and being able to have your issues sorted is one of the ideal ways of building a customer, or rather consumer-centric DPI. So when it’s top-down, it’s even worse because now when you think about it, they actually building, they’re actually using a system that they have not involved any of the stakeholders and most importantly, the. public. And so what you have is just something that doesn’t work. From, you know, from a general perspective, I feel like maybe with DPS, and especially for countries that are starting to adopt this, like us, like Kenya, I feel like what you need to start with like policy, you have a policy in place. And then I’ll build from there.

Luca Belli: Thank you. Thank you very much for this excellent comment. Actually, it allows me to provide just a little bit of clarification. The I want to make clear that the goal of the panel is to assess whether and how DPS can be consumer centric, but it was none of the speakers intention to argue that they are by default consumer centric. So this last comment is actually very useful to clarify that they can be. And I believe that probably the Brazilian experience is one of the most of the closest to be consumer centric simply because it was it is one of the most recent. And so it could learn also from the mistakes of other I know that in Kenya, you have NPESA. It is very similar to the Brazilian peaks, but it’s also very different. And I also understand some of the difference maybe on how it has been proposed and implemented. So our colleagues from the remote assistance remind us that we have to to wrap up. So I would like to give to our my fellow panelists a final moment to provide their final thoughts. Maybe some some provocative remarks, final remarks in one minute, or some some hope for the future. Feel free to use the last minute that you have at your disposal as you want. So maybe we can go with Ale and then Rito and Sraja.

Alexandre Barbosa: Thank you, Luca. Thank you for the reflections as well. Quite quite quickly. Definitely, there’s the Brazilian experience, the Indian experience, it should not be like just replicated elsewhere. Brazil has a long trajectory in terms of civil society, engagement in digital rights and internet governance, indeed the multi-stakeholder and so on. And we need to think of the design of DPI is at least at two levels. One is this customization as the financial services provider level, but also at the architecture level. PIX is divided mainly into two. One’s the instant payment system, what it was built in already existing financial infrastructure, and also the decentralized identifier, which enables this portability of keys and so on. But I don’t have time to dig on that. And I also like to emphasize that PIX also has among its structure, the forum PIX, the PIX forum, which is also a multi-stakeholder, it’s space for deciding, discussing decisions upon the design and appreciate again the time here and take a look in the UN DPI safeguards that was launched just in September. It provides also interesting insights. Thank you.

Luca Belli: Thank you very much, Alessio. We can go to Ritu and then Suraj.

Ritul Gaur: Hi, I just wanna make one small point and thank you, Brian, for actually pointing that out about the safeguards thing. I think for any government looking forward to build, one of the most important thing is to build it in open. Every document, everything, if it’s published in open, even if it’s pricing, even if it’s small tweaks in regulations, et cetera, as much as you can allow the documents to be out and open, you allow the civil society to analyze, criticize, et cetera, and then make the feedback box welcome and open. I think building it open is something which is very critical. In India, in 2014, they launched something called PLCP. which is pre-legislative consultation policy for any legislation, any regulation, it has to be out in public for public comments for a minimum of 30 days. Otherwise, it cannot pass. So I think something like that, which if you’re planning to build, because it’s difficult to involve people like the scale of which democracies work in every small decisions. But if you can, at least build it in open, I think you allow for a greater amount of transparency in the system. So yeah, that’s it. Excellent. Thank you so much. This was a great experience.

Luca Belli: Saraju, please. Yeah.

Saroja Sundaram: So I think we need to have an effective monitoring system in place, especially looking at vulnerable consumers, the concerns, like if you’re going to have regular audits, do regular audits, then we will know where we stand in terms of being the sense the government agencies, the regulator, where they stand in terms of the implementation of their policies. And this will stand as a feedback for them to actually improve their system so that consumers stand to benefit. So yeah, this is what I think we need most.

Luca Belli: Fantastic. And I think with this word of optimism and hope for the future, we can close this panel. Thank you very much to all the participants. Very good discussion and hope you have an excellent IGF. Bye-bye. Thank you. Bye-bye.

Agreement Points

DPIs can promote financial inclusion and improve consumer welfare

Luca Belli

Alexandre Barbosa

Ritul Gaur

DPIs can increase financial inclusion and consumer welfare

Brazil’s PIX system has been successful in promoting digital payments

India’s UPI system has enabled widespread digital transactions

The speakers agree that Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) systems like Brazil’s PIX and India’s UPI have successfully promoted financial inclusion and improved consumer welfare by enabling widespread digital transactions and reducing costs.

Consumer protection and redressal mechanisms are crucial for DPI systems

Ritul Gaur

Saroja Sundaram

Online dispute resolution should be implemented for DPI-related issues

Clear communication and user-friendly platforms are needed for consumer redressal

Regular audits and monitoring of DPI systems are necessary

Ombudsman offices should be independent from regulators

Both speakers emphasize the importance of effective consumer protection measures, including dispute resolution mechanisms, clear communication, and independent oversight for DPI systems.

Similar Viewpoints

The speakers agree that meaningful connectivity and digital literacy are essential for effective DPI adoption and usage, particularly in rural areas and among diverse populations.

Luca Belli

Ritul Gaur

Saroja Sundaram

Meaningful connectivity is necessary for DPI adoption

Language barriers and lack of digital literacy hinder DPI usage

Customized digital literacy programs are needed for different consumer groups

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in DPI development

Alexandre Barbosa

Ritul Gaur

Audience

DPI development should involve multi-stakeholder engagement

DPI systems should be built openly with public consultation

Top-down DPI implementation without stakeholder involvement can be problematic

There was an unexpected consensus among speakers from different backgrounds on the importance of involving multiple stakeholders, including civil society and the public, in the development and implementation of DPI systems. This agreement highlights a shared recognition of the need for inclusive and transparent processes in DPI development.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the potential of DPIs to promote financial inclusion and improve consumer welfare, the need for effective consumer protection mechanisms, the importance of digital literacy and meaningful connectivity, and the value of multi-stakeholder engagement in DPI development.

Consensus level

There is a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the benefits and challenges of DPI implementation. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the potential of DPIs to drive financial inclusion and economic development, while also recognizing the need for careful implementation, consumer protection, and inclusive development processes. The implications of this consensus are that future DPI initiatives are likely to focus on addressing these shared concerns, potentially leading to more robust and user-centric systems.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to DPI implementation

Luca Belli

Ritul Gaur

Audience

DPIs can increase financial inclusion and consumer welfare

Cyber crimes and frauds are increasing with UPI adoption in India

Top-down DPI implementation without stakeholder involvement can be problematic

While Luca Belli emphasizes the benefits of DPIs for financial inclusion and consumer welfare, Ritul Gaur highlights the increasing cyber crimes and frauds associated with UPI adoption in India. The audience member points out the problems with top-down DPI implementation without proper stakeholder involvement.

Unexpected Differences

Institutional structure for DPI management

Luca Belli

Saroja Sundaram

DPIs can help break monopolies and promote competition

Ombudsman offices should be independent from regulators

While discussing the benefits of DPIs, Luca Belli focuses on their ability to break monopolies and promote competition. Unexpectedly, Saroja Sundaram raises a concern about the institutional structure, arguing for independent ombudsman offices. This highlights a potential tension between promoting competition and ensuring effective oversight.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the implementation approach of DPIs, the balance between benefits and risks, and the institutional structures needed for effective oversight and consumer protection.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there is general agreement on the potential benefits of DPIs, there are significant differences in perspectives on implementation strategies, risk management, and governance structures. These disagreements highlight the complexity of implementing DPIs effectively and the need for careful consideration of various stakeholder perspectives to ensure successful and inclusive digital infrastructure development.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for effective consumer redressal mechanisms, but they propose different approaches. Ritul Gaur suggests implementing online dispute resolution, while Saroja Sundaram emphasizes clear communication and user-friendly platforms.

Ritul Gaur

Saroja Sundaram

Online dispute resolution should be implemented for DPI-related issues

Clear communication and user-friendly platforms are needed for consumer redressal

Similar Viewpoints

The speakers agree that meaningful connectivity and digital literacy are essential for effective DPI adoption and usage, particularly in rural areas and among diverse populations.

Luca Belli

Ritul Gaur

Saroja Sundaram

Meaningful connectivity is necessary for DPI adoption

Language barriers and lack of digital literacy hinder DPI usage

Customized digital literacy programs are needed for different consumer groups

Key Takeaways

Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) can promote financial inclusion and consumer welfare when implemented effectively

Successful DPI implementations like Brazil’s PIX and India’s UPI have enabled widespread digital transactions

DPIs can help break monopolies and promote competition in financial services

Meaningful connectivity and digital literacy are crucial prerequisites for DPI adoption

Consumer protection and robust redressal mechanisms are essential for DPI success

Multi-stakeholder engagement and open development processes are important for effective DPI design and implementation

Resolutions and Action Items

Implement online dispute resolution mechanisms for DPI-related issues

Conduct regular audits and monitoring of DPI systems

Develop customized digital literacy programs for different consumer groups

Ensure DPI systems are built openly with public consultation

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively balance rapid DPI implementation with proper safeguards and regulations

How to address increasing cyber crimes and frauds associated with DPI adoption

How to overcome language barriers in DPI usage and redressal mechanisms

How to ensure independence of ombudsman offices from regulators

Suggested Compromises

Implement a pre-legislative consultation policy requiring public comments before passing DPI-related regulations

Create a multi-stakeholder forum for ongoing discussions on DPI design and implementation

Brazil has become very well known in DPI debates for PICS, it’s Digital Public Infrastructure for Payments. So usually there are three main categories of digital public infrastructures, digital IDs, digital payments, and personal data consent managers.

speaker

Luca Belli

reason

This comment provides a clear framework for understanding different types of DPIs, which helps structure the rest of the discussion.

impact

It set the stage for more detailed exploration of DPIs in different countries, particularly Brazil and India.

The Brazilian Central Bank suspended the launch of WhatsApp payments for six months, because this would have created detrimental effect on privacy, data protection, competition, because having WhatsApp, a sort of monopoly of connectivity.

speaker

Luca Belli

reason

This example illustrates how government regulation can protect consumer interests and promote competition in the face of powerful tech companies.

impact

It sparked discussion about the role of government in regulating DPIs and protecting consumer interests.

UPI constitute 80% of digital payments in 2024 in India with billions of dollars being exchanged. It is fantastic. There’s a high amount of trust outside. There are ingenious solutions which includes small voice box that pops up every time a small payment is made. But at the same time, UPI is also a financial crime hotspot.

speaker

Ritul Gaur

reason

This comment highlights both the benefits and risks of DPIs, providing a balanced perspective.

impact

It shifted the conversation to focus more on the challenges and risks associated with DPIs, particularly in terms of consumer protection and fraud.

We need to have customized and tailor-made literacy programs for consumers. Only then it will be, and it should be a continued engagement. And only then consumers will know what they are up to and how they can get issues addressed.

speaker

Saroja Sundaram

reason

This comment emphasizes the importance of consumer education in making DPIs truly consumer-centric.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include the need for consumer education and literacy programs as a key component of successful DPI implementation.

Some countries are actually going deeper into the DPI development without proper safeguards being in place, policy and regulatory processes being in place.

speaker

Audience member

reason

This comment from an audience member brings attention to the risks of implementing DPIs without proper safeguards.

impact

It reinforced the importance of regulatory frameworks and safeguards in DPI implementation, leading to further discussion on this topic.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by providing a comprehensive overview of DPIs, their benefits, and challenges. The conversation evolved from a general introduction to DPIs to a more nuanced exploration of implementation challenges, consumer protection issues, and the need for regulatory frameworks. The comments highlighted the complexity of implementing DPIs in different contexts and emphasized the importance of consumer-centric approaches, including education and robust grievance redressal mechanisms. The discussion also touched on the role of government regulation in ensuring fair competition and protecting consumer interests in the face of powerful tech companies.

How can online dispute resolution (ODR) be effectively implemented for UPI transactions?

speaker

Ritul Gaur

explanation

ODR was suggested as a key solution to address consumer grievances without going to court, but its implementation for UPI is not yet realized.

How can the user experience for reporting fraud and financial transaction issues be simplified and standardized across all UPI apps?

speaker

Ritul Gaur

explanation

Inconsistent complaint mechanisms across apps make it difficult for users, especially those with limited financial literacy, to seek redress.

What methods can be developed to improve fraud detection in UPI transactions, potentially involving multiple stakeholders like telecom providers?

speaker

Ritul Gaur

explanation

Improving fraud detection is crucial given the high incidence of UPI-related frauds reported to the National Crime Records Bureau.

How can digital literacy programs be customized and tailored for different stakeholder groups, especially in rural areas?

speaker

Saroja Sundaram

explanation

Customized digital literacy programs are needed to address the specific challenges faced by different groups of consumers, particularly in rural areas with limited connectivity and literacy.

How can the independence and effectiveness of the ombudsman system for addressing consumer complaints be improved?

speaker

Saroja Sundaram

explanation

The current ombudsman system is perceived as an extended arm of the regulator, potentially intimidating consumers and limiting its effectiveness in resolving disputes.

What mechanisms can be put in place to continuously assess the effectiveness of redress mechanisms through consumer feedback?

speaker

Saroja Sundaram

explanation

Regular audits and monitoring based on diverse consumer feedback are needed to ensure the system remains responsive to evolving challenges.

How can proper safeguards and policy/regulatory processes be implemented from the onset of DPI development?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

Some countries are developing DPIs without proper safeguards in place, which could lead to issues later on.

How can integration and interoperability between different DPI components (ID, payment, data) be ensured from the early design stages?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

There’s a need to bring all DPI components together from the early onset to ensure they integrate and work closely in partnership.

How can a bottom-up, stakeholder-inclusive approach to DPI development be encouraged, especially in countries where top-down approaches are prevalent?

speaker

James (audience member)

explanation

Some countries are implementing DPIs without involving stakeholders or the public, leading to systems that don’t work effectively for consumers.

Summary

This discussion focused on the role of citizens in informing and maintaining e-government systems. Panelists explored various aspects of citizen participation, including creating secure channels for engagement, building trust in e-government initiatives, and addressing human rights concerns.

Key points included the importance of secure digital identities and data exchange networks for effective e-government. Panelists emphasized the need to involve citizens as co-creators rather than just end-users of these systems. They discussed strategies for engaging youth and marginalized communities, such as leveraging religious centers and civil society organizations.

The conversation highlighted the importance of proactive government services, where systems anticipate citizen needs rather than requiring complex application processes. Panelists also stressed the need for legal frameworks to support e-government initiatives and protect them from political changes.

Accessibility was a major theme, with suggestions for designing systems that cater to elderly and disabled users. The role of the international community in advising on e-government was debated, with some cautioning against imposing external solutions.

Challenges discussed included data quality issues, the digital divide in rural areas, and the need to build digital literacy. The panel concluded that while progress is being made in many countries, there is still significant work to be done in creating inclusive, secure, and effective e-government systems that truly serve all citizens.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Creating secure channels for citizen participation in e-government design while addressing security concerns

– Building citizen trust in e-government initiatives, especially in places without existing systems

– Forms of citizen participation beyond just using e-government systems (e.g. digital petitions, online voting)

– Including citizens as stakeholders to address human rights concerns around data collection/processing

– Designing e-government systems to address needs of vulnerable populations

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore ways to meaningfully involve citizens in the development and implementation of e-government systems, while addressing key challenges around security, trust, and inclusion.

Speakers

– Sienna Byrne, Moderator

– Florian Marcus, Head of Sales and Partnerships at Cybernetica

– Noha Abdel Baky, Instructor at the Pan-African Youth Ambassadors for Internet Governance

– Asha Abinallah, Founder and CEO of Tech and Media Convergency (TMC)

– PeiChin Tay, Senior Policy Advisor on Government Innovation at Tony Blair Institute for Global Change

– Dr. Adel Abdel-Sadek, Director of the Arab Center for Cyberspace Research-ACCR

E-Government and Citizen Participation: A Comprehensive Overview

This discussion explored the critical role of citizens in informing and maintaining e-government systems, focusing on various aspects of citizen participation, security concerns, trust-building, and addressing human rights issues. The panel, comprised of experts from diverse backgrounds, offered insights into creating effective and inclusive e-government initiatives.

Creating Channels for Citizen Participation While Addressing Security Concerns

The panelists discussed various strategies for involving citizens in e-government initiatives while maintaining security:

1. Secure Digital Infrastructure: Florian Marcus, Head of Sales and Partnerships at Cybernetica, emphasised the crucial importance of secure digital identities and data exchange networks as the foundation for effective e-government systems.

2. Secure Participation Channels: Marcus recommended implementing secure digital petitioning and online voting systems to increase citizen participation.

3. Balancing Security and Participation: The panel acknowledged the challenge of finding the right balance between security concerns and increased citizen participation in e-government design.

4. Legal Frameworks: Dr. Adel Abdel-Sadek, Director of the Arab Center for Cyberspace Research-ACCR, stressed the need for political support and modernised laws to facilitate digital transformation.

Forms of Citizen Participation Beyond Mere Use of E-Government Systems

The discussion highlighted several ways citizens can actively participate in e-government initiatives:

1. Co-creation: All speakers concurred that citizens should be viewed as partners and co-creators in e-government design, rather than just end-users.

2. Youth Involvement: Noha Abdel Baky from the Pan-African Youth Ambassadors for Internet Governance and Asha Abinallah, Founder and CEO of Tech and Media Convergency, both stressed the importance of youth as primary users and influencers of e-government tools. They advocated for giving youth leadership roles in these initiatives.

3. Engagement Platforms: Asha Abinallah suggested creating platforms to engage citizens and explain the importance of their participation.

4. Digital Feedback Loops: Pei Ching Tay from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change proposed using technology to create digital feedback loops between citizens and government.

Including Citizens as Stakeholders to Address Human Rights Concerns

The panel discussed approaches to ensure e-government systems respect human rights and include all citizens:

1. Stakeholder Identification: Asha Abinallah emphasised the importance of identifying stakeholders and engaging citizens from the start of any e-government initiative to build trust.

2. Human-Centred Design: Tay and Abinallah both advocated for a human-centric design approach to policymaking, emphasising the importance of understanding and addressing specific stakeholder needs from the outset.

3. Integrating Youth Considerations: Abinallah stressed the importance of integrating youth considerations into national ICT policies.

4. Addressing Potential Risks: An audience member from Russia raised concerns about the potential risks of e-government systems in non-democratic countries, highlighting the need to consider human rights implications in different political contexts.

Designing E-Government Systems for Vulnerable Populations

The panel discussed various approaches to ensure e-government systems are accessible and inclusive:

1. Universal Design: Florian Marcus suggested making interfaces accessible by default for elderly and disabled users.

2. Proactive Services: PeiChin Tay advocated for proactive services to reduce administrative burdens, particularly for vulnerable populations. Marcus provided an example from Estonia, where the government proactively offers services to new parents.

3. Rural Infrastructure: Noha Abdel Baky highlighted the need to improve digital infrastructure access in rural areas to bridge the digital divide.

4. Engaging Marginalised Youth: In response to an audience question, Asha Abinallah discussed strategies for engaging marginalised youth in Tanzania, mentioning current digital infrastructure challenges and government initiatives.

5. Digital Literacy: The panel acknowledged the challenge of making e-government systems accessible to those with low digital literacy.

Role of the International Community in E-Government Development

An interesting point of disagreement emerged regarding the role of the international community:

– Florian Marcus advocated for minimal international interference, cautioning against imposing external solutions.

– Noha Abdel Baky saw a significant role for the international technical community in creating innovative solutions tailored to local needs.

This difference in perspective highlights the complex balance between leveraging international expertise and respecting local autonomy in e-government development.

Throughout the discussion, panelists emphasized the importance of ongoing citizen engagement, adaptive policymaking, and collaboration with civil society organizations to ensure e-government systems meet the diverse needs of all citizens and contribute to more responsive and effective governance.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you so much for joining us for Workshop 86, the role of citizens informing and maintaining e-government. I’m here today joined by panelists Asha Abinalla, founder and CEO of Tech and Media Convergency, Florian Marcus, head of sales and partnerships at Cybernetica, Noha Abalbaki, instructor at the Pan-African Youth Ambassadors for Internet Governance, Dr. Adele Abel-Sadeq, director of the Arab Center for Cyberspace Research, and PeiChin Tay, Senior Policy Advisor on Government Innovation at Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. To kick things off, I would like to pose our first question relating to how we can most effectively create channels for citizen participation and the design of e-government systems while still addressing security concerns. So the way that this panel will work is ideally as a roundtable. So panelists are going to engage in conversation and we’ll leave time at the end also for questions from the audience and input or thoughts on what we shared. If anyone would like to start by addressing that first question. I mean, considering the very square nature of this table, we will try to make it a roundtable so we’ll do our best.

Florian Marcus: So I guess if we want to talk about secure participation of citizens in all echelons of digital government or what I would prefer to call a digital society, we need to talk about secure digital identities which are universal so that I can be sure that when I am logging into my bank or into my digital state portal that the government actually knows who it is talking to as well and that I get the services to which I am entitled. So to make it more personalized as a platform. as a service provision for me. And then also, based on that, data exchange, of course, is super important that you have a secure, decentralized data exchange network where all the different government authorities can talk to each other and exchange data to provide the services that you deserve. But beyond that, I think I would leave it to my participants first, and then potentially chime in if we go into further details.

Sienna Byrne: Great, so on that first question, how we can effectively create channels for citizen participation in the design of e-government systems while still addressing security concerns. Noha, do you want to talk about youth involvement?

Noha Abdel Baky: Thank you, Sienna. I’m Noha Abdel Baky. So youth are the main users of, like, they are the primary users of any tech solutions or any digital tools provided for them. So we are the first responders, the ones who influence other age groups to use these tools. So if we are going to tackle the security perspective of it, it needs to be done through secure channels, not necessarily social media. Even if it’s done through social media, it needs to be done maybe anonymously or by using multi-factor authentication or just to verify that it’s not a scam. Or like in Egypt, we have verified accounts for each ministry or governmental body on all social media channels. So as youth, it’s our role to raise the awareness for the other citizens on how to communicate effectively and securely with the governmental bodies through the available channels. For example, in Egypt, there is also a hotline where you can call the digital Egypt. initiative and raise your concerns or open a ticket with them so it’s not only through social media but yeah we need to raise like the security precautions when we communicate with the government.

Sienna Byrne: Now jumping to Asha – I’d love to hear your answer on question one as well bringing your perspective. You can hear your own voice through the headsets for everyone who is taking them off.

Asha Abinallah: I love the fact that the feedbacks are complimentary but for me I would like to remind as an when I look at my country and the state of development where it is the first channels will be creating all those platforms and to make sure that proper channels and platforms understand that there is this mechanism when the mechanism is being created because we now have a state where the government is creating mechanisms to bring people on board not necessarily strategically focusing on different groups but just generally so the first step would be creating platforms for the youth and citizens to be interested in and understanding why it is important for them to engage and also enticing the way that we can reach where our fellow participants are that now they can create a community of youth who can sort of bring other people or other youth on board or in the peer group to be able to use the e-governance system. Thank you.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you. I know we’ve had some technical difficulties but I’m hoping that PeiChin Tay are you online with us? I’ll repeat the question again but we would love to hear your response to to question one, how can we most effectively create channels for citizen participation in the design of e-government systems while still addressing security concerns?

PeiChin Tay: That’s great. The audio works on my side. Hi, everyone. Sorry, I can’t be there with you in person. I hope you’re all having a great time. So I’m PeiChin Tay from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. We do a lot of research around e-government. And I think technology definitely brings a lot of opportunities for civic engagement now, because it really does reduce barriers to scale and creating digital feedback loops that are really important for policymakers. There are a number of online tools these days, such as government portals, e-petition platforms, systems, and so on. All these different tools allow citizens to voice their opinions and to contribute to decision-making without physical barriers, which is a key challenge in some of the countries. And governments are also developing and launching open data initiatives and using technology to release data publicly. And this really empowers citizens to be able to access data, to be able to analyze, critique, and to hold officials to account. So in terms of the actual channels, I think we need to leverage on technology to ensure that there is inclusive input and to create platforms that would allow citizens to provide input anonymously and or securely. So I think POLIS is an example of a really popular consensus-generating platform that crowdsources ideas from the public. And bearing in mind that a lot of social media does have that polarizing effect, POLIS is there generate consensus. And this has actually led Taiwan to help policymakers in issues such as how do we regulate Uber and so on. I think in addition to security and privacy, I think generating consensus is a really important part of that journey, and I think encouraging citizen participation is one side of the equation. But equally, it’s helping policymakers to make better decisions and to achieve regulatory outcomes.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you. That’s a great answer. Dr. Adel will be speaking in Arabic and Nohal will be providing a brief translation afterwards.

Dr. Adel Abdel-Sadek: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for this invitation. Because of this subject is very, very important for to re-understanding the real network between or relationship between citizens and the government. I will translate into Arabic. I will translate into Arabic. in the process of improving the government’s decision-making and improving the idea of governance or government governance. Then, the process of designing programs for the electronic government should look at the citizen as a partner and owner, as well as a controller and a practitioner of constitutional rights in compliance with the government and executive bodies. To draft the framework of creating secure and transparent communication channels between the citizens and the governmental bodies, and to consider the opinion and feedback of the citizens when designing the tools, the e-governmental tools and services, as the citizen’s right to be a partner in creating those tools.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you for that translation, Noha. Just building off of question one, one thing that I want to pose to the panelists is, going back to what you said earlier, Asha, how can we build citizen trust and e-government initiatives in places where we don’t have these systems up yet, and where this is really a future opportunity and something that we’re really having to build from the ground up? How do we introduce this? How do we get stakeholder buy-in? And more importantly, what metrics should citizens be basing their trust in e-government on? Thank you. Anyone who wants to take that, please feel free.

Asha Abinallah: So I think the first thing that we take for granted is the understanding of individuals. I would say the first step is instead of just going into doing that by having the metrics of their understanding, their perspective, if they’re positive, if they’re negative, because I think that it’s the best way of introducing a new aspect into the community, especially when it has to do with technology. You know, sometimes as the governments, when they bring on solutions, they bring on initiatives and introduce it to the communities, they know that the government have decided. They don’t feel like they’re part of it. So the first step would be you have to make sure that the citizens are engaged. And I know sometimes it’s very confusing when you talk about citizens. We are, at Tanzania, we are over 65 million, 65 million in population. And the active internet users is just 35 million. So people who’ve registered. So when it comes to active, you might find it’s lesser than that. So how do you reach all these participants? Then you go to the next step, identify the stakeholders. Which stakeholders, which platforms has the target audience you’re reaching? In most cases, sometimes we tend to forget maybe the religious centers. You know, religious, for us as Tanzanians, and I think in most communities, religion is a very important aspect. If you could find ways to find youth through religion, especially as in, especially maybe when it comes to whether it’s mosques, whether it’s churches, you find the youth who would reach a larger number of youth. I think that’s a plus. When you go to universities, you go to CSOs that work with the youth, I think that’s the best way. So how do you reach that? You do a stakeholder mapping. You just don’t. Maybe you just don’t draw a list and say, as long as we’ve reached this category, then that is fine. The key metrics, going to the key metrics, it should be you need to identify a group which, by the time you’ve done engaging with them, you can measure their understanding, their influence, their interest. And that is very easy. We have social media right now. If the citizens are not talking about it, if the users are not talking about it, they are not aware. Because if they are aware, they will in one way or another, whether it’s memes, whether it’s joke, however way they would do that. The other challenging thing is we consider research very, very academically. And I know we have a PhD on board, but when it comes to research, usually it’s just taking something like you just have to go to the academic, have a study on something, and shelf it. How can research be incorporated in a way that it could be friendly and guide their overall process of engagement?

Florian Marcus: Yeah, if I could take it from there. One of my research projects that we just finished up is called EGoff for Youth. You can Google it as well. We just published an over 60-page report. It’s been very fun, basically identifying how youth actually want to be interacting with the government. And what we found extremely low interest in was outreach via social media, because youth don’t want to be talked down upon. They don’t want, I don’t know, economic ministry for kids version on Facebook or something, where they speak to everybody like they’re 15 years old. What you already mentioned as well was that citizens want to feel like they are being heard. And right now that is not the case because most countries don’t account for citizen opinion in their processes. I’ll give a very simple example. If a ministry in most countries decides that it wants to digitalize a service, then usually it will just go ahead and do that. In Estonia and some other countries where public-private partnership is extremely strong, there is a stipulation that says, hey, if there is a project that goes in the direction of service development, you must involve stakeholder groups. If it goes in the direction of e-health, you must talk to patients, to social insurance, to the hospitals, to the nurses, and so on and so forth. So you just have to bake that into your procurement procedures. And if you don’t, well, then that’s probably where one of the problems lies. And the last point that I would add is if we expect citizens to care about the services that government provides, then they should probably be good. And truth be told, in most countries that is not the case right now. And especially if we talk about youth being the ones that bring other generations into the fold, well, youth have to be convinced first. And if youth think of stuff like Amazon that predicts the next thing that they want to buy, or on Instagram within, like if you scroll through Instagram or TikTok, within five minutes the algorithm knows exactly what you want and, you know, what interests you and what you scroll through. And so based on that, they will make recommendations for the next, well, for the rest of your life actually. And government doesn’t do that. Government says, here’s a PDF online, print it out, please fill it out, scan it back and send an email. That’s not user-friendly, that’s like 1998, right? So what we have been doing in Estonia for the last five to ten years is what we call proactive government services, where, I can give a personal example, we have a baby daughter, she’s almost one and a half. half years old. She was born, she got a personal code like a citizen’s number the day that she was born. Her citizen’s number gets connected to my citizen’s number and the one of my wife because we are the legal guardians, the parents. And then the next day we get a notification on the state portal that says congratulations on the birth of your child. We know that by our own laws you are entitled to child benefit payments. To which bank account do we send the money? There is no more application, there is no more searching for the right authority blah blah blah blah blah. So it’s it’s about trying to not even copy the private sector but just get a tiny bit closer than we are at the moment because government will always be slower than private sector. It has to be because of ethical guardrails. That’s fine but we don’t have to be 20 years behind. That’s a quick thought from my side.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you for that response. Would anybody else like to answer this question? I think we have time for about one or two more responses before we move on to our next question. Yes. Feel free to go ahead Dr. Adel.

Dr. Adel Abdel-Sadek: Yes yes. Thank you very much for this information. I think if we wanted to have a good effective channel to design the e-government system, I think we can take in our consideration many aspects such as the e-government system should be coupled with the national need and what is there people need to have or what is the real hopes, real needs to development in the future. Also I think there is also a very important item in this how to know the challenge. What is the challenge we have? What is the opportunity? I think it is very important to have a good solution to solve our problem, to connect with the citizen, to apply e-government. So we are now to transfer from e-government to smart government. I think it is very important to have a smart government to have ability to use as many of technical tools, especially with the rise of AI to apply with and how to handle with the citizen and how to use the boots and AI to deal with the citizen. I think also it is very important to have a good connection between citizen and the government. Also, I have also other item considered on, we should have one national strategy to e-government or smart government. It is very important because it is a make a connection and compromise between the old views, the old idea and how to move our vision to have a development by apply the e-government system. Also, I think also the political support, I think is a political support, especially in our developing countries, it is very important because of it easier to be easy, the tools and easy to apply. And also it is very important to support the leaders to apply the e-government system. Also, I think the e-government and the digital transformation, it is a big challenge to the laws. How to modernize the laws we have, how to make laws and organize the activities on cyberspace because it is related with the trust, as a citizen, if he has the trust in the ecosystem of digital development and digital transaction, it is very important to encourage citizens to deal with the e-government service. Also, especially in our countries like Egypt, we don’t focus on the service by e-government, it is just a service, not to control the citizens. I think it is very important to make a comparison between the service by government, it is the duty for the government, or it is the control on the citizen. I think it is very important to have a culture of digital transformation, it is very good to encourage people to have their inputs about the service and to use many tools. Also, the government should be available many tools, like focus groups, like conferences to raise awareness about what the e-government system has.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you so much Dr. Adel, we really appreciate your response to that. We’re going to have to move on to question two now. Question two is, what form should citizen participation in e-government take beyond the mere use of e-government systems? This goes back to what Florian was talking about earlier regarding proactive government service delivery. Florian, if you would like to take this first question. Yes.

Florian Marcus: Yeah, I mean, there are several things that we can do. Number one, what you could have is something like a digital petitioning system. So right now we’ve got online petition systems all around the world where, I don’t know, you enter your email address and then you can sign whatever, the problem with that system that is being used around the whole world is, of course, that you can create many email accounts. Many of us have several email accounts and we can create 10 more within 10 minutes. And then we can give 10 signatures for whatever petition we care about. And if there is ever a petition that you actually do support but maybe government doesn’t like, they will always be able to put into question like the legitimacy of the number of signatures that you have collected. We have seen this in countries all around the world. This is not one specific kind of government that does this. And the way that we can circumvent this is to say, well, as I said at the start, you all need a universal electronic identity with a digital signature that we can all sort of understand that this person truly gave the signature at this point in time and you can’t hack it somehow. And as a result, the politicians will be able to see that yes, there are legitimately 20 million signatures from 20 million real people for this kind of petition. So this will be a good start. Number two, some experience from Estonia perhaps, what we also see being experimented with in other countries at the moment is online voting. So we had a discussion yesterday and another workshop about the topic a tiny bit already as well. In Estonia, you can vote online since 2005 with your electronic identity. Again, the whole source code for the system is open source. If you have any worries about how your vote is being counted or not then you can check the source code online and that makes it very transparent for international observers as well. So we have international observers in our country not just for the physical counting of votes but also for the digital counting of votes. And then yeah last but not least what I said already about public-private partnership that just forces the companies to get stakeholder groups into the room and ask them how they would like the services to develop. I think that’s a good good good direction.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you Florian I think I would also like to offer Paige in the opportunity to respond to this question since I know this is really in your realm of expertise. What form should citizen participation in e-government take beyond the mere use of e-government systems?

PeiChin Tay: Yes okay yeah so I think policymakers really need to see citizens as co-creators and not just end-users because there’s a lot of complex challenges and governments do not have all the answers. So you know especially when we look at we did a lot of research in the gig economy or digital platform economy for example and that is where we really see government lagging behind because they don’t really have the tools to regulate for new businesses and don’t really know how to deal with it apart from relying on the tools you know of the 20th century. So for instance Uber entered the market in the US in 2011 and it wasn’t until almost a decade later that there was any regulation taking place. So I think there are two main things here which is governments need to gain insight in order to frame the problem in a more accurate manner especially when it relates to new models and new services and new challenges and secondly they need to have the right tools to be able to approach some of these complex policy issues. And this is where citizens can come in really useful as co-creators of solutions, and to contribute ideas and feedback in the development of new policies, perhaps. And this is why we at the Tony Blair Institute have been working with human-centered design agencies on very specific worker-centered projects. Because one of the things that came out as a key challenge in the gig economy is that the workers often do not have a voice. They’re often just at the receiving end of new technologies and algorithms that is there to sort of determine their pay and experience and so on. Which is why sort of taking a worker-centered and human-centered approach in policymaking has been really fruitful.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you. Thank you. Would anybody else here, or Florian, would you like to go ahead and respond to that?

Florian Marcus: Actually, I wanted to ask a question to Pei-Qin. You mentioned at the very start that the citizen needs to be understood as a co-creator. And I totally agree the question is not whether, yes or no, but how. I mean, we have a million working groups and a million multi-stakeholder everythings, and it’s all great. And we have a million reports that come out of all the different working groups and nobody reads it and nobody cares. So the question is like, how do you actually want to effectuate change in that sense? To give you perhaps also like something that failed in Estonia. We had a discussion in government roughly 10 years ago about whether we can tie the success of, or failure of digital service delivery to the salaries of public servants. So guess what? If you make a new tax declaration and you get the budget to develop it as you see fit, but if it’s off. then maybe you should get punished for that and if it does really well and all of like within the next two years 100% of people do it online because it’s so good then maybe you deserve a raise as well beyond the regular inflation or whatever adjustment so even in Estonia that was shut down for obvious political reasons but but like how do we make sure that politicians are forced to listen to what we say?

Sienna Byrne: PeiChin, I’ll give you the opportunity to respond to that if you have any suggestions on that.

PeiChin Tay: Yeah, in the ideal world we’ll be able to force politicians to do the things that we will love to do but it’s a sort of you know organization that is sort of part think-tank I think there is a number of influencing methods that we use and in our research we take as I said a very strong sort of human centered approach so we engage workers and not just kind of giving them a survey right I mean I think one of the risks here is also the survey fatigue and people don’t really know what you do at the end of that survey and how it’s being implemented so the sort of close feedback loop is often not there so how we engage workers is really taking the very strong ethnographic approach you know it could be even things like you know we shadow them because they may not always be able to express that sort of full breadth of their insights in a survey form and I think it’s very important that we take a very sort of open view initially when we’re trying to scope up the problem statement because most of the time we don’t know what the problem is or it could be you know there are a thousand problems staring in our face and we don’t really know how to prioritize them so I think kind of taking a very open approach especially in the beginning we use the sort of a double diamond methodology and then we sort of converge that to identify some of the key challenges again together with workers and not just typical stakeholders such as government and private sector. We give workers at the seat of the table when it comes to suggesting solutions together with all these different stakeholders. And this is where the sort of core design and methodology really comes to life. And it really sheds useful insights that we wouldn’t be able to uncover otherwise. And then obviously we use these insights to try to influence policymakers.

Sienna Byrne: I think we’re okay. In the sake of time, we’re going to move on to question three now. How might citizens be included as stakeholders in the design of e-government systems to address human rights concerns surrounding the collection and processing of citizen data? And I think we’ve touched on this briefly kind of in earlier responses, but I would love to hear a little bit more specifically any ideas or design initiatives that have given greater transparency or even kind of ideas that people are having on this topic. Yes. I think the first thing… Okay. I think Asha is going to respond to this one, Dr. Adele, and then we’ll move to you afterwards. So Asha, go ahead.

Asha Abinallah: The first thing we are supposed to do is give them leadership roles. According to attributes, like identify them and give them leadership roles. And I would say in most cases, leadership, when it comes to youth, it really has to be something they are passionate about. As in, not because I’m here, I’m at IGF, I go back home, I take my son to be the leader of maybe an initiative which I think there is an opportunity. You know, when we talk about responsibility, we normally point fingers at governments. But in normal cases… if you are here, like if you are in this room, I think you are a step ahead of so many people in your country, so you are a leader already. So as a leader, how are you making responsibilities and decisions to engage the youth? I think that’s a very important question, not just the government. But the other aspect I would like to point out is that there are so many global platforms that are there. And when we are in our own countries, we are sort of, you know, you live like kindergarten toys. You want to start an initiative about youth, which is brand new. How do you map out, as a country, as a government, as a working group, how do you map out the existing relevant bodies and platforms of the youth and make sure that it is shattered in your organization as well? Because that way, when you start something, when you branch out something which is new in the community, I’ll just give an example. There is youth IGF, there is AI, there is artificial intelligence. Again, there is maybe youth artificial intelligence. So how do you make sure that, as a leader, you start the same initiative identifying, as a government, you start the same initiative, identify which, maybe which hub is there or which community is there that can establish that kind of platform, which would be instrumental. The reason I’m emphasizing on that is because there are mechanisms. There are youth chapters which are successful in other countries, not successful in other countries, and when you branch out, these youth tend to learn from one another. Like, it is easy to fast-track their intended goal instead of starting with something entirely brand new. The other aspect I would like to talk about is legal framework. I think we shouldn’t take it for granted. When the government decides, because a certain leader understands the importance and it is not integrated in the legal framework, then when they leave, everything goes out, everything falls. So they need… So, I would say, you know, we have to consider the digital transformation from a kid has to consider the youth. It needs to be in policies, policies when you talk about the national ICT policy, the youth have to be there and I’m really glad that my country, Tanzania, has considered that. When you talk about the digital transformation from a kid has to consider the youth. So, I would say those are some of the ways that could be done and implemented. Thank you. Thank you. So, I would say, you know, we have to consider the digital transformation from a kid has to consider the youth. So, I would say those are some of the ways that could be done and implemented and implemented. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, e-colon. Good afternoon, everybody. Yesterday, I’m really proud of where we are as a country. The government system is very, very impressive. I’m personally very impressive, with the e-governance system. But, when you have a government that is very well informed and really understands how the e-governance system works, you have to have an active civil society community. You have to have an active civil society community. So, now, the civil society is a very important actor when it comes to propagating human rights. So, you want to propagate for human rights, whether it’s digital human rights or human rights in general, you really have to have an active civil society community. The active civil society community will hold the government accountable. They’ll hold them accountable when it comes to accessibility. So, all of these issues are going to come together, so we need an active civil society community and if you are not an active civil society, then we’re going to try to take action. We have to make sure that the infrastructure is not only for the person with disabilities, but for the person with disabilities, and especially in technology, we are talking about the blind and the deaf, if they’ve been considered in the infrastructure of the e-governance which has to be accessed to. We have to make sure that there are mechanisms that can tangibly point out the challenges and opportunities, and that there are not actors, whether private or CSOs that are holding them accountable. They’re comfortable. They do anything and everything because they know that they’re doing okay, and they’re doing right. I would say, and speaking for Tanzania, I would say the ICT ministry is one of the ministries which is so very lucky to do whatever they want, because the space when it comes to CSOs, I think it was we were not as active as that, and I’m really glad that in 2024, we launched the Internet Governance Working Group to address that. So I think that’s a very important aspect. But the second one, I wish that we take it for granted when it comes to corporate companies, especially mobile companies, or maybe banks. When you have banks and mobile companies that are very close to the government, as in like their bodies, the youth people, they use the citizens, it’s become very dangerous, because then you just provide data, just provide information, and, you know, it may, as petty as it might seem, somebody can just go there and want to access information about their husband or their wife, you know, sometimes they can be in danger. Those are things which are so much taken for granted, but they cannot be sorted by the government themselves, so we need an active civil society that makes sure that it has identified the challenges that are there. entered into the space, but not only identified, capacitated itself to the extent that it understand what it needs to address. Thank you.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you. And Noha, would you like to go? I think we’re gonna open for questions in about five minutes. I think we’ll have to get through the conversation. Oh, go ahead. If you would like to ask a question, then we can address, of course. We’ll go ahead and pass you a microphone.

Audience: Okay, thank you very much. I would like to answer your previous question. I’m from Russian Federation. I’m completely not related to the government, but I would like to answer your question about how to protect citizens in not very democratic countries. I would like to say this is very difficult, because even in non-democratic countries, digital services might be very well-developed. Russia is a rich country. It has very well-developed state services portal, which celebrates for 15 years today. By the way, but the greater example is that if a government or ministry is not accountable, they could even randomly, not on bad will, not on a will of abuse their citizens, they could easily violate human rights. The best example we have that’s, maybe you still remember that’s COVID passes, which was usually been like QR codes, which was very fine or something like. Once Russian state services portal decreased by two times from one year to health year, all such COVID passes. It definitely was kind of bug. And actually, it was required for pressurizing for people to extend it back to one year. Government and ministry and developer are not accountable in any way. Maybe it’s reasonable not just to work with civil society because well on this. And this way in your political activities are not very well accepted, but in this case you have to be very political active. Also to push your government. So civil society is not enough. You have to work with your politicians. You have to work with elections. Thanks.

Sienna Byrne: Going off of what you just said I I want to ask what do we think the role of the international community and particularly the international? Technical community who’s providing advising services and expertise to governments as they seek digital transformation What is their role? Kind of ensuring that these systems are not, you know conducive to human rights abuses?

Florian Marcus: I may not be saying what you’re expecting me to say. I remember very clearly from my bachelor studies in political science a wonderful course about American democracy promotion abroad and people not being a big fan of it in some countries understandably. I would say that we have to stay the hell out of whatever country is whatever it wants. Yes, of course, there’s a consideration for human rights and so on but that’s table can turn very quickly and then Western countries, which are also not perfect democracies either in some sense. So I would say what we can do as the technical community both on a private sector basis, but also non-for-profit and international organizations is just to give guidance and provide forums like this one to exchange ideas to share what has worked in our country. It may not work in your country, but it can and and to just use that as a as a forum for for cultural exchange first and then technical implementation second. The truth is also that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, so I’m very relaxed about the conversation, perhaps more than some others might be at the table.

Sienna Byrne: Noha, would you like to share your perspective on this?

Noha Abdel Baky: Yeah, so yeah, the technical community of course has a big role to create innovative and new solutions tackling on-ground problems, like they can work in parallel with entrepreneurs or civil society organizations to understand the local need or the real problems that need to be addressed and put them in context of the emerging technologies that can be effective in resolving those issues and offer these solutions for the government to implement. For example, we in Egypt, we have a great initiative created by the government, it’s called the Governmental Innovation Lab, where they encourage entrepreneurs to recommend solutions or create new solutions in the e-gov sector. So yeah, the technical community can help with integrating AI, data science, blockchain and other technologies with these solutions of course.

Sienna Byrne: Moving now to our last question, in the sake of time before we open up to further discussion and further questions from the audience, how might e-government systems be designed to address the needs of vulnerable members of the population? And this goes beyond just human rights concerns, we’re talking about people who I think have different abilities in terms of using e-government systems, people who may be hearing challenged or visually challenged, things like that. Does anyone want to start by addressing that?

Florian Marcus: I would say one thing before just because of the last point that you mentioned, one problem for politicians is also that they are often being driven by their populations to adopt the latest buzzword technology. You mentioned blockchain AI, IoT, why do we use AI, why do we talk about the implementation of AI if the data quality of most governments around the world is so bad that AI cannot make any good decisions? You know, trash in, trash out, that’s very simple. So just sometimes government is also being driven in some sense in the wrong direction. About accessibility and an inclusion of people with disabilities and so on, for example, if you think about the health care portal, it would be primarily used by people who have trouble reading because they are elderly and so on. So why not make the default font for users over 65 just automatically ten times as big? Why not make those areas where people with disabilities would be primarily users, why not focus proactive services there? So as an example, if I know that you get a retirement or disability benefit, why don’t I make that proactive first, that you don’t have to apply, that you don’t have to go to the bank to cash the check or something, so that you make that as low interaction as possible. So that would be one way that we can do this.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you. I think, why don’t we move now to PeiChin. Would you like to address this question for?

PeiChin Tay: I actually had a similar point around proactive services, because I remember when I was working in the London regional office before this role and basically the job was around how do we skill up the population, you know, that had a very low literacy rate. And we were always very concerned about the people who were so-called hard to reach. But then we had this conversation with the colleagues. Basically, the hard-to-reach people are the people who need public services the most. And these are people often categorized as low-income and those who have disabilities, or very low digital literacy, or living in remote areas. And they often encounter barriers that would prevent them from fully benefiting from government programs, you know, such as not having a digital ID in the UK, or not even having bank accounts and so on. So for them, the government considers them hard to reach. But actually, the discussion basically pivoted the whole point, which is, for these people, the government is hard to reach. So therefore, the whole idea of private services is really important, because we need to reduce the administrative burden on these people. They don’t have time to navigate, you know, a web of bureaucratic intricacies. And even sometimes for myself, when I used to live in the UK, it was very difficult to actually understand what I am eligible for and how I apply for it. And I would consider myself to be somebody who is quite digitally literate. So actually, we need to be really radically thinking about that, and kind of reducing all these barriers and hurdles, especially for people who need it the most.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you so much. I think we are about at time here now. But I think we have time maybe for one or two questions from the audience to close things out. I see we have someone back here. Let’s hear it.

Audience: Yes. Yes, hello, good afternoon. My name is Matilda Moses Machauri from the PAYAG and from Tanzania. I have a question. So, we talk about this e-governance and everything, but what are the strategies that you are going to use to engage the youth, especially from the marginalized group, to engage themselves in this e-governance that you’re talking about? So, if we start to get this digital governance, what are the strategies that you’re going to use? And especially for this marginalized group, of course, I want to know, for it to be sustainable for everyone to use, you know, for sustainable for everyone to be able to engage in it, especially for African youth mostly, marginalized community completely. Thank you.

Sienna Byrne: I’ll pass it off to the panelists who wants to take that.

Asha Abinallah: Yeah, for the Tanzanian government, you know, it’s very strange. I did say that they’re doing very well and this is an excellent example. When it comes to infrastructure, internet and digital infrastructure, Tanzania is covered by 60 percent, 60 to 65 percent. Like, it’s covered, we’re talking about fiber, but the infrastructure is only accessible at 38 to 40 percent. It’s telling a lot that, one, the people are not really literate. Secondly, the infrastructure is not there to be consumed by the community. Secondly, the government, through a regulator, they have a program known as UCSAS. It is intended entirely to reach out to the rural. So, I will say, we were talking with this conversation, digital transformation, it started in 2021 when we had the funds from World Bank and EU. I would say we are in progress, we are getting there. It’s not perfect, but it is something that is being worked upon. The newly launched is also has also identified the intent and when it and and the government is also they also want to make sure every Tanzanian has a digital identity and this they wanted by by end of 2020 for which I know won’t work I think I think I think they will have to move it forward so yes it is not perfect but something is being done I wish I could explain further and we can talk about it because the time is limited

Sienna Byrne: thank you so much and yes unfortunately the time is limited and we are now at time but thank you so much for that question and it was a pleasure hearing everyone’s ideas and speaking with everyone today you you.

Agreement Points

Importance of citizen engagement in e-government design

Florian Marcus

Noha Abdel Baky

Asha Abinallah

PeiChin Tay

Dr. Adel Abdel-Sadek

Secure digital identities and data exchange are crucial

Youth should be primary users and influencers of e-government tools

Creating platforms to engage citizens and explain importance of participation

Leveraging technology to reduce barriers and create digital feedback loops

Viewing citizens as partners and owners in e-government design

All speakers emphasized the importance of actively involving citizens in the design and implementation of e-government systems, recognizing them as key stakeholders and partners rather than just end-users.

Need for proactive and accessible e-government services

Florian Marcus

PeiChin Tay

Develop proactive government services that predict citizen needs

Provide proactive services to reduce administrative burden

Both speakers advocated for proactive government services that anticipate citizens’ needs and reduce administrative burdens, particularly for vulnerable populations.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the crucial role of youth in e-government initiatives, advocating for their active involvement as primary users, influencers, and leaders in the design and implementation of these systems.

Noha Abdel Baky

Asha Abinallah

Youth should be primary users and influencers of e-government tools

Give youth leadership roles in e-government initiatives

Both speakers stressed the importance of creating a robust legal and technological framework to support e-government initiatives, emphasizing the need for secure digital identities and updated laws to build trust in the digital ecosystem.

Florian Marcus

Dr. Adel Abdel-Sadek

Secure digital identities and data exchange are crucial

Ensure political support and modernize laws for digital transformation

Unexpected Consensus

Human-centered approach to e-government design

PeiChin Tay

Asha Abinallah

Take a human-centered design approach to policymaking

Identify stakeholders and engage citizens from the start

Despite coming from different backgrounds, both speakers emphasized the importance of a human-centered approach to e-government design, focusing on understanding and addressing the specific needs of various stakeholder groups from the outset of any initiative.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement among speakers included the importance of citizen engagement in e-government design, the need for proactive and accessible services, the crucial role of youth in these initiatives, and the necessity of creating robust legal and technological frameworks to support e-government systems.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers on the fundamental principles of e-government design and implementation. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for developing effective e-government strategies that prioritize citizen engagement, accessibility, and security. However, the specific approaches and implementation details may vary depending on local contexts and resources.

Different Viewpoints

Role of international community in e-government development

Florian Marcus

Noha Abdel Baky

I would say that we have to stay the hell out of Whatever country is whatever it wants Yes, of course, there’s a consideration for human rights and so on but that’s table can turn very quickly and then Western countries, which are also not perfect democracies either in some sense

Yeah, so yeah, the technical community of course have a big role to create innovative and new solutions tackling on-ground problems, like they can work in parallel with entrepreneurs or civil society organizations to understand the local need or the real problems that need to be addressed and put them in context of the emerging technologies that can be effective in resolving those issues and offer these solutions for the government to implement.

Florian Marcus advocates for minimal international interference in a country’s e-government development, while Noha Abdel Baky sees a significant role for the international technical community in creating innovative solutions.

Unexpected Differences

Approach to citizen engagement in e-government design

Asha Abinallah

PeiChin Tay

Give youth leadership roles in e-government initiatives

Involve citizens as co-creators in policymaking, not just end-users

While both speakers advocate for citizen involvement, their approaches differ unexpectedly. Asha Abinallah focuses specifically on giving youth leadership roles, while PeiChin Tay proposes a broader co-creation approach involving all citizens. This difference in focus was not anticipated given their shared goal of citizen engagement.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the role of international community in e-government development, the specific approaches to citizen engagement, and the focus of proactive government services.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there are some differences in approach and focus, there is a general consensus on the importance of citizen participation, proactive services, and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations in e-government design. These differences in perspective can potentially lead to a more comprehensive and nuanced approach to e-government implementation, as they highlight various aspects that need to be considered.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of proactive government services, but they differ in their focus. Florian Marcus emphasizes predicting citizen needs for efficiency, while PeiChin Tay focuses on reducing administrative burden for vulnerable populations.

Florian Marcus

PeiChin Tay

Develop proactive government services that predict citizen needs

Provide proactive services to reduce administrative burden

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the crucial role of youth in e-government initiatives, advocating for their active involvement as primary users, influencers, and leaders in the design and implementation of these systems.

Noha Abdel Baky

Asha Abinallah

Youth should be primary users and influencers of e-government tools

Give youth leadership roles in e-government initiatives

Both speakers stressed the importance of creating a robust legal and technological framework to support e-government initiatives, emphasizing the need for secure digital identities and updated laws to build trust in the digital ecosystem.

Florian Marcus

Dr. Adel Abdel-Sadek

Secure digital identities and data exchange are crucial

Ensure political support and modernize laws for digital transformation

Key Takeaways

Secure digital identities and data exchange are crucial foundations for e-government systems

Youth should be primary users and influencers of e-government tools

Citizens should be viewed as partners and co-creators in e-government design, not just end-users

Proactive government services that predict citizen needs can improve user experience

Human-centered design approaches are important for developing effective e-government policies

E-government systems need to be designed with accessibility in mind for vulnerable populations

Building trust in e-government initiatives requires engaging citizens from the start and ensuring transparency

Resolutions and Action Items

Implement secure digital petitioning and online voting systems to increase citizen participation

Give youth leadership roles in e-government initiatives

Develop legal frameworks to institutionalize youth participation in e-government

Improve digital infrastructure access in rural and marginalized areas

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively engage citizens from marginalized groups in e-government initiatives

Balancing security concerns with increased citizen participation in e-government design

Addressing data quality issues in government systems before implementing AI solutions

How to make e-government systems accessible to those with low digital literacy

Suggested Compromises

Focus on proactive services in areas primarily used by people with disabilities or elderly to balance accessibility needs

Use a mix of online and offline engagement strategies to reach both digitally connected and marginalized populations

Collaborate with civil society organizations to hold governments accountable while still promoting e-government adoption

So if we expect citizens to care about the services that government provides, then they should probably be good. And truth be told, in most countries that is not the case right now.

speaker

Florian Marcus

reason

This comment cuts to the heart of why many e-government initiatives fail to engage citizens – the services themselves are often not user-friendly or valuable enough.

impact

It shifted the discussion from theoretical ideas about engagement to the practical reality of service quality. This led to further discussion of proactive government services and user-centered design.

Policymakers really need to see citizens as co-creators and not just end-users because there’s a lot of complex challenges and governments do not have all the answers.

speaker

PeiChin Tay

reason

This reframes the entire relationship between citizens and government, suggesting a more collaborative approach to policymaking.

impact

It sparked discussion about how to meaningfully involve citizens in policy design, beyond just surveys or feedback forms. It led to examples of human-centered design approaches in policymaking.

The first thing we are supposed to do is give them leadership roles. According to attributes, like identify them and give them leadership roles.

speaker

Asha Abinallah

reason

This comment proposes a concrete way to empower citizens, especially youth, in e-government initiatives.

impact

It shifted the conversation from theoretical discussions of participation to practical strategies for empowerment. It led to further discussion of how to identify and support youth leaders in digital governance.

For these people, the government is hard to reach. So therefore, the whole idea of private services is really important, because we need to reduce the administrative burden on these people.

speaker

PeiChin Tay

reason

This insightful comment flips the perspective on ‘hard to reach’ populations, highlighting how government systems often fail to serve those who need them most.

impact

It reframed the discussion around accessibility, leading to more focus on proactive services and reducing barriers for vulnerable populations.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from theoretical concepts of e-government to practical considerations of implementation and user experience. They highlighted the importance of quality services, citizen co-creation, youth empowerment, and accessibility for vulnerable populations. This led to a more nuanced and practical conversation about how to design e-government systems that truly serve and engage citizens.

How can research be incorporated in a way that could be friendly and guide the overall process of citizen engagement?

speaker

Asha Abinallah

explanation

This is important to make research more accessible and actionable for improving e-government initiatives.

How do we make sure that politicians are forced to listen to what citizens say?

speaker

Florian Marcus

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring that citizen input actually influences e-government design and implementation.

How can we address the needs of people with disabilities in e-government systems?

speaker

Sienna Byrne

explanation

This is important for ensuring e-government systems are accessible and inclusive for all citizens.

What are the strategies to engage youth, especially from marginalized groups, in e-governance?

speaker

Audience member (Matilda Moses Machauri)

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring e-government initiatives reach and benefit all segments of the population, including those who may be currently excluded.

How can we address the lack of digital infrastructure in rural areas?

speaker

Audience member (Matilda Moses Machauri)

explanation

This is important for ensuring equal access to e-government services across all geographic areas.

Summary

This transcript covers a session by the Internet Society Foundation at the Internet Governance Forum, focusing on their grant programs and impact. Sarah Armstrong, the Executive Director, presented an overview of the foundation’s work since its establishment in 2019. The foundation has committed over $60 million in grants across 1,030 projects in 121 countries, aiming to connect more people to the internet and its benefits.

The foundation operates 11 different grant programs, including Beyond the Net, Connecting the Unconnected, and Skills for digital literacy. They highlighted their impact in 2023, such as connecting over 93,000 individuals through and supporting 25 national and regional internet governance initiatives.

Several grantees shared brief overviews of their projects. These included disaster risk resilience work in Kyrgyzstan, rural library digitalization in Armenia, and providing internet connectivity to tea garden workers in India. The foundation plans to commit $12 million in grants for 2025, continuing their mission of making the internet accessible and beneficial for everyone.

The session also addressed questions from attendees about research grant criteria, child online safety programs, and initiatives for empowering women and building infrastructure in Afghanistan. The foundation encouraged interested parties to explore their website for detailed information on various funding opportunities and eligibility criteria.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Overview of the Internet Society Foundation’s grant programs and impact

– Examples of funded projects from grantees in different countries

– Criteria and application process for various grant programs

– Focus on connecting underserved communities and empowering people through internet access and skills

Overall purpose:

The purpose of this discussion was to introduce the Internet Society Foundation, highlight its grant programs and impact, and provide an opportunity for networking among attendees interested in internet development projects.

Speakers

– Rigdzin Collins, Associate Program Officer at the Internet Society Foundation

– Sarah Armstrong, Executive Director of the Internet Society Foundation

– Brian Horlick-Cruz, Associate Program Officer at the Internet Society Foundation

The Internet Society Foundation Session at the Internet Governance Forum

Introduction:

Rigdzin Collins opened the Internet Society Foundation session at the Internet Governance Forum, introducing the foundation’s work and the session’s structure. The event was designed to provide an overview of the foundation’s grant programmes and impact, featuring presentations from key speakers and grantees. Collins outlined three networking sections focused on infrastructure, training, and ISOC chapters.

Overview of the Internet Society Foundation:

Sarah Armstrong, the Executive Director, presented a comprehensive overview of the foundation’s work since its establishment in 2019. She highlighted the foundation’s mission to support internet development and accessibility through various grant programmes. Armstrong emphasized the foundation’s significant impact, mentioning that they had connected thousands of individuals through their programmes and supported numerous national and regional internet governance initiatives. She also noted that impact reports were available at the back table for attendees interested in more detailed information.

Examples of Funded Projects:

Several grantees shared brief overviews of their projects, illustrating the diverse range of initiatives supported by the foundation:

1. Talant from Kyrgyzstan discussed projects focused on IoT for disaster risk resilience and the development of an early warning system for mudflows. He also mentioned initiatives related to smart agriculture and air quality monitoring.

2. Christina from Armenia presented a rural library digitalization project. She explained how the project aims to preserve cultural heritage by digitizing rare books and manuscripts, making them accessible online and creating digital skills training programs for librarians and community members.

3. Osama Manzir from the Digital Empowerment Foundation in India highlighted two projects:

a) Providing internet connectivity to tea garden workers in Assam, addressing both connectivity and social justice issues. The project aims to connect 50 tea gardens and empower women through digital literacy.

b) Implementing a disaster communication system in the Himalayas, creating a network of information centers to improve disaster preparedness and response.

Grant Application Process and Q&A:

During the Q&A session, Rigdzin Collins addressed several questions:

1. Research Grants: Collins mentioned that specific criteria for research grants are available on the foundation’s website.

2. Child Online Safety Projects: Collins confirmed that grants are available for projects focused on child safety online and encouraged interested parties to explore the foundation’s website for more information.

3. Infrastructure and Connectivity Programmes: Collins noted the availability of programmes supporting infrastructure development and connectivity initiatives.

4. Empowering Women: The Skills programme was highlighted as focusing on empowering women through digital literacy and skills training.

Networking and Engagement:

Collins encouraged attendees to network with each other during the session, fostering collaboration and knowledge sharing. Participants were invited to visit the ISOC Foundation and ISOC booths near Workshop Room 1 for more detailed information on various funding opportunities and eligibility criteria. An icebreaker question about attendees’ first internet use was suggested to facilitate engagement.

Brian, the online moderator, noted that there were online participants but no questions had been received from them.

Conclusion:

The Internet Society Foundation session provided a comprehensive overview of the organisation’s grant programmes, impact, and future plans. By showcasing diverse projects and addressing various aspects of internet development, the foundation demonstrated its commitment to bridging the digital divide and empowering communities worldwide through internet access and skills.

Rigdzin Collins: If you, if you have different sections, because we are gonna do a bit of a breakout for networking. So the first section would be infrastructure and connecting the unconnected. The second section is training, if you feel like you would like to meet people involved in this area, it’s number three. And the third section is for ISOC chapters who would like to meet other people in ISOC chapters. Can you, is it okay? It’s working, I can hear it. Hear me? Can everyone hear me? Okay, they can hear me. So I was just saying if you would like to sit in a section, we have three different sections. A section for infrastructure and connecting the unconnected, a section related to digital literacy and training, and a section for ISOC chapters, or if you’re interested in ISOC chapters, you can sit on this side. Sorry, it’s cutting out a bit. You do not have to sit in those areas, but it’s just if you want to be during the networking section. So I think we’re ready to start now. Sorry, we’re starting a bit behind. Can everyone hear? Great. So my name is Rigzin Collins. I’m an Associate Program Officer at the Internet Society Foundation. I’m so happy you joined us today. We want to thank the IGF for letting us have this session. It’s our first session as a foundation, as the ISOC Foundation at the IGF. I, today, am joined by Sarah Armstrong, who’s our Executive Director. Hello. And my colleague, Brian Horlick-Cruz, who is another Associate Program Officer, who I think many of you work with. And so today, we’re just going to do a bit of an overview of our work at the foundation. And then we really hope that this session will give people a chance to meet each other. We’re gonna hear from a few grantees, hopefully. We’re gonna put a few grantees on the spot. I see some people who have just walked in. And to break up, exchange information, and then meet back for some questions. You have a note card on your table. If you have a question that you would like to ask us, please feel free to write this. We might not be able to get through all of the questions, but we will try to get through some, and we can try to answer questions you have after. I also want to say thank you to the people online, and our moderator will also be taking your questions. Sorry. So now, I would like to turn it over to Sarah.

Sarah Armstrong: Good afternoon to everyone in this room, and good morning or evening to those who are online. We are very pleased to have the opportunity to have this session, and to meet all of you, and to share with you information about funding Global Connection. We want to really focus on connection. And when we say connection, it’s not just a matter of getting people access and connection to the internet, but also a connection to the benefits of the internet, and the way in which it can change lives. So we’ll be talking about the foundation itself, and then we’ll also share some stories about what our grantees are doing, as that is the first thing that’s referred to us. So I will start just by sharing with you, well, here’s the name, and as I said, focusing on the word connection. Our vision for the internet, or our vision is that the internet is for everyone. And this is a statement that we share with the Internet Society, and the idea here is to make sure that we get the internet to as many people as possible, and as we know, we still have a challenge. There’s over 2.5 billion people. So we wanna continue to find ways to make an internet for everyone. We are a supporting organization. The Internet Society Foundation is a supporting organization for the Internet Society, and specifically what we’re doing is making sure that we work together to secure an open, globally connected, and trustworthy internet for all. So that’s a real focus for us. And then I just wanna mention that what you’ll be hearing about today is the philanthropy efforts of the foundation, and what that means is grant giving, or is administering grants, managing grants, managing relationships with grantees, and that’s what we do all day long every day with a lot of passion. Go, thank you. Okay, so in 2019, we began looking at how to form a foundation, and then really got kicked into gear in 2020. And that year, yes, the year of the pandemic, we started this foundation, was our first full operational year. And we are now in our fifth full operational year, almost concluding, because we’re so close to the end of the year. And as you can see, since I’ve committed over $60 million in grants, we have committed 1,030 grants over this time that we’ve been involved. And then we are working, or have worked, in 121 countries. So we’ve really grown quite a bit, quite rapidly, and feeling very good about the progress that we’ve made. And we’ve done this because of the types of grantees that we have been able to in our programs, and yeah, work together in making an internet for everyone. So here is a slide that shows for you what our different program areas are, and our program of them right now, as you can see. I’m not gonna talk you through every single one of these, because I think we want some time for everybody else to talk. And yeah. I just want to say the table in the back, the very back table, you’ll see our impact reports. I know there are not enough seats, so people might be sitting there, which is fine. But if people want more information about the programs, they can take a glance on their way out of the back table. Yeah, and also we’ll talk about where you can find things on the website, because there’s an awful lot of information on all these different programs. But the different ones that you can see, include Beyond the Net, which is a chapter program. We have one called Connecting the Unconnected. We do a Global Encryption Day. We’ve got Research. We have a program we call Skills. And the purpose of Skills is to make sure that once people are online, that they’re benefiting from that access, and working in the education and in economic opportunities arena, to see what they can do with the skills that we can help provide through our grantees to change their lives. Sustainable Peering Infrastructure, focused on IXPs and Sustainable Technical Communities. We know what those are. So that’s just a quick snapshot of the 11 program areas that we fund. Here’s some examples. Rixon just mentioned our impact reports. We are now going to be doing an impact report for our program areas at the end of each year, and produce them in the beginning of the year. Right now on the table, you’ll see program impact statements and impact briefs, and that will be covering 2023. And now, right now, we’re developing ideas for how to share impact for 2024, and that we will be able to share with you sometime in the first quarter. Kind of keeps coming out. Sorry about that. I’m not sure what I’m doing here. So Beyond the Net is a program, as I mentioned, for Internet Society chapters. In 2023 how many people we connected and how many training skills trainings were delivered to how many individuals. Additionally we have a program called BOLT and that stands for Building Opportunities Leveraging Technologies and that is targeted to registered nonprofits. We do have a requirement that our organizations that we fund through some of these programs are 501c3 or equivalent. So that’s just something to know if you’re considering applying to some of our grant programs you’ll see that that is a requirement. You can see with the bridging technology BOLT which is an effort to find innovative ways to connect people. We’ve connected again this is the 2023 impact 93,000 individuals and 538 internet access points. And then we have internet governance forums. We fund internet governance forums on the national, regional, and global level. So we’re helping to support this meeting that we’re all sitting in now. And then also we digs so schools of internet governance so people can apply for funding and you can see what we did in 2023, 25 NRIs and 629 participants in the SIGs that we funded. So going on to a couple more programs just to share with you. Resiliency is a program that we run because we know that all communities now are more vulnerable to disasters because of what’s happening with the climate. We felt it was important to have a program where we could help communities be more prepared for what it is that might happen and how they can get connectivity up quickly. So this program called Resiliency is all all have been having trainings ahead of time making sure people know what to do when a hurricane, when a landslide, when an earthquake, when in anything hits them. So we’re working now in this case you can see across 41 countries and making a big difference in getting people ready so when these things happen they’re more prepared. Research is a program that we have that has a number of different themes to it. Again we’ll refer you to our website with more information. And finally Skills I mentioned earlier is a program where we are taking people who have access and helping them in the areas of education and economic opportunities. So in this case you can see we trained a lot of people on internet use for economic opportunities. So those are just some quick highlights from 2023 from six of our programs out of the eleven. And then I’m just going to give you a couple of brief examples of organizations that we’ve worked with and the work that they’ve produced. So you can see here Skills a grantee spotlight right here. This is the one it’s one of our programs in Indonesia. So Skills works in six different countries Indonesia and Bangladesh in the APAC region. It works in Senegal and Ghana in the African region. And in the Latin America Caribbean region it works in both Brazil and Colombia. So we have an example here of them training and really empowering women with disabilities. I’m just going to read you a little quote from someone who was part of the program. The Skills grant program has been instrumental in advancing our mission to support the aspirations and needs of women with disabilities to become economically independent and confident in their abilities and to foster an exclusive inclusive and safe environment where everyone can thrive. So you can see that it’s really a life-changing type program. And then the other one I just want to highlight is a Kyrgyzstan chapter. The Internet Society for those who are not familiar they have chapters throughout the world and they’re well over a hundred and they are all almost all eligible to apply for grants. And when they apply for grants they can get one with the Beyond the Net but they can also get a research grant if they have the qualifications. And the Kyrgyzstan chapter did get a research grant and they are one of those areas that are really really vulnerable to landslides. So they developed a program where they were able to put together an Internet of Things infrastructure in order to make sure that we could detect they could detect when mudslides or landslides might be coming and and prepare that way. So this is just another innovative way that one of our grantees has decided to use the funding that was provided. And then we support IGFs, NRIs, and SIGs as I mentioned earlier. And just to give you by the numbers for this year so this isn’t 2023 this is this year. And we have supported 67 initiatives and provided well over $500,000 U.S. to you know to make sure that those are all running well and and we’ve had a lot of good success. And then this is a location map for where our different 67 sponsorships in 2024 were located and you can see the global is highlighted because we are supporting this meeting. And then you can see we really hit a good amount of areas around the world. So what are we going to do in 2025 based on all that stuff that I just shared with you? Our plan is to commit 12 million USD in grants and that’s something that we feel really confident that we are going to be able to do. And then operationalize everything. And what we do when we operationalize everything is that we make sure that we are really in sync with the Internet. All about as we were talking about the Internet is for everyone. Making sure more people are connected in a secure safe way and affordable of course very important as well. So that’s the direction that we plan to go for 2025. Those are some examples of the programs that we fund. And then I just want to say that we believe together we can amplify our impact and create solutions to connect more people to the Internet. And when we say together we mean people in this room in passion we do for this. And of course we mean really working hard and having great relationships with the grantees because they’re the ones who really pull everything together and do impressive work. So I will end with the slide of how you can connect with us. There are many different ways. You can scan our QR code and get our newsletter. And then of course we’re all over social media. So what we’d like to do now since you’ve just seen an overview and I can take questions later. But what we want to I think right wait or we’re very lucky. Sorry my headset is a little long. Thank you Sarah for that for giving us

Rigdzin Collins: This wonderful presentation. We have actually the Kyrgyzstan chapter present. And so I wanted to put we have a few of our grantees here and I just wanted to ask them if they could maybe if they don’t mind very briefly just tell us a little bit like very short explanation of their current project. So I have three grantees here that I’m going to pick on and I’m just going to ask if you could maybe tell people a little bit about your current work and I guess maybe your experience working with the foundation or you don’t have to say that but your current work just so people know the kind of projects that are being done. But I would ask if we could can keep the responses a little bit short, because we have another few sections. So my first person is Talant, if you don’t mind. Sorry. Do you want to come up? It’s working, yeah?

Talant: So I want to say thank you to ISOC Foundation for this grants provide. And indeed, as mentioned, we have actually a couple of grants that we are implementing. One is a research grant on using IoT LoRaWAN technology for disaster risk resilience. And another project that we’re implementing is a Beyond the Net grant on digital skills and digital hygiene trainings for rural communities. And all of our work is focused on rural communities in the local language, and with the emphasis on opportunities for girls and women in rural communities. And we’d like to thank you for all these opportunities. Thanks.

Rigdzin Collins: Thank you so much, Talant. So we also have present two more grantees that I’m just going to briefly pick on. Sorry, I can’t hear. So I hope this is working. We have Christina from the ISOC Armenia chapter. And they’ve been doing some wonderful Beyond the Net projects.

Christina: Hello, everyone. We are working with ISOC Foundation in the scope of rural libraries project. And it is very great project we are doing with ISOC Foundation. We are supporting rural libraries for digitalization process, and make their books and their, let’s say, magazines, et cetera. All stuff they have, we are supporting them to create a program. Actually, we create a program for them. And they are digitalizing their old stuff. I read them, I mean, in my network. And they created a hub for all people in rural areas. And they are coming to these hubs and doing their work, gaining money, or just for the information they are gaining from these libraries. And it is very great. Thank you very much for your support and for your continuous work with us. Thank you very much.

Rigdzin Collins: Thank you. Thank you, Christina. And thank you for sharing your thoughts with us last minute. And then we finally have Osama from the Digital Empowerment Foundation. And he is not, I don’t know if you’re an ISOC member. But this is an example of someone who is not an ISOC chapter affiliate, but is an outside organization that we’ve been able to work with on several projects. So I know you have very interesting work. If you want to tell us a little bit about your current project or anything you want to share with people.

Osama: Yeah, thank you very much. I’m Osama Manzir from Digital Empowerment Foundation. And there are three relationships. One is that I remember since we have been associated with ISOC for a very, very long time, I remember when before even ISOC Foundation, there was a whole feedback session that used to happen. Is that should we create a foundation? Should we create a grant making organization? And I was very actively involved in that, that yes, we should. Because they wanted to have community intervention to hear from, whom it will benefit directly. So that was that. But for the foundation, and we are granted three times, actually. And one was Bolt. And very interesting project that we did is that, I don’t know how many of you know that there are tea gardens, hundreds of thousands. There are 5,000 tea gardens in Assam and North Bengal in India. And most of these tea gardens employ almost slave-like workers. And they all are indigenous communities. And they work like slaves. And without any internet connectivity, complete violation of their daily wages, or their wages, and so on and so forth. And then this grant was basically to provide internet connectivity in the middle of the garden, bypassing all administrative and bureaucratic hassles. And we could do 50 in the first one. And it was so successful that ISOC Foundation asked for next proposal. And now we have 100 tea gardens having connectivity, and access, and education, everything available in a community level, managed by the community member on a sustainable basis. So it’s like 100 tea gardens. And it is replicating every year. So that’s one. The second is that you know Himalayas. Everybody want to go to Himalayas for tourism, for adventure, for everything. But they also live in very, very strong disaster zones. So there is this one project that we are doing where we are working in an area where there is. So we are establishing a communication system, along with a community center, which is connected through data. And to have a 24 by 7 connectivity in a disaster zone, so that you are always next to the data connectivity for informing anything. So these are a couple of things. I can go on and on. But yeah.

Rigdzin Collins: Thank you, Osama. Brian, I know you’ve been moderating online. And we don’t want to forget the people online. And since we are in person, maybe we can, in the interest of time, take some questions from online people. Sure thing, Rigsu. We do not have any online questions at this moment. But we’ll see if any come in. Does anyone here have any questions they would like to ask? Otherwise, we can break out. OK. Oh, I think I saw your hand, professor. Yeah. What are the criteria for a research grant? So in this case, we definitely encourage you to go to our Am I not on? You are. Am I on? You’re good. OK. I’m on. Thank you. We encourage you to go to our Internet Society Foundation website, because it can give you all the information. It will also provide you with the different themes that we’re funding. We have the internet economy, we have a decolonizing internet and we also have the green internet. So those are four different categories under which you can apply for research grants. If you’re an individual, you could certainly apply. If you’re with an organization, an academic institution, you can certainly apply. And you’ll see there are various levels of funding, depending on the type of person or application that we’re getting. So at ISOCfoundation.org, which is our website, and I think you’ll see there’s a tab right on the home page that says funding areas. So you can certainly get all of the different criteria for what we need. And as I mentioned, in some of the cases, it absolutely has to be a 501c3 or equivalent if it’s an organization. So yeah. OK. Who is next? Right here? OK. OK. Can you hear me? All right.

Mary: My name is Mary Uduma. I’m from Nigeria. I belong to the Nigerian chapter of the internet. Specifically, I’m asking about child safety, online, and protection. Because we have a foundation that is specializing in child safety. on that and engaging parents and engaging teachers and working with children, young people, whether the grants were eligible to be able to apply for a grant to do this work. Nigeria is a large country and so many schools. This year we had a summit and we had the children and other stakeholders around. And so that’s what I chair is focusing on. So I wanted to know whether it would be eligible to apply for a grant. Thank you.

Rigdzin Collins: Yeah, absolutely. What we would encourage you to do again is to go and look at what the different programs are and see what the work of your foundation does, how it matches up. And because we’re just about to turn a new year, many programs are starting to open up and launch again. We have a number of them launching in January. And you’re with a chapter as well, or you would be applying as the foundation, your foundation? Applying as the foundation, not the foundation. Okay, yeah. So certainly you can see if we can, because we are doing some of this work already with some of our grantees. So I would encourage you to get more information from the website. Yes. And I think we need to maybe have one more quick question and then we are going to do a breakout. But what we can do is, so if you want to meet people within your section, please feel free to do that after this question. And we will stay here. If other people have questions, they can come to us. So I think just to make it fair.

Atikullah: My name is Atikullah. I came here from Pakistan. So my question, based on it, only 7% area have access to internet. It’s breaking up a little bit. Maybe if you. This way? Okay. I hope my question didn’t got lengthy. My question is that, based on area percentage, only 7% area have power. Population people have access to internet. And as the current government of Taliban is day by day banning education on women. So is there any special program from international society side for empowering Afghan women? First question. And second, based on infrastructure, is there any special program building infrastructure up internet in Afghanistan from international society sides?

Rigdzin Collins: Thank you. Yes. So we have a number of programs that focus specifically on building infrastructure. Yes. Connecting the unconnected is one of the programs. Yes. And that’s all about that. It’s mainly. It’s mainly networks. So that’s an option. As I mentioned earlier, the BOLT program is all about innovative ways to connect people. So there’s funding available there as well. So we have at least a couple of programs where we can do that. And you can certainly, again, rather than going into all kinds of long criteria and what the objectives of the program are and how you have to match to support the mission of ISOC, these are all requirements that you will see if you go to our page. But I would start with those two programs, looking at BOLT and looking at connecting the unconnected. And what about the empowering Afghan women? Is there any special program for empowering Afghan women? Well, yes. I mean, our skills program is really very focused on that. So that’s another program that’s worth. It depends on what country in which you’re working because right now we’re working in just six countries, but we do plan to look at expanding that in 2025 and 2026. Thanks. Okay. Thank you so much for your questions. So now I think what we can do is do a little bit of networking with each other. So if we want to take a few minutes the rest of the session maybe, we can meet back at the end. But we just wanted to maybe pose a question. You’re sitting in an area that you chose when you came in. I know some of you just sat down. Thank you so much. So our question is, if you want to go and talk to people, you can either ask them why they chose to sit in this area, tell them a little bit about yourself, your project, or if you feel shy doing that, we have another icebreaker that we really like to do at the foundation. Find someone and ask them their first time they remember using the Internet or showing someone how to use the Internet because I know some people are very young and they never knew a life without Internet. So we encourage everyone now to meet. We also will walk around. If you have questions for us, please come up and talk to us. And also just a reminder, our booth, our ISOC booth, the ISOC Foundation and ISOC booth is down. I don’t remember the exact number. It’s near Workshop Room 1. It’s in front of Workshop Room 1. So we will be there all week. If you have other questions or want to come by and say hi, please do. We want to thank everyone for joining us today because it’s really great to have so many people here. So now we really encourage everyone to make the most of this networking session and meet some new people. Yeah, we wanted to be sure you networked in the networking session. If you feel like it. If you want to do that and just get to know some of the people with whom you’re sitting, that would be great. And if that doesn’t feel like something everybody wants to at least try, we can certainly… Sure, we can take more questions. Take more questions. Yeah. We encourage you to talk to other people. What do you think? Ask that question. Ask that question. Yeah. When was the first time you remember using the internet? Oh, a long time ago. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of connecting underserved communities

Sarah Armstrong

Speaker 1

Speaker 2

Speaker 3

Foundation’s vision and mission

IoT for disaster risk resilience in Kyrgyzstan

Rural library digitalization in Armenia

Internet connectivity for tea garden workers in India

All speakers emphasized the importance of connecting underserved communities to the internet and providing digital skills training.

Focus on empowering women and girls

Sarah Armstrong

Speaker 1

Rigdzin Collins

Grant programs and funding areas

IoT for disaster risk resilience in Kyrgyzstan

Focus on empowering women through Skills program

Multiple speakers highlighted the foundation’s efforts to empower women and girls through various programs and projects.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the significant impact of the foundation’s work in connecting large numbers of people and improving their lives through internet access.

Sarah Armstrong

Speaker 3

Impact and reach of foundation’s work

Internet connectivity for tea garden workers in India

Unexpected Consensus

Disaster preparedness and resilience

Speaker 1

Speaker 3

IoT for disaster risk resilience in Kyrgyzstan

Disaster communication system in Himalayas

Despite representing different regions and organizations, both speakers highlighted projects focused on using technology for disaster preparedness and resilience, indicating a shared recognition of this important application of internet connectivity.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around the importance of connecting underserved communities, empowering women and girls, and using technology for social impact and disaster resilience.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers regarding the foundation’s mission and the importance of its work. This strong agreement implies a unified approach to addressing global connectivity challenges and suggests that the foundation’s priorities align well with the needs identified by grantees and partners in various regions.

Different Viewpoints

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

There were no significant disagreements observed among the speakers. The discussion was primarily informative and collaborative, focusing on the Internet Society Foundation’s mission, grant programs, and examples of funded projects.

difference_level

Very low. The speakers presented a unified message about the foundation’s work and its impact. This alignment suggests a cohesive approach to addressing internet connectivity and digital empowerment challenges globally.

Partial Agreements

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the significant impact of the foundation’s work in connecting large numbers of people and improving their lives through internet access.

Sarah Armstrong

Speaker 3

Impact and reach of foundation’s work

Internet connectivity for tea garden workers in India

Key Takeaways

The Internet Society Foundation has committed over $60 million in grants across 121 countries since 2020

The Foundation has 11 program areas including connecting the unconnected, digital skills training, and supporting Internet governance forums

Examples of funded projects include disaster resilience in Kyrgyzstan, rural library digitalization in Armenia, and internet connectivity for tea garden workers in India

The Foundation plans to commit $12 million USD in grants in 2025

Grant applications can be made through the Foundation’s website, with different criteria for various programs

Resolutions and Action Items

Attendees encouraged to network with each other during the session

Participants invited to visit the ISOC Foundation booth for more information

Unresolved Issues

Specific details on expanding the Skills program to new countries in 2025-2026

Exact criteria for eligibility of child online safety projects for grants

Suggested Compromises

None identified

We are now going to be doing an impact report for our program areas at the end of each year, and produce them in the beginning of the year.

speaker

Sarah Armstrong

reason

This comment is insightful because it demonstrates a commitment to transparency and accountability in the foundation’s work. By producing regular impact reports, the organization is showing its dedication to measuring and sharing the results of its programs.

impact

This comment set the tone for the presentation, emphasizing the foundation’s focus on measurable impact and data-driven decision making. It likely increased audience interest in the specific outcomes of the foundation’s work.

We have supported 67 initiatives and provided well over $500,000 U.S. to you know to make sure that those are all running well and and we’ve had a lot of good success.

speaker

Sarah Armstrong

reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it provides concrete numbers that illustrate the scale of the foundation’s impact. It gives the audience a clear sense of the organization’s reach and financial commitment.

impact

This statement likely sparked curiosity among the audience about the specific initiatives supported and may have led to follow-up questions about the types of projects funded.

We are supporting rural libraries for digitalization process, and make their books and their, let’s say, magazines, et cetera. All stuff they have, we are supporting them to create a program.

speaker

Christina from ISOC Armenia chapter

reason

This comment is insightful because it provides a specific example of how the foundation’s work is impacting local communities. It illustrates a practical application of technology to preserve and share cultural resources.

impact

This real-world example likely made the foundation’s work more tangible for the audience and may have inspired others to think about similar projects in their own communities.

And now we have 100 tea gardens having connectivity, and access, and education, everything available in a community level, managed by the community member on a sustainable basis.

speaker

Osama Manzir from Digital Empowerment Foundation

reason

This comment is particularly thought-provoking because it highlights a unique and impactful project that addresses both connectivity and social justice issues. It demonstrates how internet access can be leveraged to improve working conditions and empower marginalized communities.

impact

This example likely broadened the audience’s perspective on the potential applications of internet connectivity projects and may have sparked discussions about similar initiatives in other industries or regions.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by providing concrete examples and data that illustrated the real-world impact of the Internet Society Foundation’s work. They moved the conversation from general statements about the foundation’s mission to specific, tangible outcomes. This likely increased audience engagement and understanding of the foundation’s role in promoting internet access and digital empowerment globally. The diversity of projects mentioned, from rural libraries to tea gardens, demonstrated the wide-ranging applications of the foundation’s support and may have inspired attendees to consider new possibilities for internet-related initiatives in their own contexts.

What are the specific criteria for a research grant?

speaker

Unnamed professor

explanation

Understanding the criteria is crucial for potential applicants to determine their eligibility and prepare strong proposals.

Are grants available for projects focused on child safety online?

speaker

Mary Uduma

explanation

This information is important for organizations working on child protection to know if they can access funding for their initiatives.

Are there any special programs for empowering Afghan women?

speaker

Atikullah

explanation

Given the current situation in Afghanistan, targeted programs for women’s empowerment are particularly relevant and necessary.

Are there any special programs for building internet infrastructure in Afghanistan?

speaker

Atikullah

explanation

With only 7% of the population having internet access, understanding available support for infrastructure development is crucial for improving connectivity in the country.

Summary

This panel discussion focused on the impact of generative AI on education, particularly from a global perspective. The panelists, representing diverse backgrounds including academia, law, and policymaking, explored various aspects of AI’s integration into educational settings.

Key topics included the challenges of detecting AI-generated content in academic work, with conflicting views on the effectiveness of current detection tools. The discussion highlighted concerns about academic integrity and the need to adapt assessment methods to account for AI use. Panelists emphasized the importance of teaching students to use AI tools responsibly and ethically, rather than simply trying to prevent their use.

The conversation also addressed the potential for AI to exacerbate existing digital divides between the Global North and South. Panelists stressed the need for equitable access to AI technologies and the importance of capacity building in developing countries. They discussed strategies for integrating AI into curricula and teacher training programs in the Global South.

Legal and ethical considerations were explored, including copyright issues related to AI training data and the need for clear guidelines on AI use in academic settings. The panel also touched on the potential benefits of AI in making educational resources more accessible in developing countries.

The discussion concluded with reflections on how Africa can benefit from and contribute to AI development in education, highlighting initiatives like the Nelson Mandela African Institutions of Science and Technology. Overall, the panel emphasized the need for a balanced approach to AI in education, recognizing both its potential benefits and challenges.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The use of generative AI in education, including benefits and challenges for teachers and students

– Detecting AI-generated content in academic settings and issues around academic integrity

– Intellectual property concerns related to training and using generative AI

– The digital divide between the Global North and South in access to and use of AI tools

– Strategies for ethically integrating AI into education, especially in developing countries

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to explore the impacts of generative AI on education from multiple perspectives, including technical, ethical, legal, and policy viewpoints. The panel aimed to consider both opportunities and challenges, with a focus on implications for developing countries.

Tone:

The overall tone was analytical and solution-oriented. Panelists offered critical perspectives on current approaches but also proposed constructive ideas for moving forward. There was a shift towards the end to focus more on opportunities and capacity building in the Global South, ending on a more optimistic note about the potential for AI to enhance education globally if implemented thoughtfully.

Speakers

– Jingbo Huang: Director of United Nations University Research Institute in Macau

– Antonio Saravanos: Associate Professor of Information System Management, New York University

– Eliamani Isaya Laltaika: Judge of High Court of Tanzania, Faculty member at Nelson Mandela University

– Mike Perkins Sfhea: Associate Professor and Head of Center for Research and Innovation, British University Vietnam

– Mohamed Shareef: Director of Government and International Relations at OCSICA, Former Minister of State from Maldives

Additional speakers:

– None identified

Expanded Summary: The Impact of Generative AI on Education – A Global Perspective

This panel discussion, organized by the UN University, brought together experts from diverse backgrounds to explore the multifaceted impact of generative AI on education, with a particular focus on global implications. The panelists, representing academia, law, and policymaking, delved into the challenges and opportunities presented by AI integration in educational settings worldwide.

Use of Generative AI in Education

The discussion began with the acknowledgement that generative AI is already being widely used in educational contexts. Mohamed Shareef presented findings from the Maldives, where educators are already utilizing AI tools but often lack the necessary knowledge and training to do so effectively. He noted differences between K-12 and higher education teachers in their approach to AI, with the latter group showing more openness to its use. This highlighted a crucial need for capacity building and professional development in AI literacy for educators.

Antonio Saravanos shared his teaching approach, which focuses on helping students understand AI’s capabilities and limitations. He emphasizes the importance of reframing generative AI as a tool for deeper understanding, rather than simply a means of producing answers. Saravanos encourages students to critically evaluate AI-generated content and use it as a starting point for further research and analysis.

The reliability of AI detection tools in academic settings emerged as a contentious point. Mike Perkins argued strongly against the use of current AI detection tools, explaining that they are not sufficiently reliable for accusing students of plagiarism. He highlighted the potential harm to students’ academic careers and the risk of false positives, emphasizing the need for more nuanced approaches to assessment and evaluation in an AI-enabled world.

Generative AI and the Global South

A significant portion of the discussion centered on the implications of generative AI for the Global South. Mohamed Shareef raised concerns about the potential for AI to exacerbate existing digital divides between the Global North and South. He used a vivid metaphor, comparing generative AI to “Red Bull” that gives “digital transformation wings”, highlighting the risk of widening gaps between those with and without access to these powerful tools.

To address these challenges, Antonio Saravanos advocated for the development of local AI tools and solutions in the Global South to avoid dependence on technologies from the Global North. This approach could help build local capacity and ensure that AI solutions are tailored to specific regional needs and contexts.

Mike Perkins proposed an AI assessment scale framework as a potential tool for ethically integrating AI into education in the Global South. This framework provides a structured approach for educators to introduce AI tools in a manner that maintains academic integrity and promotes equitable access, considering factors such as AI literacy, infrastructure, and cultural context.

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika, representing the Nelson Mandela African Institutions of Science and Technology, emphasized the need for partnerships between Africa and the Global North to build AI and STEM capacity. He highlighted the potential benefits of AI in making educational resources more accessible in developing countries, noting how AI could help overcome barriers to accessing international research publications.

Changing Educational Approaches for AI

The panelists agreed on the need to adapt educational approaches to effectively incorporate AI. Saravanos argued that educators should focus on teaching students to use AI effectively, rather than attempting to ban its use. This approach acknowledges the inevitability of AI in education and the workplace, preparing students for a future where AI literacy will be crucial.

Perkins stressed the importance of redesigning assessments to focus on skills that AI cannot replicate, such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity. This shift in assessment strategy could help maintain the relevance and integrity of education in an AI-enabled world.

Laltaika called for the development of ethical guidelines for AI use in education at all levels. Such guidelines could help address concerns about academic integrity, copyright, and equitable access to AI tools.

Shareef advocated for the integration of AI and digital literacy into curricula across disciplines. This approach would ensure that students are prepared to navigate an increasingly AI-driven world, regardless of their field of study.

Legal and Ethical Considerations

The discussion also touched on important legal and ethical considerations surrounding AI in education. Laltaika highlighted the need to revisit copyright frameworks to address the use of copyrighted material in AI training. This issue raises complex questions about intellectual property rights in the age of AI and requires careful consideration to balance the needs of content creators and AI developers.

Unresolved Issues and Future Directions

While the discussion provided valuable insights and potential strategies for integrating AI in education, several unresolved issues remain. These include:

1. Developing effective and ethical methods for evaluating AI-generated content in academic work

2. Ensuring equitable access to advanced AI tools in the Global South

3. Balancing copyright protections with the use of copyrighted material in AI training

4. Retaining skilled AI professionals in developing countries

The panelists suggested several action items to address these challenges, including:

1. Developing ethical guidelines for AI use in education at institutional and national levels

2. Integrating AI and digital literacy into curricula across disciplines

3. Redesigning assessments to focus on skills AI cannot replicate

4. Investing in IT infrastructure in developing countries to improve access to AI tools

5. Establishing public-private partnerships and collaborations between the Global North and South for AI capacity building

In conclusion, the panel emphasized the need for a balanced approach to AI in education, recognizing both its potential benefits and challenges. The discussion highlighted the importance of global collaboration, ethical considerations, and adaptive educational strategies to ensure that the integration of AI in education promotes equity, enhances learning outcomes, and prepares students for an AI-enabled future.

Jingbo Huang : Good. Channel 2. Okay, let’s start. PowerPoint, please. Okay, so welcome. Good afternoon, everyone. I hope everybody had a good lunch and a good coffee break. And so today’s session is about generative AI and education. How does generative AI to transform education for all? So we take a different approach. We take the approach of a system, system approach, because for the issue of generative AI, there are different perspectives to look at it. There’s technical, there’s, so from our end, it’s more of a whole society and multi-stakeholder approach. So I’ll explain to you why I say it this way. But first, before I talk about that, I have to introduce my organization. So that’s my job. So my name is Jingbo Huang, the director of a United Nations University Research Institute in Macau. So how many of you have heard of a UNU, UN University? Oh, one, two. Great. Three. We’ve heard of them. Wonderful. Thank you. Great. So UN University headquarters is in Tokyo. We have 13 research institutes in 12 different countries. We are the UN. We also have an identity which is academic. So that’s why we do research and we do training and education at UN University. 13 research institutes in 12 countries. And we have different institutes covering different expertise. The one, as you can see, on the map. So those are the locations of our institute. So our institute that I’m heading is UNU Macau. It specializes in digital technologies and sustainable development goals. Recently, in the past, we have been around for more than 30 years. Recently, we have been working more toward AI, AI governance, AI ethics, extra, including in addition to digital tech with women, gender, cybersecurity, growing up online, extra. So we have a huge portfolio. And if you’re interested, we can talk later. And today’s approach, as I mentioned, is a system approach to talk about generative AI and education, multi-stakeholder. So when we talk about generative AI, we certainly will look at the system itself. But beyond system, and usually the system where the technical background is usually less important, I would consider so, than people. So people have to be in the center. So let’s look at the people picture. So on the right side, you can see that there are teachers, certainly. And teachers have to be, they have been using, taking advantage of the tools and trying to develop personalized education tools and using generative AI. And we also have learners, the students. And maybe nowadays we talk about lifelong learners. It’s actually everybody has been using it. And we also look at the schools, school administrators, for example, universities now with generative AI, which transforms how we learn and how we teach drastically and what kind of a curriculum would be relevant. How do we train people for the future generation? So those are the questions that the university administration needs to think about. And if we look at the bigger outer ecosystem, we also need to look at the policymakers, Ministry of Education, for example, and also the regulators. So today, of course, there are parents. I think some of you being parents and you also understand, you know, sometimes you want to know what your children are doing and online and with the generative AI. So this is, also we have the technology company and they are actually the ones who develop the technologies. With this people map. And I’m very happy to introduce to you our panelists because we represent actually all the roles here. We also have researchers. So this is what I mean by a system approach or a whole society approach to discuss the generative AI and education topics. So I would like to introduce you to our wonderful panel. So it’s alphabetical order. First one is Antonio Saravanos and later you will see him online. He’s a professor, associate professor of information system management from New York University. And sitting next to me is Dr. Eliamani Lataika and he’s a judge of a high court of Tanzania. He’s also a faculty member of Nelson Mandela University and he’s from Tanzania. And then we have a professor Mike Perkins. Sorry, how to pronounce it. Yeah, that’s fine. Okay. He’s an associate professor and head of Center for Research and Innovation, British University, Vietnam. And we have Mr. Mohammed Sharif and he is the director of government and international relations, OCSICA. And he’s also former minister of states from Maldives. Unfortunately, Dr. Kaohsiung cannot make it today with us. So we’ll stay with the five people panel today. So the first one I would like to ask our panelists. Let me take a seat. So we will have our presentation and then later I would highly encourage you to interact with us, ask us questions and share your practice and your best practices with us. So later I will invite you to speak. And so first I would like… Can you still hear me? Yeah. So mine is breaking up. I cannot hear myself. The first set of questions I would like to ask Mohammed. Yeah. And Mohammed has been a state minister, a researcher, a higher education administrator and now a private sector leader. So recently you have been working closely with educators of K-12 in Maldives. Would you please share how the educators in Maldives use generative AI in their classrooms and what concerns and

Mohamed Shareef: difficulties do they encounter? Thank you. Well, let me start by thanking you, I think, for your presence here. I know there are many, many sessions going out there, but you’ve come here to hear from us. So as Jingbao alluded to, I had the opportunity during the last kind of year, year and a half, to interact with educators in the Maldives, mostly K-12 educators, but also faculty from the main universities in the Maldives. Over the last year and a half, there has been an increasing interest of educators in generative AI. Now, AI for practitioners like myself and many of you, I’m sure, you know, generative AI is really sparked this interest and everyone’s looking to see how they can be supercharged with AI. And the same is true in the Maldives. Now, Maldives, you may not know, is a small island developing nation. It’s an upper-middle-income nation, so it’s not a least developed nation, but challenged through technology adoption. Now, when we look at over the last kind of year, I interacted with about 270. And the first thing I asked is, are you familiar with what is it? And about 50% of them said, yeah, I have some idea what generative AI is. Maybe they’re not so familiar with what generative means, but they kind of have a sense of, okay, this is something they need. This is something they want. So already, but then I asked, do you use it, right? And what I found was quite surprising that nearly 85% of educators in the Maldives already use it, but not as I hoped they would, but they use it. And for that reason, what I found was, so what do you do? I asked them. Oh, AI can make beautiful slides. This is the first thing, because creating slides is a big headache, I guess, for educators. And with AI, you can just give it your notes and it will create the bullet points. And if you have better AI, it will even… put it all into PowerPoint or whatever tool you want. So it is the idea that teachers are already taxed in terms of the time they have. But what I found interesting was that about 15% of educators, both in higher education and in K-12, were already using generative AI on a daily basis to teach or to aid them in their teaching duties. And this was surprising because I didn’t really expect that they would be using this outside of, say, casual kind of exploratory work. But this is quite surprising. But what is even more surprising is that when I asked them, what are your concerns? Because I thought they would be concerned. I thought they would be concerned with generative AI because generative AI could replace them. But when I asked them, right, K-12, K-12 teachers, their concern was that they don’t have the knowledge to leverage generative AI. And they don’t have the training opportunities to operate themselves. And their second concern was, how can we access, the access to AI is limited? And then their third concern was the accuracy. Now, they are the teachers, so they know when they create something. They know when it’s not accurate. But imagine a math teacher trying to teach something English. So they are really concerned about the accuracy of AI. And at the bottom of the list, they say, yeah, maybe only 2% of the respondents that taught this 270 educators told me they have any concerns about being replaced. I think because at the top, they already marked to make it right. There is no risk of replacing us. But they see very neatly there is. But when I asked the higher education, there is a contrast. The top concern for them is plagiarism and cheating. This is their concern. But plagiarism and cheating is like the fifth or sixth or K-12 teachers. For them, it’s about that. But for the higher education, the faculty, for them, the concern is, how am I going to assess these guys when they are going to be using AI’s work as they are all trying to pass AI work as their own work? So there is definitely a lot of concern. But there is a lot of general demand for it, like the Maldives, two things that educators are looking for. One, AI, how to keep children safe online, cybersecurity. So these topics have been high in demand. And I think they go hand in hand together. So this is from a developing country. So I see a lot of scope in how, especially the fact that educators are putting at the top of their concerns their own capacity and the opportunities students have with plagiarism and how can we actually assess students who use AI. Thank you.

Jingbo Huang : Thank you, Mohamed. And this is very interesting. If the technician, please, can you please bring the Zoom? So we will invite our second speaker. Since Mohamed mentioned the plagiarism and the faculty members, how are they going to assess their students? So let’s invite Dr. Saravanos, Antonio Saravanos, to talk about, as a professor, researcher, and computer scientist, you can probably easily discern that your students submit work produced by generative AI, TATCPT, for example. How do you teach your students their generative AI judgments so they can better use generative AI to enhance learning? Antonio, please.

Antonio Saravanos: So you bring up an excellent point, right? Unfortunately, it’s quite easy to detect the use of TATCPT or another artificial intelligence, specifically an NLP, natural language processing, at the novice level, at the student level. For example, thinking back, this semester, I was teaching an intro to programming course. And I would repeatedly see submissions where the solution used elements of the language I was teaching Python and elements of Python that we hadn’t yet covered. And then when you have a discussion with the students, it’s clear that they don’t really understand what the material is. So it’s easy to catch them. And there are many, many ways to catch the use of AI. For example, when students submit essays, you see them citing resources that don’t exist. And that’s quite common for TATCPT to just make up references. So I think someone more experienced, right, can kind of catch them out. So as an educator, I recognize the rise of gen AI tools like TATCPT, right, is both a challenge and an opportunity in an academic environment. So from the teaching approach that I have adopted focuses on reframing the challenges as opportunities in order to empower students and guiding them to use gen AI not as a shortcut for producing answers, but as a tool to deepen their understanding, creativity, and problem-solving abilities. Because whether we want to or not, right, when they go into industry and they leave the university, they’ll be relying on this tool. So they need to be able to use it effectively. So I guess I have many dimensions to this, and we’re a bit short on time. So I would say my foundation begins with helping the students understand the capabilities and limitations of the generative AI to begin with, right? So the first thing is to make sure that they understand that AI tools aren’t like this omnipotent source of knowledge and they understand that there are inherent flaws. So we need to begin with that. And then once they have that, we can move forward. So to illustrate this, I’ll present case studies in class where the AI outputs contain some mistakes, biases, fallacies, right, and then these examples become teaching moments. So first emphasizing the importance of the human element. So I may have students generate a solution to a coding problem with ChatGBT, and then the class goes over and critiques the solution with me, identifying mistakes. But you could even generalize this exercise, right? So with respect to students, anything where you have a gen AI response being compared to some authoritative source like a peer-reviewed article, and then highlighting discrepancies and the challenges, right, to identify what the AI might have produced, being flawed or incomplete responses, right? So this is what the AI gave us. How do we tell that there’s a mistake there, right? So generating these metacognitive abilities, thinking critically, is where it’s at. Hopefully this answers the question. Thank you, Antonios.

Jingbo Huang : And so Antonios has been incorporating, embracing generative AI in his teaching. So let’s move on to Mike. So one of your research interests is academic integrity. And would you please share with us some strategies for detecting AI-generated content in academic settings? Are the current tools effective? What are your insights on the responsible and ethical use of gen AI tools in academia? Thanks very much.

Mike Perkins: I’m just going to start off by saying, you know, how can we detect it? You can’t. And I’m going to disagree with what Antonios has said there. Educators cannot effectively detect the use of gen AI tools. There have been several studies which have demonstrated this. Earlier this year, a University of Reading study found that 94% of test submissions which were produced using gen AI sources were not detected during the marketing process. I’ve carried out experiments earlier than this. We created a series of gen AI produced assessments. using GPT-4. We then submitted these into the piles of all of the faculty marking them. We gave them the generative AI detection tools and we said, just tell us if you spot any tools that have been used, any assessments that have been created using AI. Performance extremely low in terms of people being able to pick this up. Some of the comments that you do hear people saying, and Antonio’s mentioned about Chat GPT making up fake sources. Originally, Chattyptee 3.5, yeah, that was true. It’s getting less and less true now. And now we have new tools such as Google Research released last week, which actually carries out an agent-based search, creates a literature review from real web sources, and will produce a full literature review for you. So this sort of story that AI tools, you can always tell that they’re going to, when we can detect them, it’s simply now not true. I would really strongly recommend to say, if you think you’re spotting a piece of work that you think is being created through gen AI, you may be wrong. Now you might say, well, okay, what I’ve got, I’ve got some, I’ve got a, I’ve got an AI detection tool. I’ve got zero GPT, I’ll turn it in. Also, wrong. Other research that I’ve carried out and many researchers in the academic and technical field, there’s now actually a consensus that these tools are not suitable for accusing students of committing plagiarism, as we say. Now you might say that, well, these tools, these software companies tell me that they’ve got a 98% accuracy rating. Okay, so you have a thousand students. How many students are you going to accept that you falsely accuse of plagiarism? And you mark them as zero, you make them redo a course, they maybe fail an assessment, they maybe have to drop out of university. Is that acceptable to you? Certainly not to me. And the research that I’ve been carrying out, it really highlights time and time again, that it’s actually the students who are at most risk of being in a precarious situation at their institution. Maybe they’re neurodivergent, maybe they’re English as a second language speakers. And these are the students who write in this style that people say, oh, that’s Gen AI. People write in lists, or people, you know, write in a certain sort of structured way, that yes, sometimes Gen AI tools do kind of replicate. But this is because they’re standardized forms of producing text. And especially when you’re an ESL speaker, you have often been taught in this particular way of using certain words in a certain format. So what you end up doing is you say, these students have been caught using Gen AI tools and they’re cheating. And they haven’t. But then they suffer some really severe consequences. We’ve also got to really consider broader issues of inclusivity and equity and access for these tools. Because you can make Gen AI output, even if this is detected as Gen AI produced, with a few simple techniques, you can turn this into text that is not going to be detected through any AI text detector. And we carried out this research. We created pieces using Gen AI tools. We tested them against the seven most popular and most research backed AI text detectors. And we found out that simply they were very low accuracy to begin with. 44% accuracy rating for unchanged text. But if you’re a student who’s wanting to cheat to get away with something, that’s not how you use AI. You don’t just copy and paste your prompts and throw that at the teacher and say, there you go. But if you do, you’re probably a struggling student who needs more support. It doesn’t need to be told, you’ve cheated, we’re going to throw you out of university now. But you give me 15 minutes and a piece of text, and I will make that text completely undetectable. Might be a thousand words, might be 2,000 words. We demonstrated that with a few simple prompts in terms of integrating these directly into our created prompts without manual editing, just by saying something like, write this in a more complex way. Add some spelling errors to this. Make this less complex. Make this sound more human. Add some verseness to it. Change the sentence length. Change the paragraph length. What you’re doing here is actually causing temperature changes in the underlying model. Now, if you have API access, you can actually set temperatures for the model, and you’ll find a higher temperature will give you a higher variation. We’re talking about stochastic models here, which try and predict what’s going to be the next word in the sequence. But if you just change that up and you add in some additional words, you rewrite some sections, you’re not going to get this detection that is going to be acceptable in really any formal academic integrity process. Now, if you take a look at the Guardian or Observer yesterday, I was quoted in there actually talking about this subject, and it’s a really interesting article, which talks exactly about these challenges. It’s the students who get falsely accused, and these are the ones who are struggling. Or it’s students who do admit to, you know, taking some shortcuts, but is that their fault? If they’re using ChatGPT or other Gen AI tools to do the assessment, why haven’t you changed your assessment? Why haven’t you changed your assessment to account for these tools? They’ve been out for two years now. What’s going on? So, I think there’s some really big changes that need to be made in education more broadly to recognize these tools and see how we can actually integrate them. Thank you. Thank you, Mike. Thank you. So, we’ve been talking about academic integrity. Now, let’s move on to our lawyer, Eddie Amani. We’re an expert in intellectual property. Gen AI tools can be trained by items protected by IP. There is a significant legal uncertainty whether AI tools, their training, use, and outputs represent IP infringements. What are some implications on education? Thank you very much.

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika: Thank you very much, Dr. Wong, for that question. Just before I go into the IP question, I want to appreciate the last speaker, the professor, for really opening this up. As a judge, I was trying to imagine getting a case where a student is suing the university for being accused of using Gen AI to produce their thesis and they need their PhD. I cannot graduate because this work is from Gen AI. I’m a judge. I need to do justice, not only to the student, but to the university and to the universe. And, surprisingly, the professor has said it’s impossible to detect. That’s kind of an interesting entry point into what I want to speak, because we are trying to make the AI thing so much hyped to the extent that we lose the things that we were working for and trying to reinvent the wheel. Copyright has been at the center of education. Copyright is at the loggerhead of Gen AI for several reasons. First, there is a saying in my language, which means, whenever you come across something very impressive, you should be sure that someone has toiled to make it so. So, any time you put a prompt, chat GPT or any other generative AI, and you get a wonderful text that suits your expectations, meets your expectations to the extent that it cannot even be detected, like a professor said, you should be sure that it borrows heavily from what existed before. So, the time that has been used to train chat GPT and other AI is allegedly time that copyrighted work was heavily violated. So, many people think, yes, this looks like a chapter in my book. I’m a professor of sociology, and somebody has just put a prompt, and the whole five, six years of my work. So, the case is going to court people saying chat GPT has violated copyright. So, that has an impact. education. Secondly, there’s an issue of attribution and ownership. Academia are known all over the world, academics, for generously acknowledging some other people’s work. You’ll find I was reading one paper when I was coming, and this professor has cited so many works in the world. One page, half a page is footnotes, you know, trying to say this is from so and so. We are not seeing that in Chatterjee PTT. It does not say this comes from Dr. Huang’s university in Macau, no, no, no. And thirdly, overtly restrictive laws that are coming as a result of Chatterjee PTT and other AIs. Now we are being very active. We kind of try to go away from the established principles of copyright towards extremely restrictive laws. What can be done to bring or to strike the right balance? And these are just my opinions, they are not binding. Some people think whatever a judge says is binding. Unfortunately, I’m speaking just as an academic, because like I was introduced, I still teach. I was appointed into the bench from the academia and I still retain my position. Number one, we must revisit copyright frameworks to ensure that there is some sort of enumeration for those that have been used to train AI. It should encourage open licensing. If your work is being used out there, you should be. I very much support monetary possession to authors and creatives, because if we don’t do that, we are shooting ourselves in the leg. Computers and AI will continue to certify our literary and cultural tests for a long time. I also think there is a need to establish ethical guidelines at every level. You should have ethical guidelines at the university level, at the ministry level, like the former minister has wonderfully stated. He has spent a long time with educators, because he’s speaking like one of them on the challenges of preparing slides and stuff like that. I also think there should be promotion of public-private partnership, because the government cannot succeed alone by trying to enact laws. It’s only upon learning from those who are directly affected by these laws and regulations that we get out. I need to say just a little bit for the next two minutes or so, that AI is a blessing in this guise in developing countries. In Tanzania, for example, getting money from the state and then they publish in international journals. You cannot access them. I’m seeing through Google a paper published by my professor, but I am required to pay to access it. It’s data from my country. It’s knowledge of my professor. He was trained by taxpayers from my country. The company has restricted this knowledge from me, so there was no equity. Now I can see AI coming forcefully and say, okay, I don’t want to promote these laws. I want equity. Yes. Thank you very much.

Jingbo Huang : He was ready, started to do the issue related to generative AI in the global South. The second round of the questions, we will focus more on the perspective of global South. As you know, in the UN, leave no one behind is a central value. Let’s look at gen AI from the global South perspective. I’ll go for the second round. The first question will also go to Mohamed. You used to be a policymaker in Maldives. Would you please reflect on how generative AI created digital divides between global North and global South? What policymakers should consider to help reduce the divides and promote more equitable access to gen AI, particularly in the small island countries like Maldives? Gen AI, the potential of gen AI is undoubtedly huge.

Mohamed Shareef: Today, everyone expects, actually, and should rightly expect gen AI to support us in achieving sustainable development goals. If not for AI, how would we have survived the pandemic? AI is already supporting us in the darkest of our times. What I fear most is that AI is like a new front that’s open for transformation practitioners who are working in the global South. This is a new front on the war on digital divide because we are already facing a lot of challenges trying to catch up with the rest of the world. Now, suddenly, there is like a red bull in the mix. For me, gen AI is like a red bull. It gives digital transformation wings. Suddenly, it’s printing. Those who can have this red bull, how are you going to catch up with them? In the global South, we just get the grip of this red bull. What can we do? There’s actually three aspects for digital divide when we talk about digital divide. It’s multifaceted, but the three aspects we talk about are access to technology, economic disparities, and the educational gaps. All these three things have a huge advantage. The developed world is investing their wealth today in AI and in particular, in generative AI. Not only that, there’s a huge educational gap in that because they are investing in the ecosystems in this developed part of the world. We are losing even our smartest brains in the developed world. This further exacerbates the educational gap. Then again, access to this is extremely limited. I’m sure you already heard 26% of the globe still remains offline and 50% of that is in the Asia-Pacific. The island communities are particularly impacted. What would I suggest as somebody who’s been for a long time a practitioner in digital transformation in the developing part of the world? I would say we’ve got to find a narrative where even the developing countries or even the least developed countries need to prioritize investment in IT infrastructure. In the Maldives, over the last five years, we’ve gone from having just one submarine cable in the rest of the world to five submarine cables. We’ve gone from geostationary internet to real internet. We’ve invested a lot to make sure that we are connected and we are connected in every way possible from under the water and from the sky down. But then you’ve got to make sure AI and digital literacy in these international curriculums. This is extremely important, but this is extremely hard as well. I am actually working with the higher education in particular to develop AI modules that are multidisciplinary and taught for every student. From nurses to finance specialists, AI needs to be taught. And then we’ve got to actually develop an ecosystem where we can retain our smartest rather than lose them to the West. So governments and the private industry need to partner. We alone cannot do it as His Excellency has pointed out, right? And of course, nation states as well as educational institutions should come up with policies for ethical use of AI. We cannot just jump into AI without proper national as well as institutional guidelines that safeguards our data and our privacy. And finally, we cannot do it alone. This is why we are very glad to be working alongside institutions like the UNU. We’ve got to work together. If we are going to have to actually bridge the AI divide and not let it divide us even further. Thank you.

Jingbo Huang : Since Mohammed already mentioned the capacity building, so the next question for Antonio would be, if you were teaching teachers from the Global South to integrate generative AI tools to their classroom, what would you tell them about the technical nature of the GEM-AI tools to help them understand that GEM-AI, understand the benefits and limitations. So we’re talking about the teachers education in the Global South.

Antonio Saravanos: So an excellent question. I think I would begin by highlighting that there are two sides to the tool. So on the one hand, we have the solution being used by teachers to make them more productive. And I think that was also mentioned by other panelists as well. So generating slides, generating these types of resources, perhaps assessments and so on. So in that sense, it’s quite powerful. And then there needs to be training for that. And then the other half is, okay, so how can we use it in assignments for the students, right? So how can the students be using it to make them more productive and so on? So one is understanding that there are the two dimensions, right? The other, again, mentioned by other panelists is the digital divide, right? Luckily, there are free tools that one can use, but it’s important also to recognize that they’re restricted. So I think this goes a bit tangentially, right? But again, it would be quite wise for academics to kind of work together to figure out ways that they can gain access to the more advanced solutions and also develop their own local tools that they can use that might not be as limited. So a lot of the work is open source. So can we run our own AI solutions locally with support and so on and learn and develop in that area, right? So not as to be left behind and so on. If I were teaching teachers from the Global South, I would begin by highlighting the technical nature, right, of these tools. So highlighting their benefits and their limitations, right? I think a good starting point, right, is what is Gen AI in general, right? What can be used to generate, right, text, images, music, code, right? So they get a good perspective of everything that it’s possible to do. Because sometimes one is kind of limited to use cases that they’ve heard from others and so on. So I think a good overview is a great starting point. And then highlighting the advantages and disadvantages, right? So it can summarize, explain, create content, but it doesn’t think or understand, right? Even though it kind of makes one think that they’re thinking, it’s not really like a human, right? As was mentioned by another panelist, it’s just guessing, right? Probabilities, like what should come next? So in that sense, talk about what the open solutions are and what the paid solutions are, right? So one can use DALI for images. Google Colab has an AI solution to generate code, right? So there’s a lot out there. So what’s there? And then not everything will be appropriate for every instructor. It kind of depends on what subject matter you’re teaching, right? And how the AI works, as was mentioned before, right? So it may not be as easy to catch someone plagiarizing using chat GPT in sociology, but it may be easier, right? If it’s an intro to programming course. So it really depends on the context a bit, right? So I see I’m running a bit short on time. So I think I’ll stop there, but happy to expand on the conversation offline if anyone is interested. Thank you, Antonio. May I please ask our technicians to put out the PowerPoint back again?

Jingbo Huang : And so the next question is for Mike, and you developed the AI assessment scale, which allows gen AI to be integrated into educational assessments while promoting academic integrity and the ethical use of these technologies. Sure. Thank you very much. So I was earlier just telling you about how really not feasible to say, well, we’re just going to tell that students have used gen AI tools.

Mike Perkins: But especially not if you’re in the Global South, because these tools also cost a lot of money. And the most accurate tools, which could be used to have these conversations, are going to be the ones that are most expensive. And you, in the Global South, maybe not going to be able to do this. So what’s the best way to do this? So what’s the alternative then? What can we do to change things up? Well, what I’ve developed is a framework for how we can actually introduce gen AI tools in an ethical way into assessment settings. Now, what this is, is a conversation starter between academics and students to say, look, we know that gen AI tools exist. We can’t put the genie back in the bottle, as much as some academics would probably like to, I think, and say, let’s just go back to where this is going. So what we have is a situation where, in the last two years, academics have been saying, oh, these students cheating using gen AI, yet still setting the same essay questions they’ve set for 20 years. But we’re beyond that timing. Now is the time to change, and the AI assessment scale is a tool primarily for assessment redesign. It’s a way to say, look, what are the important things we need to change? What are the things that we need to change? So this starts off right from the very beginning, where we say, look, there’s some times where we can’t use any AI at all. Now, if you are a mid-20s, you might want to use a gen AI tool. But we’re beyond that timing. Now is the time to change, and the AI assessment scale is a tool primarily for assessment redesign. It’s a way to say, look, what are the important things we need to change? What are the things that we need to change? What are the things that we need to change? So this starts off right from the very beginning, where we say, look, there’s some times where we can’t use any AI at all. Now, if you are a medical student, and you are training future nurses and doctors, you want to ensure that when that student graduates and becomes a doctor, they actually know the fundamental biological aspects of a human. So how are you going to test that, then? Well, you’re not going to say, here’s an assignment, and write me about the human heart. You’re going to put them in an example, or put them in a face-to-face assessment situation, or a one-to-one viva, or a presentation, and say, tell me about this situation. There’s a corpse. Demonstrate that you know how to cut that up before I’m going to let you practice on somebody else. You’re not going to give them an assignment to say, tell me about how you cut up this corpse. Hopefully, they’re not going to be corpses that they’re actually dealing with. Hopefully, when we graduate, then they’re actually going to be able to deal with live humans. So sometimes, we need this fundamental knowledge to be tested. And that’s when we say, look, there’s sometimes where we say there’s no AI. And this is a secured assessment. But then, as soon as we go away from a secured assessment, it is no longer possible to test that AI. So if you can’t control how the students are using Gen-AI tools, what you need to do is to change your assessments so that they focus on the things that you want to train them about. So, for example, at level two, this is where we’re talking about the human heart. This is where we’re talking about the human heart. So if you can’t control how the students are using Gen-AI tools, what you need to do is to change your assessments so that they focus on the things that you want to train them about. So, for example, at level two, this is where we’re talking about process-based assessments. So you’re a writing instructor, and you want to teach students about how to plan an essay. So you say, what tools can you use to help you plan an essay? And then you submit that as your assessment, and then we explore it. Because when students graduate, they are going to be asked to do tasks by their employers, and what we want is for them to be able to finish that output. We don’t say, oh, well, you’ve got to use, you’re not allowed to use the internet to do your job, or you’re not allowed to use your Gen AI tools. So we’ve got to train students how to use them effectively for different situations. At the next level, we might say, we want to have AI as a collaborator. We want to train students how to use Gen AI tools to draft text, to adjust what they are creating, to give them maybe even feedback on their work. And what we’re looking at is this co-creation element, rather than trying to say, oh, well, you wrote that part, and the AI wrote that part. I write using Gen AI tools, and by the time I’ve finished writing my journal paper, I can’t tell myself which part I wrote by myself and which part the AI wrote, and it’s all my ideas and it’s all my voice. So the idea is we’re trying to train students on maintaining their voice and maintaining a critical approach to how is the best way to use AI. And then we can go beyond that. We can say, you know, there’s some times where we want students to use AI tools specifically, and therefore we want to assess how well they’re actually using Gen AI tools. So we might say, rather than just, oh, yeah, you can use AI for this, we say, you must use AI for this, or show me your use of this tool to demonstrate this final problem. So what we say this full AI. And this used to be our final version of the scale, the final level. Then we recognize that technology is changing so rapidly, we need to recognize the increasing multimodal use of AI. And that’s why we have this final AI exploration level. Now in this AI exploration level, what we’re looking at is solving problems that we don’t necessarily even know exist yet. How can we use Gen AI to solve problems that have been created by Gen AI, or to do things in a different way, to fundamentally use Gen AI to have this element of co-design and co-working between an educator, a student, and a Gen AI tool to actually solve something new? Now we’re not going to be talking about K-12 students here on this, but we may be talking IB final project. Maybe we’re looking at undergraduate dissertations, PhD students, master’s students. So this is how we can bring all of these together into this five point scale, which can hopefully support students in using AI in a different way. So that’s how I think we can use it in the Global South. It’s a free framework. It doesn’t require any licensing. If you want to take this and adapt this, we actually have tools available. So this one on the bottom, you can download a translation. We have this translated into 12 different languages already with more to come. And we also have the design assets linked there. So it’s just a Canva asset that you can change and adapt to your own context. Because not everybody is the same. Every country has got different requirements. So we’ve got to be able to change accordingly. So some information about the AI assessment scale.

Jingbo Huang : Thanks. Thank you, Mike. I think the tools are very useful. And thinking about the Global South, probably the capacity building for the teachers and for the students would be of a challenge compared to the Global North. That’s just my impression. So the last question, but not least, we go back to our legal expert, Elia Mani. Africa, that’s where you are from, will be the future of the world. I really believe so. It is expected to contribute to 62% of the global population in the next 25 years.

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika: Nigeria and Tanzania, specifically Tanzania, where you’re from, expected to grow their population by 50 to 90%. How can Africa benefit from and contribute to the development of Gen-AI in education? Thank you very much for that question, which is very close to my heart. And I’ll start by giving the similarities between Tanzania and Nigeria as an entry point to address the question. And both Tanzania and Nigeria are hosts to the Nelson Mandela African Institutions of Science and Technology. It’s unfortunate that many people don’t know that the late Nelson Mandela had a vision of science, technology, and innovation, powering the next generation of Africans and increasing competitiveness in the continent. And as a result, four institutions were established named after him. And I come from the one that is in Arusha, Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology. That’s what you can see, that I’m an adjunct faculty member there. And this has been our way of positioning ourselves to benefit from the global innovation scale and also to contribute. So just like how we established Nelson Mandela institutions in the past, the one in Arusha was established in 2011, and the one in Nigeria was established in 2007, and you can Google about it and you will see that quite a number of world-class innovations have been happening in these institutions and contributing meaningfully towards empowering the next generations of Africans. Our current president, who happens to be a lady, female head of state, we are very proud of our president, Samia Sulu Hassan. She has pioneered STEM education, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics as the way to prepare the next generation of Tanzanians and Africans in general to contribute meaningfully to innovation. And just last week, she reshuffled the cabinet and when addressing the nation of that, she told the minister of ICT, who I’m told is on his way coming to attend this, that his ministry has been narrowed so that he can focus specifically on ICT to ensure that he explores whatever is going to help Tanzania to improve and compete on all fronts in terms of ICT. We have a long way to go, and this is how I want to finish my contribution by asking everyone to ensure that you give a hand to the global south. Personally, I got a scholarship to study my master’s and PhD in Germany by the generous scholarship of the Max Planck Society. Many of my age mates studied in the US and the UK. We are not seeing this happening anymore on a larger scale. So we still need bridges to be built so that the north and the south can share expertise and share knowledge. That’s how we can position ourselves, not only to benefit, but also to contribute meaningfully to gen AI and STEM in general.

Jingbo Huang : Thank you, Eliemani. So, well, conscious of time, the session has to end, but I would like to encourage all of you, whoever would like to have an exchange of ideas with the panel members, please come up and we can have individual conversations. And for those online, sorry, we cannot accommodate the questions. Feel free to write to us and, you know, or yeah, write to us and we can have an exchange later. All right. Thank you very much to your panelists and thank you for being here and listening to the session. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Need for AI education and capacity building

Mohamed Shareef

Antonio Saravanos

Mike Perkins

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika

Educators in Maldives already using generative AI, but lack knowledge and training

Need to reframe generative AI as a tool for deeper understanding, not just producing answers

AI assessment scale framework can help ethically integrate AI into education in Global South

Africa needs partnerships with Global North to build AI/STEM capacity

All speakers emphasized the importance of educating both teachers and students about AI, its proper use, and integration into the curriculum.

Redesigning educational approaches for AI integration

Antonio Saravanos

Mike Perkins

Educators should focus on teaching students to use AI effectively, not banning it

Assessments need to be redesigned to focus on skills AI can’t replicate

Both speakers argue for adapting educational methods to incorporate AI tools effectively rather than trying to ban or detect their use.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the potential for AI to widen the gap between developed and developing countries, emphasizing the need for collaboration and support from the Global North.

Mohamed Shareef

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika

Generative AI risks exacerbating existing digital divides between Global North and South

Africa needs partnerships with Global North to build AI/STEM capacity

Unexpected Consensus

Limitations of AI detection tools in education

Mike Perkins

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika

Current AI detection tools are not reliable for accusing students of plagiarism

Copyright frameworks need to be revisited to address use of copyrighted material in AI training

While coming from different perspectives (education and law), both speakers highlight the inadequacy of current tools and frameworks to address AI-related challenges in education and copyright.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agreed on the importance of AI education, the need to redesign educational approaches, and the challenges faced by the Global South in AI adoption.

Consensus level

Moderate to high consensus on the main issues, with implications for a collaborative, global approach to integrating AI in education while addressing equity concerns.

Different Viewpoints

Effectiveness of AI detection tools in academic settings

Antonio Saravanos

Mike Perkins

Unfortunately, it’s quite easy to detect the use of TATCPT or another artificial intelligence, specifically an NLP, natural language processing, at the novice level, at the student level.

Current AI detection tools are not reliable for accusing students of plagiarism

Antonio Saravanos believes it’s easy to detect AI use in student work, while Mike Perkins argues that current AI detection tools are unreliable and risk false accusations.

Unexpected Differences

Perception of AI in developing countries

Mohamed Shareef

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika

Generative AI risks exacerbating existing digital divides between Global North and South

Africa needs partnerships with Global North to build AI/STEM capacity

While both speakers discuss AI in developing countries, their perspectives differ unexpectedly. Shareef focuses on the risks of AI widening the digital divide, while Laltaika emphasizes the opportunities for partnerships and capacity building in Africa.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the detection of AI-generated content in academic settings, the approach to integrating AI in education, and the perception of AI’s impact on developing countries.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is moderate. While there are clear differences in some areas, there is also general agreement on the importance of adapting education to incorporate AI. These differences highlight the complexity of integrating AI in education globally and the need for nuanced approaches that consider both opportunities and challenges.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need to change educational approaches for AI, but differ in their specific recommendations. Saravanos focuses on using AI as a tool for deeper understanding, while Perkins emphasizes redesigning assessments to test skills AI can’t replicate.

Antonio Saravanos

Mike Perkins

Need to reframe generative AI as a tool for deeper understanding, not just producing answers

Assessments need to be redesigned to focus on skills AI can’t replicate

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the potential for AI to widen the gap between developed and developing countries, emphasizing the need for collaboration and support from the Global North.

Mohamed Shareef

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika

Generative AI risks exacerbating existing digital divides between Global North and South

Africa needs partnerships with Global North to build AI/STEM capacity

Key Takeaways

Generative AI is already being widely used in education, but educators often lack proper training and knowledge to use it effectively

Current AI detection tools are unreliable for identifying AI-generated content in academic settings

Generative AI risks exacerbating existing digital divides between the Global North and South

Educational approaches and assessments need to be redesigned to effectively integrate AI tools

Copyright frameworks and ethical guidelines need to be updated to address AI use in education

Partnerships between the Global North and South are needed to build AI capacity in developing regions

Resolutions and Action Items

Develop ethical guidelines for AI use in education at institutional and national levels

Integrate AI and digital literacy into curricula across disciplines

Redesign assessments to focus on skills AI cannot replicate

Invest in IT infrastructure in developing countries to improve access to AI tools

Establish partnerships between Global North and South for AI capacity building

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively detect AI-generated content in academic work

How to ensure equitable access to advanced AI tools in the Global South

How to balance copyright protections with the use of copyrighted material in AI training

How to retain skilled AI professionals in developing countries

Suggested Compromises

Use AI assessment frameworks that allow controlled integration of AI tools into education rather than banning their use

Develop local, open-source AI solutions in the Global South to reduce dependence on expensive proprietary tools

Revisit copyright frameworks to allow some use of copyrighted material in AI training while providing compensation to creators

Educators cannot effectively detect the use of gen AI tools. There have been several studies which have demonstrated this.

speaker

Mike Perkins

reason

This challenges the common assumption that AI-generated content can be easily detected, introducing a significant problem for academic integrity.

impact

It shifted the conversation from how to detect AI use to how to adapt education systems to work with AI. It led to discussion of changing assessment methods and integrating AI into curricula.

AI is a blessing in this guise in developing countries. In Tanzania, for example, getting money from the state and then they publish in international journals. You cannot access them.

speaker

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika

reason

This provides a unique perspective on how AI could potentially democratize access to knowledge in developing countries.

impact

It broadened the discussion to consider the global implications of AI in education, particularly for the Global South. It led to further exploration of digital divides and equitable access to AI technologies.

For me, gen AI is like a red bull. It gives digital transformation wings. Suddenly, it’s printing. Those who can have this red bull, how are you going to catch up with them?

speaker

Mohamed Shareef

reason

This vivid metaphor effectively illustrates the potential for AI to widen existing digital divides.

impact

It focused the discussion on the urgent need for policies and strategies to ensure equitable access to AI technologies, particularly in developing countries.

What I’ve developed is a framework for how we can actually introduce gen AI tools in an ethical way into assessment settings.

speaker

Mike Perkins

reason

This offers a practical solution to the challenges of integrating AI into education while maintaining academic integrity.

impact

It moved the conversation from identifying problems to discussing concrete solutions, providing a framework for educators to adapt to the reality of AI in education.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by challenging assumptions about AI detection, highlighting global inequalities in AI access, and proposing practical solutions for integrating AI into education. The conversation evolved from identifying challenges to exploring nuanced perspectives on AI’s impact in different global contexts and discussing concrete strategies for ethical AI integration in education. This progression deepened the analysis and broadened the scope of the discussion beyond initial concerns about academic integrity to encompass global educational equity and the transformation of assessment methods.

How can educators effectively assess students’ work when generative AI tools are widely available?

speaker

Mohamed Shareef

explanation

This is a key concern for higher education faculty as they struggle to determine if students are submitting their own work or AI-generated content.

What are effective strategies for teaching students to use generative AI tools responsibly and ethically?

speaker

Antonio Saravanos

explanation

As generative AI becomes more prevalent in education and industry, students need guidance on how to leverage these tools appropriately.

How can assessment methods be redesigned to account for the existence of generative AI tools?

speaker

Mike Perkins

explanation

Traditional assessments may no longer be effective, so new approaches are needed to evaluate student learning in the age of AI.

What legal and ethical frameworks are needed to address copyright and intellectual property issues related to generative AI in education?

speaker

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika

explanation

The use of copyrighted materials to train AI models raises complex legal questions that need to be resolved.

How can the digital divide between the Global North and Global South be addressed in relation to generative AI technologies?

speaker

Mohamed Shareef

explanation

Ensuring equitable access to AI tools and education is crucial to prevent widening global inequalities.

What strategies can be employed to retain talented AI researchers and practitioners in developing countries?

speaker

Mohamed Shareef

explanation

Preventing brain drain is important for building local AI capacity in the Global South.

How can generative AI tools be effectively integrated into educational curricula in resource-constrained environments?

speaker

Antonio Saravanos

explanation

Adapting AI education for contexts with limited technological infrastructure is crucial for global equity.

What role can international partnerships play in supporting AI education and research in Africa?

speaker

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika

explanation

Collaboration between Global North and South institutions could help build AI capacity in developing regions.

Summary

This panel discussion focused on the challenges and risks posed by autonomous weapons systems and the urgent need for international regulation. Experts from various fields, including diplomacy, technology, academia, and civil society, debated the complexities of governing AI in military applications.

The discussion highlighted the rapid development of AI-powered weapons and the potential consequences of their unregulated use. Participants emphasized the need for a binding international treaty by 2026 to prohibit autonomous weapons that cannot comply with international humanitarian law and to regulate other such systems. However, challenges were noted, including geopolitical tensions, the difficulty of defining meaningful human control, and the gap between technological advancements and policy-making.

Several speakers stressed the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach, involving not just diplomats and military experts, but also scientists, engineers, and civil society. The discussion touched on the complexities of AI systems, including inherent biases, limitations in testing and validation, and the potential for unintended consequences.

The global implications of autonomous weapons were highlighted, with particular concern for the disproportionate impact on the Global South. Participants called for increased capacity building and education to address the AI divide between nations. The need for public awareness and engagement was also emphasized.

While some speakers expressed optimism about reaching an international agreement, others cautioned about the difficulties in achieving consensus given the rapid pace of technological change. The discussion concluded with a call for urgent action, recognizing the “Oppenheimer moment” in AI weapons development and the need for smart, flexible regulation that can keep pace with technological advancements.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The urgent need for regulation and governance of autonomous weapons systems and AI in military contexts

– Challenges in developing effective regulations due to rapidly evolving technology and geopolitical tensions

– The importance of a multi-stakeholder approach involving governments, industry, academia, and civil society

– Concerns about the risks of autonomous systems making complex decisions without meaningful human control

– The need for capacity building, especially in the Global South, to address the “AI divide”

Overall purpose/goal:

The discussion aimed to raise awareness about the risks posed by autonomous weapons systems and AI in military contexts, and to explore potential governance approaches and regulations to address these risks. The panelists sought to highlight the urgency of the issue while acknowledging the complexities involved.

Tone:

The overall tone was one of concern and urgency, but also pragmatism. Speakers emphasized the gravity of the risks while also acknowledging the challenges in developing effective regulations. There was a mix of cautious optimism about the potential for international cooperation and more pessimistic views about the likelihood of reaching binding agreements in the near term. The tone became somewhat more urgent towards the end as speakers emphasized the need for immediate action given that autonomous systems are already being deployed in conflicts.

Speakers

– Gregor Schusterschitz: Ambassador from Austria

– Wolfgang Kleinwächter: Moderator

– Ernst Noorman: Ambassador from the Netherlands, Chair of the GGE laws

– Vint Cerf: Internet pioneer

– Jimena Viveros: Commissioner on the Global Commission on Responsible AI in the Military Domain, member of various AI commissions

– Olga Cavalli: Dean of the Defense University in Argentina

– Chris Painter: Former US Cyber Ambassador

– Ram Mohan: Chief Strategy Officer of Identity Digital, former ICANN board member

– Kevin Whelan: Head of UN Office for Amnesty International

Additional speakers:

– Milton Mueller: From Georgia Tech (online participant)

– Hiram: From Encode Justice, part of Stop Killer Robots Coalition (audience member)

– Artem Kruzhulin: Panelist on earlier panel about public and private sector cooperation (audience member)

– Kunle Olorundari: President of Internet Society Nigerian chapter, researcher (audience member)

– Raida Lindsay: Local digital policy expert (audience member)

Expanded Summary of Panel Discussion on Autonomous Weapons Systems and AI in Military Contexts

Introduction

This panel discussion brought together experts from diplomacy, technology, academia, and civil society to debate the challenges and risks posed by autonomous weapons systems and the urgent need for international regulation. The conversation highlighted the rapid development of AI-powered weapons and the potential consequences of their unregulated use, emphasizing the need for a binding international treaty by 2026.

Key Discussion Points

1. Urgency of Regulation

There was strong agreement among panelists on the pressing need to regulate autonomous weapons systems. Ambassador Gregor Schusterschitz from Austria called for binding rules and limits by 2026, mentioning the Vienna Conference and recent UN General Assembly resolutions on the topic. Kevin Whelan from Amnesty International pointed out that existing autonomous systems are already being deployed in conflicts, underscoring the immediacy of the issue.

Ernst Noorman, Chair of the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (GGE LAWS), provided insights into the GGE process, noting the participation of 125 countries and its inclusive nature. He warned that the fast pace of development is closing the window for preventive regulation.

Jimena Viveros, Commissioner on the Global Commission on Responsible AI in the Military Domain, stressed the importance of moving from discussions to negotiations. This sense of urgency was tempered by acknowledgement of the challenges involved, with Chris Painter, former US Cyber Ambassador, noting that rapid technological evolution is outpacing regulatory efforts.

2. Challenges in Regulation and Technical Limitations

Several speakers highlighted the significant technical and geopolitical challenges in regulating AI and autonomous weapons. Ram Mohan, Chief Strategy Officer of Identity Digital, emphasized the difficulty in creating unbiased and accurate AI systems, pointing out the limitations of current software engineering methods for AI. He argued that the concept of a zero-defect AI system, while appealing, faces inherent limitations and discussed the challenges of jailbreaking AI systems through prompt engineering.

Ernst Noorman noted that geopolitical tensions and mistrust are hindering progress on international agreements. The rapid evolution of technology was seen as a major obstacle, with Chris Painter highlighting how it outpaces regulatory efforts.

3. Multi-stakeholder Approach and Capacity Building

There was broad consensus on the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to governance. Ambassador Schusterschitz emphasized the importance of involving diplomats, military personnel, academia, industry, and civil society in discussions. Olga Cavalli, Dean of the Defense University in Argentina, stressed the value of including technical experts in these conversations and highlighted the challenges of training in developing economies and the high demand for cyber defense education.

Kevin Whelan highlighted the potential of the UN General Assembly process for broader engagement, while Jimena Viveros called for new governance models suited to AI challenges. This multi-faceted approach was seen as crucial for addressing the complex issues surrounding autonomous weapons systems.

4. Human Control, Accountability, and Ethical Concerns

Maintaining meaningful human control over the use of force emerged as a key concern. Kevin Whelan argued that the use of autonomous weapon systems in law enforcement contexts would be inherently unlawful and dehumanizing, as international law and standards governing the use of force rely on nuanced human judgment. Ram Mohan highlighted the challenges of human oversight with complex AI systems.

Vint Cerf, internet pioneer, provided crucial insights on the differences between AI and nuclear deterrence. He emphasized that unlike nuclear weapons, AI systems are not easily contained and can propagate in unexpected ways. Cerf stressed the importance of clear lines of accountability and the need for standardization and binding agreements to address these challenges.

5. Role of Private Companies and Current Deployments

The discussion touched on the role of private companies in deploying AI systems in current conflicts, as mentioned by audience members. This raised concerns about the lack of oversight and potential consequences of commercial entities driving the development and use of autonomous weapons systems.

Unique Perspectives and Thought-Provoking Comments

Jimena Viveros offered a thought-provoking comparison between AI and nuclear weapons, noting that AI presents a fundamentally different challenge. Unlike nuclear weapons, which were immediately classified and rarely used due to mutual assured destruction, AI technology is being widely developed and deployed without a collective understanding of its potential consequences.

Ram Mohan provided crucial technical insights, explaining that current software engineering methods for testing, quality assurance, and validation are insufficient for AI systems. This perspective highlighted the inherent challenges in developing reliable AI systems for weapons and deepened the conversation about the limitations of human control over AI.

Conclusion and Next Steps

The discussion concluded with a call for urgent action, recognizing the current critical juncture in AI weapons development. Key takeaways included:

1. The need for a legally binding instrument to prohibit autonomous weapons systems that cannot comply with international law.

2. The importance of briefing countries on developments in the GGE LAWS process.

3. The need to develop risk management frameworks for machine learning systems.

4. A call for smart and targeted regulation that keeps pace with technological development.

Unresolved issues include how to effectively regulate rapidly evolving AI technology, ensure meaningful human control over complex AI systems, and address the capacity gap between developed and developing countries in AI governance. Suggestions from audience members included focusing on regulating specific use cases of AI in weapons, such as digital triggers, rather than AI itself.

The discussion highlighted the complexity of the challenges posed by autonomous weapons systems and AI in military contexts, emphasizing the need for continued dialogue, multidisciplinary approaches, and urgent international cooperation to address these critical issues. The panel stressed the importance of including more technical experts in diplomatic discussions and developing flexible regulations that can adapt to future technological developments while balancing the need for regulation with the desire to not hinder beneficial AI innovation.

Gregor Schusterschitz: But moving to a negotiation mandate to work out the details has not yet been possible. Geopolitical tensions, mistrust among states, and a potentially flawed confidence in technological solutions hinder progress, despite the urgency of the issue, given the fast pace of development and the era of autonomic weapons systems, and the preventive window for regulation closing soon. This is why Austria has been engaging actively. We hosted the Vienna Conference Humanity at the Crossroads in April this year and tabled two resolutions in the UN General Assembly on autonomous weapons systems that enjoyed the support of an overwhelming majority of states. The global discourse on autonomous weapons systems should not be limited to a constituency of diplomats and military experts only. The issue has broad implications for human rights, human security and development and thus concerns all regions and all people. From an Austrian perspective, a multi-stakeholder approach on this critical issue is therefore important. We welcome the contributions of science and academia, the tech sector and industry, and broader civil society. And in this vein, I hope that today’s discussion will further stimulate such a multi-stakeholder discourse. For Austria, there is urgency to finally move from discussions to negotiations on binding rules and limits on autonomous weapons systems. And I look very much forward to today’s discussion. Thank you.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter: I thank Ambassador Schuster-Schütz for the opening remarks. And now we move to the panel discussion. I think we have an excellent panel here. So we have another ambassador, Ernst Norman, from the Netherlands. We have a former U.S. cyber ambassador, Chris Painter. He will be online. We have Olga Cavalli, who is the dean from the University of Defense. from Argentina. We have Jimena Viveros, who is a member of the Commission on Responsible Artificial Intelligence in the military domain. She is from Mexico. And we have Kevin Wieland, the head of the UN Office for Amnesty International. And we have Ram Mohan, who is the Chief Strategy Officer of Identity Digital and a former ICANN board member. So this is really a multi-stakeholder setting here. We have experts from the government, from business, from civil society. And we know that nearly 10 years in the GGE laws, there are already negotiations, which has produced some minor results, have produced already a final document. So Ambassador Norman from the Netherlands is now the chair of the GGE laws. And I would propose that he starts giving us a good overview where we are in the process. And Mr. Ambassador, you have the floor and five minutes.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you very much. Can you hear me? Okay. Well, thank you, first of all, for inviting me to this important panel and give me the floor and to elaborate a bit on our views on this very important topic. First, to structure my intervention, I use three circles to discuss the risk and opportunities of AI in international peace and security. First, the largest circle represents AI broadly, including civilian issues, a new and still developing domain that brings opportunities, but that also poses the international community with all sorts of new challenges. Within the large circle, there’s a second smaller circle. This circle is about AI in the military domain. Questions related to this circle are more specific, what are the implications of the use of AI for the way militaries operate? What kind of rules or measures do we need to make sure militaries use AI in a responsible way? Earlier this year, the Netherlands and the Republic of Korea successfully introduced a resolution on AI in the military domain in the UN First Committee. The resolution requests a report from the UN Secretary General, providing states with a platform to exchange perspectives. The resolution was approved by a massive majority of 161 votes, with only 3 against and 13 abstentions. This resolution will initiate a dialogue independent of multi-stakeholder re-aim process, which will continue to serve as an incubator for ideas and perspectives from other sectors. The re-aim process was an initiative also from Korea and the Netherlands on responsible AI in the military domain. These two processes will complement each other, working towards inclusive discussions on AI in the military domain. And third and final circle, contained within the second circle, is the autonomous weapon systems. Although the issue first came up in the Human Rights Council in 2013, it was referred to the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons, CCW, given its relevance to disarmament. The CCW has played a critical role in addressing emerging threats, including prohibitions and regulations on various weapon systems. The CCW then established a group of governmental experts on lethal autonomous weapon systems, the GGE Laws, for short, in 2016. Now, the GGE counts nowadays 127 high-contracting parties, that means 127 countries, plus every other country and relevant international NGOs can attend as observers and do also so. So one can say it’s a very inclusive process. My colleague, our Dutch ambassador for disarmament, Robert Indenbosch, chaired the GGE on laws through 2026. One of the strengths of the GGE is that it has all the large military states included. This can make discussions more difficult, but I believe that when we get to agreements on regulations and prohibitions, it will be much more effective. As a final point, it remains important to note that the group is increasingly working against time. What started as a concern of the future is today an urgent pressing issue as weapon systems capable of limited or no human intervention are rapidly being developed and deployed in modern battlefields. It falls on the international community, on states and other stakeholders to garner the political will to make progress on this issue. And the interest by the global community is evident as shown by the multiple regional and international conferences and UN General Assembly resolutions, all of which highlight the growing global engagement. Coming back to the question, is this an Oppenheimer moment? Can we learn something from the nuclear arms race? I am very wary of drawing historical parallels. The challenges we face are enormous, as these types of weapon systems have the potential to transform modern warfare. But they also differ from the nuclear domain in many ways. So I would be cautious to draw such parallels. A lot of important work is happening and we must continue to collaborate constructively to address the issue and to treat it with the urgency it demands. Thank you very much.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. And I would like to ask a question about the Oppenheimer moment. So my understanding from the Oppenheimer moment, it’s also a challenge to the researchers and to the academics to be aware about their responsibility, what they are doing. And just two days ago, we had the Nobel Prize ceremony in Stockholm, where the winner of the Nobel Prize for physics, Britain, raised also concerns and said, you know, this can bring a moment where we are really at risk. And in so far, you know, we should make parallels which do not working, but we could be aware of risks and circles. And sometimes we are coming back on a higher level in a situation where we have been already. And I just was informed that meanwhile, Vint Cerf, who was expected to give also some opening remarks, is now online. And I’m very happy, Vint, that you are able to make it. I think it’s very early in the morning in the United States. You have the floor now. Thank you very much.

Vint Cerf: You’re very kind. Thank you so much. As it happens, my day began at 1 o’clock this morning in Washington, D.C., so I’ve been up for a while. My previous session didn’t end timely, and I thrashed around for a while before I got to this one, so I apologize for my delay. Let me just add a little bit to what has already been discussed. First of all, some of you know about an organization called the Ditchley Foundation. It’s a US-UK organization. And among the various things that it convenes are discussions on important policy, like this one, a concern for autonomous weapons. We spent a day and a half looking at the nuclear deterrent practices and tried to ask whether they would inform any of our practices with regard to cybersecurity. And the conclusion was that the two are quite different, just as the previous speaker pointed out. For one thing, proliferation has already happened. AI is essentially everywhere. And to make matters more complicated, AI is not necessarily very reliable. And my biggest worry about trying to establish policy with regard to autonomous weapons or other potentially hazardous uses of AI is that we don’t yet know how to contain artificial intelligent agents to prevent them from executing functions that might turn out to be a considerable hazard. And so while we can try to establish policy and objectives to achieve that limitation, I think the previous speaker implied that there was a great deal of work to be done in the technical community to establish bounds on the behavior of these autonomous agents. So I think that we can’t really succeed in making policy unless we also have the technology available to enforce it. Therefore, there’s still a lot of work to be done. That’s as much as I think I need to disturb you with this morning, but thank you so much for the opportunity to intervene.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter: Thank you very much, Vint. And I hope you can stay with us and continue the discussion because our next speaker is also an expert in this field and is a member of various commissions. She is now the Commissioner on the Global Commission on Responsible AI in the Military Domain, which is also an initiative which came out from the Netherlands. But she was involved in the HLAB of the United Nations Secretary General Committee, and she’s working with the OECD as an AI expert. And I’m very happy that we have Jimena Viveros from Mexico. Jimena, if you could comment on what we have heard already, and to explain what you are doing in this commission.

Jimena Viveros: Hello. I hope you can all hear me. Perfect. Well, first of all, I would like to thank our Austrian and Dutch friends for championing such important initiatives, and also the South Korean, which are not here, I think, but are also part of this very big international effort to put these resolutions on the table, which are very welcome. And also your work with the GGE laws. So just to give a broader spectrum, for those who are not familiar with the Global Commission on Responsible Use of AI in the Military Domain, as Wolfgang said, this was an initiative created by the Netherlands and the government of South Korea. So we are a commission of, I think, 18 commissioners and around 40 experts. And we have a mandate to come up with some recommendations by the middle or end of next year regarding this. So also, I was, as Wolfgang mentioned, part of the United Nations Secretary General’s high-level advisory body on AI, where we had an issue whether or not to include the military domain in our recommendations. For those who read the report, which I hope is everyone, we did include it in the end, but it was a struggle. So the reason why it was included, I led the engagements and the consultations on the peace and security, as also I am leading the work stream on peace and security at RE-AIM. And the arguments that I use and the issues that I always raise are similar, but they might seem different in context. I always say that these technologies cannot only be looked through the military lens. That’s why I call it the peace and security spectrum, because there are so many non-state actors that are using this. And even state actors, which are civilian, like law enforcement or border controls. And non-state actors, the immediate thought is always terrorism, but we also have organized crime and mercenaries, which are increasingly relevant in the political landscape that we’re looking at right now. And it’s the exact same technology that is being used. So what we need to come up with are guidelines in the development phase to have responsible innovation, because we also don’t want to hinder innovation, because of course there are also good applications that can come out of AI in the peace and security domain, when used responsibly, when developed responsibly. But that’s the key, because when we’re talking about all of these governance initiatives, we always speak about these very abstract terms, responsible AI, ethical AI, safe AI. But the problem is when we bring it down to the operator, to the developer, to the user, to the consumer, no one really knows what obligations that kind of derives. And those are the translations that we need to make, kind of make it operational. And we have a huge problem. which is going to be implementation and which is going to be enforcement. That’s even going to be a bigger one. So that’s why we absolutely need a binding treaty as our secretary general and the ICRC called for, for 2026 with this two-tier approach, right? That is based on whether or not the systems can comply with IHL. Then those would, if they cannot, then those would be forbidden. And those who can could be regulated accordingly. But this is extremely necessary. But then we also need a centralized authority that would have the mandate to do the oversight as we do, for example, with the energy agency. I’m also a little bit cautious to call this the Oppenheimer moment because AI is a very different monster than nuclear because when, even since its origins from the splitting of the atom, it was immediately weaponized. And there was like this whole veil of secrecy around it with the Manhattan Project and with everything that happened for years. And then, you know, with the Cold War and the arms race and everything, no one really used it. Everyone was producing it, but no one really used it because it was like a mutual assured destruction. Whereas with AI, we don’t really have the conscience yet collectively that it will be the same. But as of right now, since its origins, it was used simultaneously in civilian and in military. So it was weaponized and non-weaponized uses at the same time. So that makes it even harder to control. And then you have open source, which makes it even harder to control. And it’s cheaper and the resources to create it and to do harm with it are so much more accessible and less traceable than say like a uranium plant. So that also makes it easier for non-state actors or other malicious or rogue and nefarious actors to. to get hold of this and to create big harm. Also, when you converge it or convert it into weapons of mass destruction, so with nuclear chemical bio, but also swarm drones could have the potential of being a weapon of mass destruction in itself. And that’s something that we should also keep in mind. So we have very added it to the cyberspace and all of those different types of attacks on critical infrastructure and the whole destabilization effect that AI has in the military and the peace and security domains is enormous. And a big problem that we definitely need to address and keep in mind in every single forum is the disproportionate effect that this will have on the global South. Because these weapons are not gonna be used in the global North, against the global North. These are normally weapons that will be affecting the global South. And the problem is there’s no capacity response as of yet to counter this type of threats. And this is a big, big, big issue that we should all be mindful of. So all of these initiatives, I mean, even when we’re talking about the civilian ones, so for example, at the OECD, where we only look at civilian domains, but there’s a monitoring of incidents, which I think could be very useful also for other peace and security domains. Because the lack of data is also a risk. So, and we also know that the civilian data or the data that’s been collected by civilian sources is being then used by other type of military or security agencies. So that is also a very big problem that we should all be mindful of. And so that’s basically the landscape of the risks and the threats that I see. as the most urgent, but I will leave it there to keep mindful of time.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter: Thank you, Jimena. You made a good point. Enunciation to the nuclear bombs were used, but AI weapons are produced and used. It needs more awareness, and so that means all the discussions are taking place more or less in small expert circles. So the level of public awareness about this issue is relatively low. So it means much more public awareness, and it’s the first discussion in an IGF on this issue. And one of the objectives of this discussion is to raise the level of awareness, and awareness leads to education. And we have here Olga Cavalli, who is the dean of the Defense University in Argentina. And my question to Olga is, how do you prepare the soldiers and generals of tomorrow for this new situation? Thank you, Olga.

Olga Cavalli: Thank you, Wolf. Can you hear me? Thank you. Thank you very much for inviting me. This is a very interesting question, and I like very much the perspective that our colleague from Mexico brought, is what happens with the Global South. So developing economies or the Global South, and I can bring some perspectives from Latin America. Latin American countries are engaged in different discussions and negotiations related with autonomous weapons. We have been active for more than 10 years in different spaces, saying that it’s a concern for our countries, for our region. The challenge is always for developing economies and how we approach this technology. We don’t, in general, we don’t produce this technology, we use it, it’s expensive to buy. And imagine from a capacity building perspective, how can you train our soldiers and our civilians? I like very much your perspective, it’s not only about military issues, it’s also about other uses legally or illegally of these weapons. How do you approach the technology that is so far from developing technology, how it’s developed and how it’s reachable from an affordability perspective? So it’s extremely expensive, you don’t develop it, it’s extremely hard to buy. How do you approach this training? So we have been working from our university in different collaborations with universities from developed economies from the United States, Europe and other countries. So we think that through collaboration in between different teaching spaces, that’s the way that our countries can approach and learn about these technologies. For you to have an idea, the minister called me for this position because of my training in technology and we opened a new career in cyber defense. We had more than 1,000 applications in one month. So what the authorities this morning were expressing about the need for training in cyber security, in cyber defense, it’s a reality in all the countries. So these new careers are highly demanded. So our challenge is, how are we going to train these people, for example, in things like autonomous weapons? So it’s a huge challenge for us. So I think that a way is cooperation with other universities, with other governments. We are working on that and our president is very keen in going abroad and having these agreements. So I think this is the way. And at the same time, in general, we think that a global treaty could be a very useful tool because what happens usually is that these regulations are developed in different spaces. and with different focuses, and usually the Global South is following up, but not perhaps so much into the development of the regulations. So a global agreement could be ideal. As usual, it’s difficult to achieve. So I will stop here and I will continue contributing. Thank you.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter: Thank you very much, Olga. We have two years to go until 2026, so let’s hope for the best. But… I don’t know why this happened, it goes on and on. Like this? You said like this? Probably it’s my mouse, so I have no idea. I think you need to hold it like this. Okay, yeah. Capacity building was the responsibility of Chris Painter for many, many years. Chris is well known in this community. He was the first US Cyber Ambassador, and I hope he is online. Chris, can you hear us? And then you have the floor.

Chris Painter: I can hear you. Hopefully you can hear me. Can you hear me?

Wolfgang Kleinwächter: Yes, we can hear you.

Chris Painter: Excellent, great. Well, it’s good to be here, sadly virtually. I wish I was there in person. But, you know, this debate is not new. It’s been made more urgent by the reality of AI. But I remember, and folks who know me well know that I’m a devotee of various cyber movies. And there is a, you know, going back to even 1970, the first movie where computers took over the world, called Colossus, The Forbidden Project, was exactly the scenario. Where the US decided, because they thought it would be more rational, take emotions out of it. They put a computer in charge of the nuclear arsenal. The Soviets did the same. The two talked to each other, became self-aware, and took away all civil liberties to protect humankind from itself. So this is not a new issue. It’s been dramatized over the years. And it’s certainly in Terminator and other places like that. It’s been dramatized. But I think it’s been made, obviously, more real by the emergence of AI as a real thing. Although one is other patterns. analysts have said, is still very unsettled in terms of exactly what the technology is, what its capabilities are and where it’s going. But as you say, Wolfgang, there is some urgency around this because it’s fast evolving. You know, I draw some parallels to the area of cyber and cybersecurity. And as many folks know, there’s been debate for many years now, on the cyber community about cyber attacks, cyber capabilities, cyber offensive capabilities and defensive capabilities, as moving them to an autonomous level to take the man out of the middle, in some sense. And I think that’s been the argument for that for many years has been that cyber quote, moves at the light of speed. And if your attackers can hit you, and now with artificial intelligence can hit you more often, and, and with such lightning quickness and adaptability, you need an autonomous system to respond to them. Now, the problem with that is, like in this area, generally, it’s not clear. And of course, as others have said, AI spans the entire, the entire landscape of everything from cyber tools, to drones to physical weapons. But in the cyber tools, and I think more generally, the escalation paths are still not really clear how these potential capabilities can be used, how they will work. And if you have AI working against AI, then you have even a greater chance of an escalation path, it gets out of control. And I think that’s some of the things the panels mentioned. So that’s, that’s a real concern. But even with that, I don’t think we’ve made a lot of progress kind of cabining, when you would have automated responses in cyber, you know, that’s still a live debate within countries between countries. And I don’t think we’ve seen a huge amount of progress. And of course, that’s more lethal, or has a likely, you know, the likelihood will be more lethal, less lethal, there may be some lethal cases, then then using it and more physical boundaries, as we’ve been talking about today. So that’s one concern. Another is the cybersecurity implications of attacks on these autonomous weapons systems. Like everything else, if they’re connected, they are essentially insecure at some level. If they’re not connected, there’s still ways to get into them. And so even leaving aside all the uncertainties of hey, how a AI works, and it’s not really being as secure, as unbiased, as people think it is. The cybersecurity implications, and this has been true for weapon systems more generally, has been a huge concern because you could have an adversary breaking into these weapons, changing the artificial intelligence parameters, changing when they’re used, and that again creates huge risks to peace and security. And then finally, as was pointed out by others, AI is not this unbiased system that’s out there. It depends on training. It depends on how you educate it and what the parameters are. So the thought that it could be unbiased itself is a problem. So what that leads, I think, to is what are the solutions here? And as was pointed out, the GGE on these topics has been longstanding, but has not made huge amounts of progress in terms of moving toward what many people think we need, which is a treaty. I guess I’m less optimistic that a treaty can be reached, and I base that in terms of what I’ve seen in other areas as well, where the geopolitical differences that we’re facing are ones where I think there’s unlikely to be agreement. The other issue with respect to this is because this is such a quickly evolving field, and as was pointed out by Olga and others, we still don’t know the implications of how AI can be used, how it can’t be used, how you can cabinet the technical, as Vint said, the technical requirements of this, that reaching a treaty in the short time frame of two years, I think, is going to be very difficult without the basic understanding of where the technology is going, and that technology is continuing to move fast. So then the question is, what kinds of things might we do? I think education is critically important, bringing other stakeholders, as this discussion is doing, is important. I think addressing the AI divide, as I think Olga put it, with a lot of the global South, and making sure there’s more capacity building in this area, not just in this area, but in attendant areas too, like cybersecurity and AI more generally, awareness. I think calling out use cases where you actually say, where we’ve seen these technologies being used in autonomous weapons and what the implications are, so it’s made more real, is really important. And ultimately, I think before you get to a treaty, kind of calling out what is good and what is bad, what norms have… behavior are like we have in cyberspace, but applying them, you know, different ones, I think, likely in this case, building toward a treaty eventually. I wish we could move quicker, but I have a feeling that because of that uncertainty of the technology, plus the geopolitical issues, that’s going to be very difficult to do in the short term. And I think that’s exacerbated by the oversight issues that one of our speakers raised, which I think are very difficult here, too. So, you know, I expect we’re going to have to move more incrementally, but I expect part of that is the education of both general populace, but even the people who work within the UN and in governments about what the implications of this are more generally. And with that, I’ll stop.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter: Thank you, Chris. And thank you also for putting a little bit water into the wine. Sometimes it’s also good to be more realistic than too optimistic. Anyhow, you know, as you said, all stakeholders have to be involved in the development of the framework for the future. And you need technical experts. And Ron Mohan, grown up in India, is for many, many years a technical expert in the ICANN community, was an ICANN board member, is now the CSO from Identity Digital. And this represents also the private sector. So there will be no autonomous weapon system without business. Ram, what’s your approach?

Ram Mohan: Thank you. This is one of those things where you need a village to use the microphones. So I wanted to focus on objective information and data as a basis for policymaking. I hear discussions about how to solve problems, and I hear ideas such as guaranteeing human human control with the way to achieve it by legal means. And I wanna introduce some of the risks and threats that come in the evolution of software engineering. Cause I think we have to understand the software basis and the engineering basis before we get to the legal and policy areas. AI’s own evolution means that currently known methods in software engineering of testing, quality assurance and validation are either incomplete or insufficient. Many weapons systems in the conventional area, many weapons systems demand a model of zero defects, right? So there’s a zero defect model that is expected. Now, while the concept of a zero defect AI system is appealing, it’s important to recognize some of the inherent limitations that exist there. If you look at some of the key challenges, one is data quality and bias. As Chris Painter was saying, AI systems learn from the data that they are trained on, but we also know that all data is biased and all data is inherently inaccurate. And that will strongly influence the outputs from the AI systems. The second piece is algorithmic limitations. We know that current AI algorithms are susceptible to complex or ambiguous situations. And when it comes to weapons systems, that’s almost all of the definition. All systems there are complex and ambiguous and with a lot of changing parameters in there. The third component in there is unforeseen circumstances. So AI systems are likely to struggle to… to understand unexpected inputs or situations that deviate from their training data, right? And what we have been talking about is in those cases, let’s make sure that there is human oversight. But human oversight, when there is not an understanding of how the system, the AI system arrived at the conclusion it did, the human oversight then defaults to merely intuition. And that may not be sufficient when we’re talking about human scale problems rather than just technology issues. So when you’re talking about high consequence decisions that are driven by AI, we also understand that AI systems that are learning from prior data sets, they can create novel behaviors that are neither predictable nor foreseeable. And this is exacerbated in the edge cases. One of the interesting and evolving characteristics that I have been studying is the relative ease by which you can jailbreak AI-based systems. And the jailbreaking is often a matter of expert prompt engineering. For those of you who don’t know what prompt engineering, it’s really the science, some call it an art, but I think it’s more of a science of creating effective prompts that guide the AI model to generate desired outputs, right? So you may be able to program guidelines, laws, treaties into an AI model and say, you must conform to all of these guardrails. But I think that smart… prompt engineering will likely be able to overcome those kinds of guardrails that exist. So there is a great deal of evolution that is happening in that area. And good prompt engineering can help the AI system perhaps learn to build guardrails by itself. But that same kind of prompt engineering can result in not only unintended consequences, but consequences that become part of the training dataset for the next cycle of the LLM. And when that is not documented or when that is not understandable, you are, I think, gonna have a system that compounds an original deviation from the norm. So I therefore have some concerns about a discussion that starts with the premise that human control is a good way or is the way to help solve what is evolving here. Because you can establish strong ethical guidelines, you can create international regulations, and you can build robust safety measures. But if you look at the software engineering underneath these systems, the data validation, the fact that today’s systems, it’s very hard to create a zero defect model, combined with the enormous capability of smart prompt engineering to jailbreak these systems, makes me think that we have to spend quite a bit more time in research, understanding how these systems. systems work, have a lot of simulations of those kinds of systems first, and then start to build some global frameworks and global norms of what safety should be before we can start to think about a treaty or an international agreement that makes sense, because when the foundational principles are not fully characterized, you end up, if you start to work on law or treaties, you may find that the unintended consequences may be far greater than the good that was intended.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter: I think this is a very interesting additional aspect and if I understand you, there is really a problem that even if you have human control, that the underlying technology overstretches the capacity of the human who is in control, so that it’s just on paper, but the reality could be moving in a different direction. And I think this is an issue for a lot of civil society organizations. We have involved a number of that, there is a broad NGO called Stop Killer Robots, which is also active in the GGE laws, and Kevin, you represent Amnesty International, which has also discussed this issue for some years, so what is the civil society perspective, if you have watched all these experts from diplomacy, technology, business, so what do you think about from a civil society perspective about this, and then we have time enough for two or three questions from the floor. Please prepare your questions.

Kevin Whelan: Thank you and good afternoon everyone. It’s a pleasure to be here and to speak on behalf of Amnesty International on this important topic. It’s a bit of a challenge to be, I think, maybe the ninth or tenth speaker on a panel right after lunch, so I’ll try to be as concise as possible. But it’s great because I think it gives me a bit of an opportunity to respond to some of the things the panelists have already said. I mean, I speak on behalf of Amnesty International, that’s part of various coalitions, not necessarily on behalf of all civil society groups in general. But from our perspective, I think we view the challenges and risks that come from autonomous weapon systems as imminent and as significant. And it’s for that reason we believe the international community should clarify and strengthen existing international humanitarian and human rights law through a legally binding instrument, through an instrument that would do at least three things. One, would prohibit the development, production, use, and trade in systems which by their nature cannot be used with meaningful human control over the use of force. And I hear what Rohan is saying. And I think from our perspective, I think we’re viewing this as, let’s say, a legal standard, not necessarily a technical standard, but perhaps we can discuss that in more detail. And the prohibition would extend to systems that are designed to be triggered by the presence of humans or that use human characteristics for target profiles. So this would be the so-called anti-personnel autonomous weapon systems. So in addition to that prohibition, a regulation of the use of all other autonomous weapon systems, and then on top of that, a positive obligation to maintain meaningful human control over the use of force. Now, as some of the speakers have already mentioned, the use of autonomous weapon systems in armed conflict has been at the center of the debate, much of which has taken place in the CCW. But I think as Ximena and Olga and others had talked about, this is a debate which has dimensions that are broader than armed conflict and broader than the CCW. It’s not just an issue of IHL. It’s not just an issue of weapons law, but also of human rights. And so I wanted to use a bit of time to focus on the dangers in relation to the law enforcement context, where the use of force is governed by a different threshold from that which applies in armed conflict. And so from our perspective, the use of autonomous weapon systems in this context would be inherently unlawful, as the international law and standards governing the use of force and policing rely on nuanced and iterative human judgment. So this goes back to something that Rohan was saying about the challenges that some of these systems have in dealing with complexity. We are talking about an exceedingly complex decision that should not be delegated. A law enforcement officer must continually assess a given situation in order to, if possible, avoid or minimize the use of force. I’m not saying that the legal determinations in the context of armed conflict are simple. What I am saying is the legal determinations in the context of a law enforcement context are exceedingly complex. And then if there is a system to be delegated, given the complexity of the issues we need to address, the system would have to be so complex as to render the system outside of meaningful human control. In other words, a machine so sophisticated to attempt to adapt to subtle environmental cues would make the machines inherently unpredictable. So then we come back to the notion of how do you evaluate that with something other than just intuition? And this becomes a significant issue in terms of. of accountability, because it would blur the lines of responsibility and accountability. It would undermine the right to remedy. And the last thing I wanted to point out is that the use of autonomous weapon systems in law enforcement would be dehumanizing. It would violate the right to dignity, undermine the principles of human rights compliant policing. And I think one of the panelists has already made the discussion, addressed the issue of bias in algorithms and systems. There are risks of systematic errors and bias in algorithms, in autonomous systems. We know, we’ve documented complex systems could have biased results based on biased data. For example, facial recognition can lead to profiling on ethnicity, on race, on national origin, gender and other characteristics, which are often the basis for unlawful discrimination. So then imagine adding lethality as a component to that system. And so this is one of the reasons just to say, stepping back, why we see value in the process at the General Assembly, because it has an aperture that’s broader than that in the CCW context. Thank you.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter Thank you very much. And I think we have time for one or two questions. So you need a microphone to ask a question.

Audience: Yeah, I hope you can hear me. So thank you for this wonderful panel. I think this is a very important issue. My name is Hiram. I’m from Encode Justice. We’re a part of the Stop Killer Robots Coalition. We actually had a member go to GGE laws meeting in Geneva. And it was very appalling to see only two data scientists there, like me, two people from the technical community. And it feels like, you know, in a lot of the rolling text and so on, a lot of the technical issues are overlooked. You know, diplomats expecting these systems to be controllable and reliable and predictable, just, you know, like kind of a dream. I think the question here is, what are the bottlenecks in terms of understanding? for diplomats or for you know government bodies to work towards an international treaty towards like banning autonomous urban systems or regulating autonomous urban systems.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter: Ambassador, can you take the questions here? Stop Killer Robots is an NGO in the GGE laws.

Ernst Noorman: You can hear me? Yes. Thank you very much for the question and you know what the very ambition is of the chair, my colleague, is to include as many voices at the table as well. That’s why we he’s been really actively encouraging to involve stakeholders, other organizations and only the signatory countries and observing countries but also academics and NGOs like Amnesty International and who are also involved in ICRC to get a full picture and to involve everyone. At the same time we are ambitious as well in trying to reach some agreement amongst countries and I understand also from your contribution limitations but at the same time we feel the urgent need also to be ambitious. We’ve been ambitious with RE-AIM in tabling this resolution to put it on the table and I understand from the contributions it’s going to be difficult to reach an agreement that’s actually any agreement in this area but if without ambition you won’t reach anything.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter: Okay, thank you very much and we have two questions online and then we have another one here in the room. So could we hear the first question online?

Audience: Yes, hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Yes, hi, this is Milton Mueller from Georgia Tech. I want to go after this title again about Oppenheimer. I think I haven’t heard much about one of the main problems facing AI governance, which is the belief among certain developers of AI that they have, in fact, put us on the path of an autonomous, not just a lethal weapon system, but an autonomous superintelligence that is capable of and might inevitably result in the destruction of humanity. And you know, about a year and a half ago, two years ago, we had this massive panic, and we had the Future of Life Institute resolution that we should stop all development of AI. And it was those people who believed that they had passed an Oppenheimer moment, that they had discovered a power so awesome, comparable to Oppenheimer’s weaponization of atomic fission. And those of us who have investigated this problem now know that this is a myth. This idea of a superintelligence that is imminent, and that this superintelligence will have the power to destroy all of humanity and all of human civilization is just not a realistic thing. So I hope that, I think your discussion of the issue of lethal autonomous weapons has been much more grounded in reality. But I do want to know if we are not headed towards a sort of revival of the myth of a superintelligence that is autonomous and capable of destroying humanity.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter: Yeah, first, let’s take the second question, and then we try to find the person who can reply to Milton. The second question is…

Audience: Can you hear me? Hello? Yeah, Sivash, we can hear you. Okay. So these concerns about AI are very much shared by business leaders, but there was a recent point of view that another country, another region is on the race to develop AI, and if we slow down or withdraw from this race, they will win. So we will stay on the race, continue developing without safeguards, and after we win the race, we’ll worry about the safeguards. Shouldn’t instead the governments and all actors get into the same room and try to achieve a solution, either at UN, ICANN, or in a conference center like Potsdam or any historical place? That’s my question. Thank you.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter: Okay, thank you. We have two more questions in the room. My proposal is, all three questions in the room, that we give the three questioners in the room the possibility, and then we have a final round. So you need a microphone, so one, two, three, four, and then we close the queue, and then we have a final round among the participants, and then Ambassador Schusterwitz would make a final remark. Okay, go ahead.

Audience: Okay, I’ll make a small remark. I had a lighting session yesterday, where I was actually showing an actual military warfare drone, which is able, being, like, cost 500 bucks, able to take out a $10 million tank. And this is technology which is now actually used. And the trick is, there are already lots of attempts, and lots of successful attempts to implement AI on the battlefield, from swarm drones to some mothership drones connecting to the high queue over Starlink antenna, literally glued to this mothership drone flying high in the, like, skies. So what I have to say is, I’ve been thinking a lot about how can we protect our future. future from AI going rogue and hostile in some way. It is not a battle between humans and humans. It’s a battle between humans and some mad robots, basically. And I think we are kind of wrong way in the design of our attempts to regulate AI because you cannot regulate the development of AI. It’s super rapid and nobody actually will agree with you and hear you out and so on. But what we could regulate is finally weapons. I mean, like the problem of AI getting hostile is a problem of AI intentionally on his own way pulling the trigger, pulling the digital trigger of some weapon, no matter a pistol or intercontinental ballistic missile. So if we not limit AI, but if we limit by some UN treaty an ability to produce a weapon which is equipped with a digital trigger, which can be used by AI, we can protect yourself. But I mean, like, it may sound like weird, but a human should only be killed by God or another human. There should not be any robot with this trigger pulling. Thank you.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter: Okay, thank you very much. You need a mic. Take this one.

Audience: Hello? Yeah, can you hear me? Good. Artem Kruzhulin. I was actually a panelist on an earlier panel related to public and private sector cooperation. And my question is in a way related to this very subject. So ever since AI was a subject, there’s always been an ongoing theme of the fact that legislation is consistently in a position where it’s falling further and further behind. And it’s very difficult to continue keeping up. How would you comment on the fact that while we are still here trying to discuss conceptual ideas around the way to control these systems, there are private sector companies, such as Helsing or Unreal, that are already deploying these systems in life conflicts. And they are in a way superseding the discussion just by sheer fact that they’re actually using these systems already. And what do you see as a… the solution to these problems. Okay, thank you. All right, thank you very much. My name is Kunle Olorundari and I’m the president of Internet Society, Nigerian chapter, and at the same time a researcher. And interestingly, I wrote a paper recently that I published on ITP platform based on this subject matter that is artificial generative intelligence terrorism. And that’s more of that was what drawn me to this session because I really want to get to know more about what is being discussed. And when I listened to one of our panelists, I mean, the perspective we chew in was so interesting to me because I was actually looking in my own paper, I was looking at deontology and utilitarianism. Deontology says that, okay, fine, let’s look at how we can look at the use of AI in a moral perspective. But then, and I discovered that when I was looking at my paper and of course I set up like a focus group of experts that speaks to those issues. I discovered that, yeah, that’s going to be a bit pretty difficult because now I have to go to the extent of define what is moral, which of course I know that all of us are not going to agree on. Then on the issue of utilitarianism, right? Looking at, okay, the maximum effective use in terms of the good use. Yeah, I can say that, okay, this is a good use. And that person will say, no, that is not a good use. So I discovered that, well, there are so many perspectives. And when I had the perspective of one of our panelists where they said that, okay, yeah, we now need to look at the issue of data because all data are inherently inaccurate. That now connected to the utilitarianism and the ontology. And I was thinking, oh, wow, I think this is just the right time for us to start talking about all these issues because this has come. and there’s nothing anybody can do about it, the best thing you can do is to take it to the next level. The issue of treaty, yeah, it will definitely come, but then I think we need to start to look at how we can, you know, okay, IGF is just a forum where we discuss all these issues, we can elicit ideas, right, but there is no binding treaty or need, so I think we should be looking at how we can take this to the next level, like maybe a plenipotentiary, right, where you have the ITUTs, the radio, the standardization and development arm, where they discuss issues, probably we can have, you know, something coming out of there, so that we can take it to a level where it’s going to be binding on each and every one of us, and for me, I just want to know more if, apart from Plenipot, I’m familiar with Plenipot, is there any other platform that we can, you know, discuss the issue of, you know, standardization when it comes to AI? Thank you very much.

Gregor Schusterschitz: Okay, thank you, we have a final question here, and then we have a final round around the table, this time we start with Kevin, but yeah, it’s not too long, too much,

Audience: so can you introduce yourself and ask your question? Hi, I’m Raida Lindsay, I’m a local digital policy expert. My question was mostly covered, but I want to ask, we are seeing the deployment of autonomous decision-making today in war, especially in Gaza, and a lot of it is being piloted and demonstrated as, like, best practice around the world by these private companies, so I wonder what is the short-term solution, something that we can do today, we can campaign for today, in order to make sure that we could limit the impact of autonomous decision-making in war?

Gregor Schusterschitz: Oh, a lot of good questions, and I propose that you pick just what you want to say from your field of expertise, Kevin, and then Jimena, and then we’ll go around the table.

Kevin Whelan: Thank you. Great, thank you. Yeah, maybe just a couple points, I mean, about the complexity of technology and the challenges in fully understanding it. So I’m not a technology expert, but I don’t think you or any of us need to understand the technology to understand what’s at stake. I am not saying that you can necessarily create a system that is subject to meaningful human control. What I am saying is that if you cannot have meaningful control over a weapon system, that is a system that should not be deployed. And another point I wanted to talk about is, I think it’s been picked up by a number of questions, how to reconcile the argument that these are complex systems, we need to wait to see how they are developed, with the fact that these systems are already being deployed in multiple conflicts. And so that’s absolutely why we believe that there is urgency. And what can we do? I mean, we fully support the call of the Secretary General and the ICRC to negotiate a binding treaty by 2026. So I think what you can do is campaign on that behalf, right? Make your voices heard, talk about the urgency of this situation. Thank you.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter: Okay, thank you.

Jimena Viveros: Hi, so I think a little bit about everything is, can you hear me? Yes. Okay. The fact that, as I said, AI is a new monster and AI in the peace and security domain is an even newer, bigger monster. So we need to reimagine what governance looks like, because the traditional models of governance that we have seen so far have proven to not be the most adequate ones. So we need obviously multidisciplinary approaches, and we need engagement. also with industry of course to promote and to kind of guarantee that there’s going to be transparency and that there’s going to be some type of cooperation for enforcement because otherwise we’re just drafting dead paper as we would say. We need definitely capacity building as I said capacity response especially from the global south and in order to make that happen I mean I think everyone from wherever we’re standing in our trenches we can just speak to our policymakers demand that this is a thing so that it can become binding because otherwise we’re just going to be stuck in the same place and I do believe that it’s very important to talk about standards which was raised because that’s the only way that we can actually in a measurable way verify the type of guardrails and also how to not override them. So this is very critical in the way forward that’s why I mean like we need to reimagine the way that governance for this technology needs to happen and we need to do it very fast and very agilely because we are way behind on where we should be so it’s terrible that these systems are being field tested already live so there’s like no other phase in between and they’re just deployed because then we’re seeing the consequences all around the world and again the global south is the one that’s having the worst part of it. Thank you.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter: Thank you. We are pushed out now of the room so Ron and Mr. Batson you have just you know one minute to make a final comment and if Chris wants to say something fine so probably.

Ram Mohan: Thank you Wolfgang. I’ll be very brief. We should recognize that there are no unbiased and accurate AI decisions. We need to recognize that there are dependencies. And I think that the important thing here is to build risk management frameworks that mitigate both known and unknown risks that are accelerated by machine learning systems.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter: Mr. Ambassador.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you very much. I fully understand the frustration that we are lagging behind with the negotiations in the reality. That’s, of course, a big concern for us all, but that doesn’t excuse us from working hard towards an agreement on the subject. So we are fully committed as a chair of the GDE to work hard. We’re happy with the informal forum in New York. And we will be, as a chair, briefing in New York, the countries and the wider New York community on the development and work of the GDE. But we will be really keep on working and trying to achieve a result of 2026 that has been given us as a task. And we feel responsible for that. So we’re working towards a legally binding instrument to prohibit those autonomous weapons system that cannot be used in accordance with international law and to regulate the use of other autonomous weapons, which is a concept that’s supported broadly by many states. And it’s my hope that we can ultimately enshrine this through a new protocol in the CCW. Thank you.

Gregor Schusterschitz: Okay, thank you. And Wolfgang, is that Wolfgang just?

Olga Cavalli: And especially what Ram said, is the big challenge for universities, not only from the global South, from everywhere, being, have a multidisciplinary perspective. This is challenging for universities because each faculty is very much focused. So hearing you, I think we have to be really, really have a broad understanding of technology. Thank you for inviting me.

Chris Painter: So, and just finally on Milton’s point, what gives me some hope here is we’re actually talking about use cases. we’re not just talking about the specter of AI as some giant monster, but we’re actually looking at how it applies to autonomous weapons. And I think I completely agree with the comment that was made about focusing on several levels, including on management frameworks, because autonomous devices are not new. We’ve been talking about those for 30 years, but AI adds its complexity. But a lot of people just use AI as a talisman and they say those words and it’s supposed to mean something. I think actually getting down to brass tacks and talking about how those use cases work is important. So I don’t think we’re in that same loop that we were before. And then on locking people in a room and hope they come up with an agreement. I agree with Ernst that it’s great to have ambition. If you don’t have ambition, you don’t get anything. I think it’s unlikely locking people in a room is gonna result in something in the short term, but it’s important to have this process and it going. And then finally on capacity building, as Olga and others have said, I think that is critical. I think that’s critical to awareness. It’s critical to not just the global South but more generally. I’d say the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise, it’s the capacity building platform, has created a working group on emerging technologies and AI applying more to the cybersecurity context. But I think it also covers some of the aspects we talked about today. So I think that capacity building is another practical thing that we can do as we’re talking about what the constraints are, what the treaties are, et cetera, what the norms even are in this area as we apply them to technology. So also thank you for having me here.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter: Okay, thank you, Chris. And the final word comes from Ambassador Schuster-Schritz. Is online or are we now pushed out of the room?

Gregor Schusterschitz: Thank you very much. I would just, a few sentences, I think that summarize a bit the discussion that we had today. I think it was very good to have these various experts from various fields to show also the risk and severe consequences that unregulated autonomous weapons would have. This time pressure is what we call the Oppenheimer moment. we need to keep up with the development, we need to find regulation, I think that was clear for everyone, but we need to have very smart and targeted regulation that also keeps pace with the rapid technological development and this is not the first area where we have rapid technological development and we need to regulate it to a certain extent, but of course we require a multi-stakeholder approach here. We cannot just only have diplomats and military experts in the room that is trying to regulate, but we need scientists, we need software engineers, and we need civil society to find a way to regulate autonomous weapons that is also flexible for future developments.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter: Thank you very much, that’s the end of the story, this is the start of a new beginning, thank you and see you in next session, rounds on the next or in the informal consultation in New York. Thank you. Yeah. Mm hmm. Hey, Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Look. Look, yes, yes, but look, I touch it. It’s it’s good. Really, I listen my voice when it do that that do that. Sit. Yes. qi

Gregor Schusterschitz:

Agreement Points

Urgency of regulating autonomous weapons systems

Gregor Schusterschitz

Ernst Noorman

Jimena Viveros

Kevin Whelan

Need for binding rules and limits by 2026

Fast pace of development closing window for preventive regulation

Importance of moving from discussions to negotiations

Existing systems already being deployed in conflicts

These speakers agree on the urgent need to establish binding regulations for autonomous weapons systems, emphasizing the rapid pace of development and the narrowing window for effective preventive action.

Multi-stakeholder approach to governance

Gregor Schusterschitz

Jimena Viveros

Need to involve diplomats, military, academia, industry and civil society

Need for new governance models suited to AI challenges

Both speakers emphasize the importance of involving various stakeholders in addressing the challenges posed by autonomous weapons systems and AI, recognizing the need for diverse perspectives and expertise.

Capacity building and education

Olga Cavalli

Wolfgang Kleinwächter

Chris Painter

Lack of technical capacity in Global South countries

Need for multidisciplinary education on AI and autonomous weapons

Importance of raising public awareness

Role of capacity building in supporting governance efforts

These speakers agree on the critical importance of capacity building, education, and raising public awareness about AI and autonomous weapons systems, particularly emphasizing the needs of Global South countries.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the technical challenges in developing and regulating AI systems, emphasizing the limitations of current methods and the rapid pace of technological evolution.

Ram Mohan

Chris Painter

Difficulty in creating unbiased and accurate AI systems

Limitations of current software engineering methods for AI

Rapid evolution outpacing regulatory efforts

These speakers emphasize the importance of maintaining human control and accountability in the development and use of autonomous weapons systems.

Kevin Whelan

Vint Cerf

Need to maintain meaningful human control over use of force

Importance of clear lines of accountability

Unexpected Consensus

Limitations of traditional governance models

Jimena Viveros

Ernst Noorman

Need for new governance models suited to AI challenges

Geopolitical tensions and mistrust hindering progress

Despite coming from different backgrounds, both speakers recognize the limitations of current governance models in addressing AI challenges, suggesting a shared understanding of the need for innovative approaches to regulation.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the urgency of regulating autonomous weapons systems, the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to governance, and the importance of capacity building and education. There is also consensus on the technical challenges in developing and regulating AI systems, and the need for human control and accountability.

Consensus level

There is a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the key issues. This suggests a shared understanding of the challenges and potential approaches to addressing autonomous weapons systems and AI in military contexts. However, there are still some differences in emphasis and proposed solutions, indicating the complexity of the issue and the need for continued dialogue and negotiation.

Different Viewpoints

Feasibility of creating unbiased AI systems

Ram Mohan

Kevin Whelan

Difficulty in creating unbiased and accurate AI systems

Need to maintain meaningful human control over use of force

Ram Mohan argues that creating unbiased AI systems is inherently challenging due to data biases and limitations in software engineering methods. Kevin Whelan, on the other hand, emphasizes the need for meaningful human control, implying that AI systems can be sufficiently controlled if proper measures are in place.

Approach to regulating autonomous weapons systems

Ernst Noorman

Chris Painter

Fast pace of development closing window for preventive regulation

Rapid evolution outpacing regulatory efforts

While both speakers acknowledge the rapid development of AI and autonomous weapons, Ernst Noorman advocates for urgent preventive regulation, whereas Chris Painter suggests that the pace of evolution makes it challenging to develop effective governance frameworks.

Unexpected Differences

Relevance of the ‘Oppenheimer moment’ analogy

Ernst Noorman

Jimena Viveros

Geopolitical tensions and mistrust hindering progress

Need for new governance models suited to AI challenges

While the ‘Oppenheimer moment’ analogy was introduced to highlight the urgency of the situation, Ernst Noorman expresses caution about drawing historical parallels, whereas Jimena Viveros argues that AI presents a fundamentally different challenge requiring new governance approaches. This unexpected disagreement highlights the complexity of framing the issue of AI and autonomous weapons.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the feasibility of regulating AI and autonomous weapons systems, the appropriate approaches to governance, and the relevance of historical analogies in framing the issue.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there is a general consensus on the need for regulation and the urgency of the issue, significant differences exist in how to approach these challenges. These disagreements reflect the complexity of the topic and the diverse perspectives of stakeholders from different sectors and regions. The implications of these disagreements suggest that reaching a unified approach to regulating AI and autonomous weapons systems may be challenging and require extensive negotiation and compromise among various stakeholders.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for regulation, but differ in their approaches. Schusterschitz and Viveros emphasize the urgency of establishing binding rules, while Painter focuses on capacity building as a crucial step towards effective governance.

Gregor Schusterschitz

Jimena Viveros

Chris Painter

Need for binding rules and limits by 2026

Importance of moving from discussions to negotiations

Role of capacity building in supporting governance efforts

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the technical challenges in developing and regulating AI systems, emphasizing the limitations of current methods and the rapid pace of technological evolution.

Ram Mohan

Chris Painter

Difficulty in creating unbiased and accurate AI systems

Limitations of current software engineering methods for AI

Rapid evolution outpacing regulatory efforts

These speakers emphasize the importance of maintaining human control and accountability in the development and use of autonomous weapons systems.

Kevin Whelan

Vint Cerf

Need to maintain meaningful human control over use of force

Importance of clear lines of accountability

Key Takeaways

There is an urgent need to regulate autonomous weapons systems, with calls for binding rules by 2026

Existing autonomous weapons are already being deployed in conflicts, outpacing regulatory efforts

Regulating AI and autonomous weapons faces significant technical and geopolitical challenges

A multi-stakeholder approach involving diplomats, military, academia, industry and civil society is crucial

Capacity building and education, especially for the Global South, is essential to support governance efforts

Maintaining meaningful human control over the use of force is a key concern

Resolutions and Action Items

Work towards a legally binding instrument to prohibit autonomous weapons systems that cannot comply with international law and regulate others

Brief countries and the wider New York community on developments in the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (GGE LAWS)

Campaign to support the UN Secretary General’s call for a binding treaty by 2026

Develop risk management frameworks to mitigate known and unknown risks of machine learning systems

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively regulate rapidly evolving AI technology

How to reconcile the need for thorough understanding of AI systems with the urgency of regulation

How to ensure meaningful human control over complex AI systems

How to address the capacity gap between developed and developing countries in AI governance

How to create unbiased and accurate AI systems for use in weapons

Suggested Compromises

Focus on regulating specific use cases and applications of AI in weapons rather than broad, abstract principles

Develop flexible regulations that can adapt to future technological developments

Combine binding treaties with softer governance approaches like norms and standards

Balance the need for regulation with the desire to not hinder beneficial AI innovation

AI is a very different monster than nuclear because when, even since its origins from the splitting of the atom, it was immediately weaponized. And there was like this whole veil of secrecy around it with the Manhattan Project and with everything that happened for years. And then, you know, with the Cold War and the arms race and everything, no one really used it. Everyone was producing it, but no one really used it because it was like a mutual assured destruction. Whereas with AI, we don’t really have the conscience yet collectively that it will be the same.

speaker

Jimena Viveros

reason

This comment provides a thought-provoking comparison between AI and nuclear weapons, highlighting key differences in their development and use that make AI potentially more dangerous.

impact

This shifted the discussion to consider the unique challenges of regulating AI weapons compared to other types of weapons. It led to further exploration of the widespread and rapid proliferation of AI technology.

AI’s own evolution means that currently known methods in software engineering of testing, quality assurance and validation are either incomplete or insufficient. Many weapons systems in the conventional area, many weapons systems demand a model of zero defects, right? So there’s a zero defect model that is expected. Now, while the concept of a zero defect AI system is appealing, it’s important to recognize some of the inherent limitations that exist there.

speaker

Ram Mohan

reason

This comment brings a crucial technical perspective to the discussion, highlighting the inherent challenges in developing reliable AI systems for weapons.

impact

It deepened the conversation by introducing technical complexities that policymakers need to consider. This led to further discussion about the limitations of human control over AI systems.

From our perspective, the use of autonomous weapon systems in this context would be inherently unlawful, as the international law and standards governing the use of force and policing rely on nuanced and iterative human judgment.

speaker

Kevin Whelan

reason

This comment introduces an important legal perspective on the use of autonomous weapons in law enforcement contexts.

impact

It broadened the scope of the discussion beyond military applications to consider the implications for domestic law enforcement. This led to further exploration of human rights and accountability issues.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by introducing diverse perspectives – technical, legal, and comparative historical analysis. They collectively highlighted the complexity of regulating AI weapons, emphasizing the need for multidisciplinary approaches and urgent action. The discussion evolved from broad conceptual issues to more specific challenges in implementation and regulation across different contexts.

How can we address the AI divide between the Global North and Global South?

speaker

Olga Cavalli

explanation

Important to ensure equitable development and use of AI technologies globally

How can we improve the involvement of technical experts in diplomatic discussions on autonomous weapons?

speaker

Hiram (audience member)

explanation

Critical to ensure technical realities are understood in policy-making

How can we regulate the development of weapons equipped with ‘digital triggers’ that could be used by AI?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

Potential approach to limit AI’s ability to autonomously use lethal force

How can governance and regulatory approaches keep pace with rapid AI development and deployment by private companies?

speaker

Artem Kruzhulin (audience member)

explanation

Addresses the gap between policy discussions and real-world implementation

What platforms or forums, beyond the ITU Plenipotentiary, could be used to discuss AI standardization?

speaker

Kunle Olorundari (audience member)

explanation

Seeks to identify effective venues for developing binding international standards

What short-term solutions or campaigns can be implemented today to limit the impact of autonomous decision-making in war?

speaker

Raida Lindsay (audience member)

explanation

Addresses urgent need for immediate action given current deployment of these technologies

How can we develop effective risk management frameworks to mitigate both known and unknown risks accelerated by machine learning systems?

speaker

Ram Mohan

explanation

Critical for addressing the inherent biases and inaccuracies in AI decision-making

How can we create a multidisciplinary approach in universities to better understand and address the challenges of AI in autonomous weapons?

speaker

Olga Cavalli

explanation

Important for developing comprehensive education and research programs

Summary

This panel discussion focused on the inclusion of the Global South in AI governance and development. Experts from various organizations discussed challenges and opportunities for increasing participation from developing countries in the AI ecosystem.

Key issues highlighted included the technology gap between developed and developing nations, regulatory uncertainty in many Global South countries, and the need for capacity building. Panelists emphasized the importance of local data collection and infrastructure development to enable AI innovation. They also discussed the role of private sector companies in providing tools and platforms to support AI development in emerging markets.

The discussion touched on ethical considerations, including fair treatment of workers involved in AI training data labeling. Panelists noted the need for inclusive stakeholder engagement when developing AI governance frameworks and ethics guidelines. Cultural factors that may inhibit participation from the Global South were also explored.

Opportunities highlighted included leveraging synthetic data generation, adapting AI solutions to work with limited computational resources, and creating accelerator programs to support local AI startups. The importance of building AI literacy and technical capacity across all levels of society was stressed.

Overall, the panel emphasized that while challenges remain, there are promising avenues to increase meaningful inclusion of the Global South in shaping the future of AI. Collaboration between governments, industry, academia and civil society will be crucial to realizing this goal.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Challenges of AI governance and inclusion in the MENA region, including technology gaps, lack of representation, and regulatory uncertainty

– The role of the private sector, governments, and international organizations in promoting AI development and ethical standards in the Global South

– The importance of capacity building, data availability, and localization of AI technologies for inclusive development

– Balancing innovation with responsible AI governance and regulation

– Opportunities and challenges for the MENA region to become a global AI hub

Overall purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore ways to operationalize inclusion in AI governance ecosystems, particularly for the MENA region and Global South countries. Panelists examined barriers to participation and proposed strategies for increasing representation and capacity.

Tone:

The overall tone was constructive and solution-oriented. Panelists acknowledged challenges but focused on opportunities and practical steps for improvement. There was a sense of cautious optimism about the potential for the MENA region to play a larger role in global AI development, balanced with realism about the work still needed. The tone became more urgent when discussing the need for capacity building and literacy to enable meaningful participation.

Speakers

– Salem Fadi: Director of the Policy Research Department at the Mohammad bin Rashid School of Government

– Salma Alkhoudi: Head researcher on AI governance research project

– Nibal Idlebi: UN ESCWA Acting Director of Cluster on Statistics, Information, Society and Technology

– Roeske Martin: Director of Government Affairs and Public Policy on Google MENA

– Jill Nelson: IEEE Standards Association advisor

Additional speakers:

– Jasmin Alduri: Co-director of the Responsible Tech Hub

– Lars Ratscheid: Works in international cooperation (from Germany)

Expanded Summary: Inclusion of the Global South in AI Governance and Development

This panel discussion focused on the inclusion of the Global South, particularly the MENA region, in AI governance and development. Experts from various organisations explored challenges and opportunities for increasing participation from developing countries in the AI ecosystem.

Research Findings:

The Mohammad bin Rashid School of Government presented key findings from a survey of over 320 AI and digital companies across 10 MENA countries:

– Main concerns: cybersecurity, AI explainability, and bias

– Regulatory uncertainty is a major challenge for companies

– Nearly one-third of companies face interoperability issues with regulations across the MENA region

– High levels of partial implementation of AI ethics standards across categories

Key Challenges:

1. Technology Gap and Infrastructure

A fundamental issue underlying many challenges is the significant technology gap between developed and developing nations. Nibal Idlebi, Acting Director at UN ESCWA, highlighted this disparity, noting that “everything is related to technology gap”. This gap manifests in several ways:

– Lack of computing power and infrastructure in developing countries

– Limited access to local data for AI development

– Insufficient representation in global AI forums and discussions

2. Regulatory Uncertainty

Martin Roeske, Director at Google MENA, emphasised that regulatory uncertainty, rather than a lack of regulation, is holding back private sector involvement in AI development in the region. This uncertainty creates hesitation among businesses to fully engage in AI initiatives.

3. Capacity and Literacy

There was broad consensus among speakers on the critical need for capacity building and AI literacy. This includes:

– Building capacity at the decision-making level to enable meaningful participation in global AI governance (Nibal Idlebi)

– Improving general AI literacy to foster understanding and adoption (Jill Nelson, IEEE Standards Association advisor)

– Creating pathways for local talent to succeed in the AI field (Martin Roeske)

4. Ethical Considerations

The discussion touched on important ethical considerations in AI development:

– Jasmin Alduri, Co-director of the Responsible Tech Hub, raised concerns about the exploitation of click workers in the Global South

– Jill Nelson emphasised the need to consider all stakeholders, including data labellers, in ethical assessments

– Martin Roeske stressed the importance of building ethical principles into products from the start

5. Language Barriers

The panel noted the importance of Arabic language support in AI tools to increase accessibility and adoption in the MENA region.

Opportunities and Proposed Solutions:

1. Data Generation and Sharing

To address data scarcity, speakers proposed various solutions:

– Initiatives to encourage local data generation (Nibal Idlebi)

– Creation of data commons and public data sharing (Martin Roeske)

– Use of satellite data and GIS information (Nibal Idlebi)

2. Fostering Local AI Ecosystems

Speakers agreed on the importance of nurturing local AI talent and businesses:

– Encouraging local businesses and startups to adopt AI (Martin Roeske)

– Creating accelerator programmes, particularly for women founders (Martin Roeske)

– Growing local expertise and employment opportunities (Jill Nelson)

3. Capacity Building Initiatives

Proposed initiatives included:

– Implementing chief AI officers across government departments (Martin Roeske)

– Continuing education and certification programs for decision-makers (Jill Nelson)

– Literacy programs to understand AI capabilities and limitations (Jill Nelson)

4. Leveraging Private Sector Involvement

Jill and Martin Roeske emphasised the crucial role of the private sector in enabling inclusion in AI governance and development, particularly in encouraging local businesses and startups.

Role of International Organizations and Standards:

– IEEE’s grassroots approach to developing social-technical standards for AI (Jill Nelson)

– Google’s implementation of AI principles in product development (Martin Roeske)

– UNESCO’s ethics guidelines for AI and their adoption by organizations (Nibal Idlebi)

Unresolved Issues:

Several important questions remain unresolved:

1. How to effectively bridge the technology gap between the Global North and South in AI development

2. Balancing innovation with regulation in emerging AI markets

3. Ensuring fair compensation and treatment of data labellers and click workers in the Global South

4. Addressing the lack of computing power and infrastructure in developing countries for AI development

Conclusion:

The discussion highlighted the complex interplay between AI development, global inequalities, and development challenges in the Global South. While significant obstacles remain, there are promising avenues to increase meaningful inclusion of the Global South in shaping the future of AI. The panel emphasized opportunities for growth, such as the high adoption rate of AI tools like Google’s Gemini in the MENA region.

Moving forward, collaboration between governments, industry, academia, and civil society will be crucial to realising the potential of AI in the Global South. By focusing on capacity building, fostering local ecosystems, and addressing regulatory challenges, the MENA region and other developing areas can play a more significant role in the global AI landscape. As the discussion demonstrated, there is a strong commitment to leveraging AI as a tool for economic development and social progress in the Global South.

Fadi Salim: of our panel. My name is Fadi Salim. I’m the Director of the Policy Research Department at the Mohammad bin Rashid School of Government. It gives me great pleasure to welcome you to this panel. And the panel will include a distinguished set of experts from technical communities, international bodies, as well as the private sector, who will join us momentarily. Prior to the panel, my colleague, Selma El-Khouldy, will present key highlights from a key research projects that we are running around the region, covering 10 countries in the Middle East and North Africa, trying to explore these questions on how to navigate the fragmentation of the AI governance ecosystem in our region, but also looking into the AI ecosystem, private sector companies, small and medium businesses and startups who are working in this field across the region. So the umbrella of this panel is trying to understand how to operationalize inclusion better in the AI governance ecosystem. So before I start, before I ask my colleague, Selma, to start, if this works, let me just tell you quickly about us. We are, Mohammad bin Rashid School of Government is an academic institution, a policy think tank, and works in among many other areas of policy and research on future government and digital governance areas. We have multiple publications, research projects. We work with many organizations and partners, including in this case, the research we are presenting here is supported by google.org and in collaboration with numerous stakeholders. And these research projects cover lots of areas, especially I would like to highlight the ongoing research and capacity building projects related to AI governance, that it’s AI governance. inclusion and AI competitiveness in MENA, one that we’re presenting and talking about the highlights here, as well as AI ethics assessment and capacity building in collaboration and partnership with the IEEE, global risk mapping on AI with FLI, OECD, GPA and others, as well as generative AI and public workforce. These are some of the ongoing projects. So it looks like it’s a lot of interest in the region in this field, and we hope that this will be something that will inform the decision making and capacity building. This is the executive education work that we were doing with the IEEE and working on capacity building and building direct assurance related to AI ethics in the public sector, but also across society. So that’s something that generates and produces a group of experts who are authorized to assess the ethical implications of artificial intelligence in their workplace. And we hold a lot of workshops and policy programs with lots of stakeholders across the region to try to engage and cover this question around inclusion, and with government bodies as well. Now, I’ll hand over to my colleague, Selma, who will take us through some of the research findings of this important projects, in my view, and then we’ll ask the distinguished panelists to join us for the panel.

Salma Alkhoudi: So this slide is probably well before I get to the slide, just really loud. Is this good? Okay. I’m Selma. I was the head researcher on this research project that Dr. Al-Fadi mentioned. This research project, as mentioned, was carried out over many, many months. We surveyed over 320 companies in AI and digital across the MENA region. MENA, as we define it for this project, is about 10 countries from Morocco, Tunis, Egypt, Jordan, and then the six countries of the GCC, including Saudi and the UAE. So just a quick overview, introduction to lay the ground. I’m sure all of you are already well aware, AI is top of mind. Adoption is more than tripling globally since 2017. 50% of organizations worldwide now rely on AI in at least one business function. I think this actual figure is much higher now. And there’s a dramatic surge in AI, in generative AI adoption through open source and private models, which, of course, complicates the governance landscape. So as a researcher, there’s sort of three interlocking challenges that contribute to this complexity in the global AI governance landscape. First, we have a fundamental definitional challenge. How do we govern something that we can’t concretely define? And this isn’t just really semantic. It’s a practical problem because the tech is evolving faster than our ability to kind of grab onto AI and define it as a subset of things. Second, we’re dealing with a few key issues that cross borders and cultures. And this is kind of a laundry list of, you know, just the tip of the iceberg as to what falls under the domain of global AI governance. Data privacy, cross-border data flows, transparency, bias, deeply social and cultural as well as technical challenges. And I’m sure you’ve heard a plethora of these challenges across the panels and workshops from today. And finally, we see a few core tensions that sort of revolve around the global AI governance landscape, which include innovation versus regulation. A lot of people view this as a false dichotomy. A lot of people hold that it is a true tension that exists. Economic transformation versus job displacement. Transparency versus intellectual property. And inclusive development versus monopolization. Of course, all of these tensions we heard time and time again through our expert interviews, through interviews with SME founders, startup founders, angel investors, and of course, in our survey. So, there are four distinct governance approaches that emerge when we look at the landscape globally. Risk-based approaches like the EU’s AI Act, which is focused on classifying and mitigating potential harms. There’s the rules-based approach exemplified by China’s Gen-AI measures that provide very specific concrete requirements for AI models. There are principles-based approaches like Canada’s voluntary code. And by the way, most countries in the MENA region are also principles-based, offering flexible guidelines as to where companies should head directional. And then outcomes-based approaches as seen in Japan, which focus on measurable results rather than prescriptive processes. Each one has its pros and cons, but the crucial question is how well do these different approaches serve the global south’s needs and contexts? Of course, we gleaned some interesting and important insights from our expert interviews. Let’s see. Okay. Inside some of the powerful challenges that face the region and governance, first is that geopolitical concerns have taken away attention from technological progress, if not pushed many countries in the MENA region a few years back in terms of issues like health and safety and education. Again, the definitional issue is a problem that came up in our expert interviews. If you can’t define what AI is, and you can’t define anything that includes the term AI, including AI governance and AI ethics and responsible AI. Of course, there’s the original problem of global cooperation. MENA countries are also in very different circumstances. They have very different priorities. The MENA region or the Arab world encompasses anywhere from emerging global AI leaders like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, to countries that are currently emerging from decades of war, countries that are still embroiled in war. So the playing field is very, very disparate and very large. What we heard time and time again, which is also quite interesting from our experts, is that a shared geographic location or even a shared identity or language like being Arab or Arabic is not enough to unify efforts. Some people believe that it is enough, and it should be enough. So that’s another question for our panelists, perhaps. As a result, the lack of openness and sharing, which further complicates the governance landscape in the MENA region. When it comes to inclusive governance, there’s kind of a sobering reality that we all have to grapple with, as pessimistic as it may seem. And I’m just here to lay out problems, by the way. Hopefully the panel will tackle solutions, which is that how can it be a race if we don’t all start from the same point? And that technology is an important priority nationally, certainly. But what about things like the inability to read and write? Or things like, you know, not enough access to proper health care. So it’s a problem of national priority. The issue of quick implementation versus governance is also a big one. There’s a lot of push to get things done now and quickly before things accelerate even faster. And given the pace of AI and many experts we spoke to stress that governance needs to come first. Others don’t think so. Others think that we need to just move as fast as possible, especially as a region that is being left behind in many instances. And when asked if MENA countries are invited to the table, the answer was yes and no. That global fora are open to their members, but they aren’t always taken seriously. That contributions are siloed and weak. Often it’s just one country from the Arab world that is in attendance. And that as a result, there aren’t more invitations to lead AI governance frameworking conversations. So that’s from a little bit of insight from the experts that we’ve spoken to. But we wanted to also dive a little bit into our survey findings. This is preliminary. We’re gonna reveal the full survey results with our published report early 2025. And also we only dove into the survey findings that correlate with the topic at hand, which is global AI governance inclusion, and also a bit on regulation and interoperability as it relates. So first, this hierarchy of concerns. Cybersecurity tops the list with 258 companies expressing concern. There’s a high level of worry also about AI explainability and bias. The interesting thing when we triangulate this data with our interviews is that there are some deeply felt cultural challenges here as well. When Amina company struggles with AI explainability, they’re not just dealing with sort of algorithmic complexity. They’re wrestling with how to make AI systems comprehensible in a setting that’s so widely diverse. I mean, in terms of language, in terms of tradition, in terms of viewpoints. So it’s not just about technology and also technological literacy. It’s not just about the technical problems. On the question of, we wanted to dive into the particularity. So we asked what the negative impacts of regulations are, if any. And 22.6 respondents cite increased costs as their biggest concern. It makes sense because funding is the biggest concern for SMEs in general. So the increased cost of regulations is top of mind. The combined impact of slowing innovation and limiting AI applications also accounts for over 36% of the responses. Then we also asked about potential positive impacts. I don’t think. Okay. Despite all those concerns, nearly 30% of companies acknowledge that regulations are making AI more secure and trustworthy and add that to the around 17% who see increased consumer confidence. This is pretty in line with what we heard in our interviews with company founders as well. They do believe regulations have a role to play in facilitating innovation, especially as they look to scale across markets, across borders, but they’re still hesitant at the scope of regulatory reach because the definitions are so vague because there’s still so much on the horizon. This radar chart looks quite simple, but the clustering towards supportive, very supportive and neutral rather than the extremes on the other sides, along with our interview data tells us something really important, which is that our region isn’t suffering from over-regulation, it’s suffering from regulatory uncertainty. There’s no sort of sense of where things are headed. And companies have told us time and time again that they’re trying to figure out how to navigate a regulatory landscape that’s still sort of taking shape and emerging. And then perhaps, you know, one of the most interesting findings is interoperability. Nearly one third of companies face interoperability issues with regulations across the MENA region. And the vast majority of those who said no are companies that are too small to have tried to scale across countries anyways. So when 31% of companies say they face interoperability issues, they’re really highlighting a fundamental question, which is how can we build a unified AI ecosystem in a region with very diverse regulatory approaches and different development priorities and varying levels of digital infrastructure? On the question of AI ethics standards implementation, this is the last chart before we’ll hand it off to our experts in residence today. The high levels of partially implemented across all the categories is not just about these companies themselves being halfway there, it’s about an entire ecosystem in transition, which is kind of how you can define the ecosystems that are still emerging and developing in the MENA region. And what’s particularly striking is that areas like record keeping and transparency show higher full implementation rates than things like third party evaluations. And this suggests that these companies are better at internal governance than external validation. Still need to extract a bit more insights as to what this means from our respondents, but this is also a critical gap when we think about building regional and global trust in our AI systems. So with that, I will hand it back off to Dr. Fadi and invite our panelists to stage.

Fadi Salim: Thank you. Thank you, Salma. And lots of points to talk about, but first let me ask the distinguished panelists to join us, Dr. Nibal Idilbi, the UN Esquire Acting Director of Cluster on Statistics, Information, Society and Technology. Martin Royske, Director of Government Affairs and Public Policy on Google MENA. And Jill Fayyad, IEEE Standards Association is an advisor. and he leads lots of projects related to AI ethics capacity building. So clearly from the presentation that we highlighted some of the findings and based on the discussions we had earlier with other panels as well today, there are a lot of questions around inclusion in the region and it has been an area that our region has not been able to achieve proper inclusion in the digital age. And I will start with Dr. Nibel from ESCWA. You have a regional view in ESCWA. You have a clear, deep understanding on each country in our region and this is a sample of the world. We have some of the highest ranking countries in the world in many of the digital transformation areas to some of the least developed. So in our region, what are the real goals of inclusion should be aiming for? How in the digital era as well as in the age of AI? What are we looking for? How can we understand what inclusion can lead to?

Nibal Idlebi: Okay, good afternoon everyone. Do you hear me well? It’s okay? Okay. There is a different facet for the inclusion in the Arab region for sure. I mean especially that AI is emerging in many countries. We can see that Arab countries are not heterogeneous in terms of AI development. We have countries which are really heading very well like some GCC countries like UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and maybe other countries like some countries do have now the national AI strategy while other countries are really lagging behind. Whenever we speak about the region, we cannot speak about all countries together because they are leaders in the technology development like GCC. in general, and maybe Jordan, and there are other countries which are really lacking behind, like, let us say, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and so on, and then there are countries which are really lacking behind. For inclusion, I mean, I believe there is different level, at least from the perspective of AI, we need to involve all stakeholders in the discussion about AI, either in the AI strategy, or AI framework, or AI governance, then inclusion of all stakeholders, which means private sector, government, as well as NGOs, and academia. Academia plays a very important role in AI, maybe in some information society we forget about them in some cases, but today, I mean, in AI, it is one of the areas where the research and development is very important, therefore the inclusion of academia is important, very important. Then the design, and in the discussion of AI, we need to include all stakeholders, but also we need to include all disciplines, because we know that AI, I mean, it matters for many sectors, like healthcare, like education, like agriculture, maybe transportation, then the discussion might be not only between technological people only, but also interdiscipline, then this is one side of the inclusion. The second side is to include all segments of people, I mean, whenever we are developing any system for AI, either during the design, or the deployment, or the use, we have to include all people, in terms of disabled people, or races, I mean, all segments of the society, elderly people, women, gender, youth, and everyone. Then we have to include in our algorithm, in our thinking. on our design, on our strategy, all segments of the society. This is also very important, because the needs might be different from one segment to another, and then here we have to think globally about all societal groups. There is also maybe inclusion in terms of, I don’t know how to link it with data, because data is very important in this regard, and here we have really to, we know that in some countries, in some of the Arab countries, we lack a lot of data. Data are not very well developed. We don’t have everything on digital format. I mean, we don’t have enough data in digital, in a way or another. Then the data from one side, we need to have it. We need to have it clean and reliable, and we have to have it reliable and timely in a way or another. Then the inclusion of data that represents all region or subregion or locality in a way or another, this is another form of inclusion in order to have our algorithm or our AI system, how to say, addressing all the needs of the society. Of course, I mean, if we speak about agriculture, we need to focus on agriculture. We don’t need to focus on everything, but I mean, whenever we think about it, the data is very important, and here we have to encourage or to generate data in the digital format today in order to have representation of the needs at the different level. I will stop here for the time being.

Fadi Salim: Thank you, Nibal, and very important, and you also talked a lot or worked a lot in the past on open data in the Arab region, and that’s something that is not yet mature around the region, which also limits the availability of data for AI development across the region, and this brings me now to my questions to Martin, and Martin, you come from global leader in AI development from Google and very active in the region, and you, as a private sector leader in this domain, and based on your understanding of this, our regional context, what are the roles that, you know, what is the role of, first, the private sector entity leader in AI that can help in the inclusion of the region, whether it’s in data availability, data representativeness, or having a seat on the table in these discussions around AI development globally for the region to have a voice.

Roeske Martin: Thank you, Fadi, both for having us here and for your great partnership in this research that we’ve done together. Some very interesting data points coming out of it. Now, to your question, I think there are many ways in which the private sector can play a key role, tech companies in particular in the region. Maybe before I go, there are just a couple of things we should focus on when we talk about governance because those are all aspects that Google also is very involved with and we’re looking at it from a number of different lenses. One is, of course, around equitable access, so bridging all the different divides. As His Excellency, Abdallah Sawaha mentioned in his opening remarks today, that there are all these different types of divide, the digital divide, the algorithmic divide, the data divide, et cetera. And so a lot of that is around accessible AI tools, affordable tools, access to infrastructure. Still one third of the world is not on the internet, so how do we help bridge that gap? And then making sure people have the right capacity and skills. And so one of the things we’ve been focused on as a private sector entity here very much over the past few years is trying to create skills programs for everyone, not just for technologists or developers, but also for users of AI, whether those are users of Gen AI or just people exposed to it at school and university. Small, medium enterprises, how they can adopt AI. So there it’s important, for example, to make this available for free in language, in Arabic, and scale it to as many people as possible. So just a few weeks ago, we announced a new google.org program granting $15 million over the next few years to train 500,000 people in the Arab world and to give grants to research universities on AI. Second point is about mitigating bias. So how do we create AI systems that are fair, unbiased, and have worked with inclusive data sets? And in. know, because a lot of the AI forays have been made in the West, or in China, this part of the world hasn’t traditionally been part of the data sets that were used to train models, for example. And so very conscious efforts have to be made to ensure that these data sets are inclusive. On protecting privacy and security, I think that’s, that’s obviously one of the key areas that all governance efforts are focused on. And lots of techniques that we as private sector companies use differentiated privacy techniques, trying to anonymize data, preventing data from being widely shared, if it doesn’t have to be for a particular purpose, giving users the option to opt out of their data being collected, website owners opt out of their information being used to train models. So making it a user choice as to how much data can be shared and to use those techniques to keep it private and secure. And then finally, about promoting transparency and accountability. Also, one of the points that I think the, when your survey brought up as one of the primary concerns, there, you know, there’s a lot of work happening across the board, Google participates in many global fora when it comes to privacy. We’ve done a lot of work recently on explainable AI techniques. So, for example, proving data provenance or content provenance. We’ve introduced tools like synth ID, which is a way to watermark content that’s generated by AI. So if it’s synthetic or adaptive content can easily be identified, whether that comes out of an image generation model or out of a text model or video model. We have asked our advertisers to disclose if any contents of their ads are Um, generated by the eye, particularly in sensitive context, like elections. We’re going to make sure that, um, electoral ads follow particular policies. We’ve introduced new policies around that. Um, we have, uh. 2 creators to enable their content if it’s if it’s generated through and I, and we also. Um, provide information about images on search where you can look at how this image was where this image appeared originally. Whether it’s been modified, what its history has been on the Internet. So there’s a problem that you can, we can track it back to. So, I think across those 4 domains, equitable access. Mitigating bias, privacy, security and transparency accountability. It’s like, there’s a huge role to play and, um, as you said. You know, it’s a multi stakeholder dialogue. Um, it’s very important that. All players are part of it. Um, we’d like to be part of the convening where we can. So 1 example is, uh, in the UAE, we’ve started this thing called an AI mattress. Where we bring together stakeholders from across academia. By 2 organizations and the tech industry as well as governments. To discuss, uh, responsible policymaking. And, um, I think those kinds of 4 help, uh, with taking some of the discussions happening. At IGF and elsewhere to a more local level and then continue that.

Fadi Salim: Thank you, Martin and, uh, this bring us. Uh, to, uh, Jill’s, uh. Jill, you come from, uh, the IEEE is, uh, is a standard organization. Uh, but also it has, um, the structure of doing things has a lot of. Um, horizontal, uh, working groups across domains across jurisdictions across the world. And the same thing happens in the, um, ecosystem. The same thing happened in ICANN ecosystem. This multi stakeholders model. That enables a lot of people to. Participate in, um, creating something, or at least be included in the discussion and that. it eventually could be representing them or representing what they want as an outcome. Now, the question is, our region, and this is something we hear a lot from these organizations, does not participate enough. And this is not just this region, but also maybe the global south in general, to use that term, has that of an issue. Is this a question of capacity or is it awareness or is it other reasons that we are not involved at a mass scale, whether it’s the researchers and academics, whether it’s the experts, whether it’s the technical community? What’s from your view as a standard organization that function in such a model think? Thank you.

Jill: Thank you, for the opportunity and also for the question, by the way. So, IEEE, as you say, is a standards organization, but it’s not a standard organization in the traditional sense of just developing standards. It is a non-profit organization that is completely voluntary based in the sense that all the people who participate to the standards are volunteers and they structure into working groups. So, you can think of it like a grassroots bottom-up approach in opposition to standard organization that would come from governments and that would trickle down all the way to get consensus at the engineering level. No, it’s more the engineers deciding that they need to build the standards. So, for example, Wi-Fi 802.11 was built by IEEE this way because it addressed the need. And by doing it this way, you are able to do it fast. Now, that’s one aspect of it. The fact that it is grassroots is something that maybe we don’t advertise enough. Because it’s open to everybody. Everybody can participate to the working groups. Everybody can contribute. And if we have a problem of inclusiveness, the level of AI governance, I think the problem has two sides to it. There is a side, like was described by Martin and when you heard before, that is about how do you import and localize technology in global south regions, which I don’t like the term global south. I think outside of we now, Western Europe and North America, right? So either we are able to, we have to localize that, and it is very important to be able to localize. But there is also the fact that we can contribute. If we don’t contribute the same way as others are contributing in these countries, then how can we expect to have our values and our cultural aspects reflected in the technologies that we use? So we have the opportunity to contribute as well to these standards and make sure, because once they are standards, they get adopted. And they very often get adopted through regulatory channels in many different regions. So that also helps address the other point that you brought up, which is how do we address standards or regulations at the country level versus at the regional level? So Pierce McConnell of DigiConnect at the EU level was at the plenary yesterday on misinformation and disinformation, was reflecting on the fact that what helped EU, EU was a consumer society of AI, pretty much like the global South is. But how did it manage to get its voice heard is by getting all this as a consumer society reflected through EU regulations. And this is what GDPR. was about. So the Brussels effect is really about enabling a build-up of needs at a regional level so that these needs can be taken into account by the technology developers and can be integrated into solutions. But this is outside of IEEE. Just to go back to the IEEE question, I think the interesting part is that IEEE beyond standards also offers other ways that are very useful. We are collaborating on one of these, which is about capacity building. And capacity building is really about the ability to build capacity, and it starts with people, then with data, and then ultimately with compute. And in that order, in the sense that you need first to have the literacy, the survey showed us that we don’t have a clear definition for AI, we don’t know exactly what is AI ethics, we don’t know what is responsible AI, what is the difference, why is there a need for trustworthy AI, all of these things. There is a need for literacy in the first place. That literacy, by the way, is needed everywhere. It’s not just in the region. It’s needed for the city manager in North America as much as it is needed for the government service provider in the GCC country. And that literacy allows you then to understand that you have an issue with data representativity, like Martin was reflecting upon, the fact that many of these algorithms, basically, are built based on data, and that data is reflective of certain societies and cultures. If your data is not represented, you might be, you might not necessarily are, but you might be misrepresented at the algorithmic level, and the outcomes might be non-beneficial for you. So you might have bias, you might have transparency issues, you might have other issues that could be associated with it. So from that perspective… perspective, capacity building allows you to contribute as well. So participating to working group in standards, going through capacity building efforts such as the one that we are developing, and last but not least, have the ability as well to localize content. So we came kind of to the conclusion that you develop a solution, that solution you can get it adopted, you can get it spread in a specific region, in a specific country, but at the end of the day the people who are going to implement it might not all be English speakers. So you need the ability to translate all of these solutions into local languages. You need the ability to adjust the solutions to the cultural representativity of the populations that you have, and have the data also, avoid data under representation or at least compensate for it with local data or processes around the solutions that allow you to avoid the kind of bias issues that you can find with the solutions.

Fadi Salim: Thank you. And this covers a little bit the grassroot element of it. So it’s awareness, diversity, inclusion, access. I’ll ask, I’ll be back to you, Dr. Nibal, and ask you about the higher level of representativeness and the AI governance ecosystem. So you, in Esquoir, as a regional UN body, deal with member states, and these member states, you deal with regulators, you deal with ministers, you deal with stakeholders at the top of the governance ecosystem who are tasked to represent their countries in these global fora around AI governance or around digital inclusion or about other elements as well. Based on your experience, and you highlighted this, some countries have structural restrictions related to, you know, we have conflicts, we have all of that, but also some countries are not having a seat on the table, although they have. something to offer in some of these global fora. How can we, and this is just about our region, but it also can be an issue for the rest of the global South. How can these voices be represented at a higher level in the ecosystem of governance around AI that usually decides around AI safety, AI measurement, AI standards, AI ethics. So it has real implications for their countries, but they don’t have a seat on the table at the top of the chain. Do you think there is a way for this kind of mechanism to exist that represent these countries in the global South, especially in AI, given that it’s currently more of an elite club in these discussions?

Nibal Idlebi: Yeah, in fact, it is quite complex. Let me say that. First of all, I would like to return back to what Gilles was saying, and I would like to mention that there is technology gap between the South and the North. And this is behind the scene, everything is related to technology gap. There is a big gap nowadays between developed country or the Northern country and the Southern country. And from that, we can derive a lot of issues. I mean, from this issue, the big issue that is sustained, I mean, with the time it’s sustained, and it is sometimes it’s becoming bigger. I mean, the digital, the technology gap, or it could be digital gap. But I mean, in this case, maybe digital or technology, because I can think about big data, everything is then the gap, it’s unfortunately, it’s widening, rather than that we are not easily bridging the gap, even in digital technology. But returning back to your question, I believe there is a we have to work at different level. From one side, we have to work at decision level, I mean, the decision making level, because at decision making level, it is those who decide in a way or another, their participation in the global forum, then it is the ministries or the regulatory authority that who are visible vis-a-vis this global forum and the global forum, like the IGF, for example, or WSIS, or whatever, or digital cooperation, compact, for example. And these decision makers should be aware about the importance of their engagement and their participation. And here, maybe we can tackle this issue from countries which are more advanced in the South, like, for example, KSA, UAE, in the Arab region, who are maybe, they can afford it, I mean, they can from one side afford it, and they can discuss it more. Then from one side, the decision maker, but also we have to build capacity of people, those who will go and discuss. I mean, here also, we sometimes we see the gap in the capacity building, but because they cannot argue enough, I mean, on the matters, because from one side, because of the digital gap, or the technology gap that we have, we have to admit that in the South, we are more user of the technology rather than developer of technology, we are speaking about AI technology, most of the time, it’s developed in the US, or in Europe, let me say maybe, but I mean, it is you can, you cannot find a lot of solution, a global solution, which might be developed currently now, here in the in the region, unless it is very local solution, I mean, but I mean, this big solution, this big company, then there is the capacity building of those who will be arguing the technical people, technical people, or academic people, if there is this, this is the need, then there is, I believe in these two area, and we have to be more proactive, I mean, then and maybe build some consensus build force, I mean, at regional level, to have representation from different regions, I mean, and here we can collaborate with other regions as well, Africa for example, Arab countries, Asia, some Asian countries are developed today, they are quite developed, but I mean this also, this consensus building between regions, southern regions, then I think it might matter because we do have some similar matters or similar issues, like for example, this issue of language, the issue of the gap in technological gap and so on, then I believe there is decision maker, at least a practitioner should be really aware about the issue, and if we want to go even deeper with the, you mentioned that it is consumer, the consumer that generated the GDPR, it will be fantastic also if we can have this knowledge spread according, in terms of user, I mean the user, and here maybe that it will be NGOs, and I think IGF is very good forum for this, for building capacity of NGOs and user, from the user perspective, then I believe we need really to build capacity and to convince decision maker at the first high level for the participation and to convince them, to show them the value of their participation, I think some of them are aware today, and we feel, I mean I believe I saw many many times representative of KSA or UAE who are, I mean in the international forum, and they are participating, Oman also sometimes it’s participating, I would say that there are Egypt sometimes they are participating, but also there is this building network between the regions in the south to have, because we have the same issue, then we have to say to push it more our agenda than we are doing it today, I mean.

Fadi Salim: Great, I mean I think as a school of government, we’re coming from that point of view, to add to your point, we do deal with the region as people in the senior and the mid-career and high-level positions in the region, in terms of capacity building and leadership development, so there is something that definitely we can be done in terms of capacity building at the highest level as well, in many countries around the region where they need to be aware, but sometimes they have to develop the capacity, and then the issues around language, issues around access, issues around financial matters that are not able, that not allow them to access these fora, all of these are in the leadership capacity building so thank you for that.

Nibal Idlebi: Let me, but just add one thing that I have forgotten, it’s private sector, the role of private sector and the association of private sector it should be because I mean technology is developed by private sector they have to be also on the loop.

Fadi Salim: Absolutely, private sector back to you Martin, I wanted to ask you around you know with the data that Selma presented we noticed and this is about companies so private sector companies but this survey that was presented is hundreds of small and medium enterprises and startups around 10 countries in the region working specifically in the AI domain and they have identified in the data that showed that Selma showed regulatory uncertainty as a question mark and this even talking some of these in the interviews with these it’s not working even talking in the discussing this in interviews with some of these companies they feel less willing to participate and share even their issues with us as researchers so there is this culture of why do I need to share I will leave it to the anthropologists such as Selma to understand why this is happening but from your point of view as as a private sector leader this regulatory uncertainty that was also highlighted in many of these discussions as a reason for restricting how do you balance this trade-off as in our region many countries have that clear direction around regulations on AI or knockoff but others do not have anything this uncertainty is causing many of our companies but also individuals who are interested in being included or talking to hold back do you have a do you have a view on on this trade-off that that is happening right now in our in the private sector at least and the small business enterprises that you might be involved with.

Roeske Martin: Thanks Fadi, great question. So I think you made a great point that came out in the research which was it’s maybe not the absence of regulation, it’s that level of uncertainty that is holding the private sector back a bit. I’d like to offer a slightly different perspective because I feel this region actually is getting quite a lot of things right when it comes to governance of AI and we see that a lot of focus over the past couple of years has been really about ethics and principles. So first countries adopted national AI strategies and pretty much every country in the region now has one at different levels of implementation with in many cases international input and support from the private sector to then developing their ethics and principles and guidelines and what they haven’t done yet is to come with hard regulation and laws similar to the AI Act or otherwise and in our mind that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I mean there has been an intentional bit of a wait and see attitude to first let the technology get to a point where you can see the actual use cases in practice. A lot of countries in the region, Saudi being a good example, UAE and other have implemented regulatory sandboxes where you can try new technologies in a safe environment, controlled implementation and we’ve seen some great investment in things like Arabic LLMs. So you’ve got the Falcon model in the UAE, you’ve got Alam here, you’ve got FANAR in Qatar, all of which are available for researchers around the world to work on. So we’re starting to see greater data sets from the region and actually homegrown technology as well enabled sort of by a slightly hands-off attitude to regulation. regulation. Now, Google has published a lot about what kind of regulation we think makes sense. We talk a lot about bold and responsible, both. How do you get that balance between preventing users from harm, but at the same time, keeping the innovation open and flourishing? And I think countries here realize most countries in the Gulf, at least, will try to position themselves as the next global AI hub. They’re not just thinking regionally. They’re thinking globally. How do we build the infrastructure that will attract businesses and small and medium enterprise and AI startups to see this as a place from which they can grow and flourish in the world? And so investing in energy, alternative energy, green energy, building data centers, et cetera, I think a lot of countries built their strategies around attracting talent, attracting companies, attracting business. So that’s on the positives. I think a lot of regulators ask me, what should we do? What’s the right way to go about implementing AI regulation? Should we even focus on AI regulation as such? Or should we focus on first filling the gaps we have in our existing regulation? And I think that’s a very good point to take home, is that whatever was illegal without AI probably should be illegal with AI. It’s about making the regulation that already exists adapt in such a way that AI is included in the thinking. That doesn’t necessarily mean that one has to regulate all the inputs that go into developing models, scientific breakthroughs. It’s more about trying to, on the downside, regulate the outputs. And I think we haven’t seen enough outputs in everyday usage beyond the sandboxes and some of the use cases I mentioned to know quite yet where the regulation needs to focus. So apart from those principles I mentioned earlier, what are the goals of? broader global governance, I think the regional specifics still being worked through. We talked about language quite a bit earlier, and Arabic in particular. I just want to give some interesting data points. One is, so you know there is a product called Google Translate. At the moment it exists in just under 260 languages. We started this project 20 years ago. We’re now at 260 odd languages. Of those 260, 110 languages were developed in the last six months. Thanks to AI. 20 years of development, in six months it’s gone like this. 110 languages. So this is about creating an inclusive way of accessing the technology. Another interesting thing I just learned a couple of weeks ago is that Gemini, which is our generative AI tool, we have more daily active users in the MENA region than in the US, in Arabic. Which is crazy to think of, but it’s a testament to the appetite that exists in the region for actually using these tools. And the fact that you have a very young demographic, the fact that people are generally open to technology, they tend to be more optimistic about using technology, means there is an almost instant embracing of what’s available, especially if it’s available in language. So that’s why I said slightly different perspective. I tend to be a bit more optimistic on where the region can go with this. And I think they are getting a lot of things right. Why is the private sector still a bit hesitant? I think there are other underlying factors. The funding streams for startups, investments in SMEs, how easy is it to get access to finance? Things about data privacy, even though all the countries in the region now have some form of data privacy law, the implementing regulations were still missing, and so you don’t quite know how to apply. There’s a lot of ambiguity around it. So focusing on finishing the job on some of those issues that are really the enabling mechanisms and policies for AI, in my mind, maybe should be the first priority right now.

Fadi Salim: Great. Thank you. This is very insightful. And you highlighted the standards. I mean, this, Jill, while Martin was telling us how this region has more Gemini users and Gen AI products users, probably if you extrapolate from that, than the US. But we have ethical implications for this, right, in our region. And in the IEEE, you have set both specifications and lots of deep research into AI ethics, as well as capacity building for AI ethics assurance, and in a way that is currently also we’re working together to adapt it to the region. But given this massive explosion of AI use, and at the same time, lack of ethical standards or regulations or systems in place for our region to govern that use, do you feel that this can take things into misdeployment? to creating some victims in society? And if it is the case, is it an argument for more inclusion, more regulation, or other things? I know this is a very complex question, but I trust that you can highlight all of these.

Jill: Thank you, Fadi. I think in a nutshell, I think it’s important to acknowledge and realize that without the contribution of the private sector, it would be very hard to achieve literacy and capacity building in the region. When I run courses in Africa, I run them on COLA. I run them on Google Meet. I run them on tools that are made available to me by the private sector. So it is very important to acknowledge the enabling nature of the private sector in this. I think from a regulatory standpoint, what is interesting to see is that many countries, even in Europe now, are starting to look at it more from, regulatory is good in terms of protection, but it should not come at the expense of innovation. And there is kind of a turnaround in a sense. People are coming to realize that you should not go too much in one direction and not too much on the other direction, especially Europe stands kind of in the middle on both of these. And so I think the region here has the option and has grabbed the option to kind of leapfrog some of these issues and grow into an environment, some countries, I’m not talking about the whole region, but grow into an environment where they can be even ahead of some European countries in terms of AI deployment. So again, it’s not an us versus them kind of thing. And it’s very… very important to acknowledge the fact that you cannot do that work in AI without the private sector. This being said, the AI at the end of the day is a tool. It’s not AI that can be good or bad or nefarious. It is the person behind it and the use that it is being put to that decides whether it is turning in good shape or not. The problem that you face, I think, is where you are trying to use AI to bridge a gap that you don’t know how to bridge otherwise. So suppose that you are in a situation where you don’t have enough resources to fulfill something and you say, oh, generative AI is going to do it. We had the same issue 10 years ago with the chatbots. Chatbots are going to fix it. Well, chatbots did not fix it. And generative AI might be able to fulfill some of these roles. But the condition is that they need to be well-defined in the first place in terms of use cases. And this is where, because without that, you don’t have trust. And if you don’t have trust, you don’t have adoption in the AI. At the end of the day, AI is an anthropomorphic user interface. Whether the way it interfaces with humans is by behaving like a human. It is basically assuming more and more, whether it is autonomously or through augmentation, roles and decisions that were left to humans before. So what we expect from it is trust, the same way as we expect trust from humans in the way they behave. So from that perspective, the trust in the solution is very important. So how do you build that trust? It’s very important to make sure that you look at the use cases and that you take into consideration from an inclusivity perspective all of the stakeholders that need to be involved in it. And this is a role that is at the individual level participating into standards. The private entities. being very inclusive of all stakeholders, the way they are doing it, or the government even pushing for empowerment of the different civil societies group into achieving that. But it’s a magnifying glass at the end of the day. So everything it does will get magnified. If you don’t prepare it well, it will get magnified in the wrong way, and you will see more negative aspects than positive aspects. So it’s important to, from the onset, look into it. And in order to look into it, like Neha was saying, you need to have the ability to understand what it is about. If you don’t know what is AI, then you are just relying on what the provider tells you it is. And at that point, you have no say in its implementation.

Fadi Salim: Well, great. Thank you. I know we’re coming to questions, and we have questions coming up. If you’re eager to give us your question, please go ahead. Do you have a mic? Ah, here it is. I think, yeah.

AUDIENCE: I’m sorry for being so anxious, but I’m a panelist in another workshop, and I have to, I’m late, but this workshop is very important. So I have two quick questions for the panelists. The first, data was said that without data, we don’t have local solution. We need local data. So my first question is, how do you think is the best approach to encourage, to have local data? Should it be through regulatory ways, or what other incentives could be used? If there’s some best practice already that can be shared, that’s my first question. And my second question is mainly to Dr. Roske, is that one of the big gaps, once the developing country have the data, where to run it? This requires. requires huge computing power that, well, imagine we don’t have enough for data centers. Imagine the computing power that we need. That’s the gap that is growing. I’m asking, maybe it’s already happening, but maybe in the future it will be possible a business model in which the big companies that already have the hardware could bring as a service to run the local data of countries for training of models or other things as a service for developing countries that do not have the infrastructure to run the data in their machines. Could that be a possible way to give some time till the countries could have their own hardware?

Fadi Salim: Thank you. Two questions. So who would like to start? Okay, so local data.

Nibal Idlebi: I believe there are some initiatives that there are some practice in a way or another to have this to encourage the local data. I mean, there are some initiatives, I believe even Google did one at one point for encouraging teachers and students to develop and to put their data or whatever research they are doing. But we can copy the example and make it for users in general, for local community, for students, for teachers, and so on. And to make some initiatives or to make some awards in a way or another. I mean, the awards are very capturing, I mean, to collect, they might be a solution to capture some data. Then, I mean, there are some practice in a way to encourage citizens and to encourage people to provide their own data through specific initiatives. And I agree with you, there should be some initiative, some incentives. I mean, of course, I mean, local governments, we can have the data collected from e-government, I mean, or digital government. These data, we need to encourage maybe the locality or government to open their data in order to be used. And this is one of the examples that I mentioned by Fadi. This open data is very important, I believe, that you can put all, but I mean, it needs some efforts even from the government to clean the data, to put it in a proper way. But there are some initiatives that could encourage or accelerate the generation of data. Because I mean, through digital government, you have a lot of data with the government, a lot. I mean, okay, if you don’t have digital government in the country, then it’s another question. But I mean, through this initiative, from the government, from local government, from institutions, I would say also, you can encourage in a specific field the generation of a new data. It could happen. And there are some initiatives.

Fadi Salim: Great question as well. Maybe on the data point first, and then I’ll come to the second part of your question. I don’t know if you’ve heard of data commons, but data commons is Google has been quite involved in that initiative for a couple of years now. And the idea is to take whatever publicly available data there is, clean it, structure it, and then provide insights to anyone who wants to query the data. So it doesn’t become a walled garden of information that’s only available to some people who are willing to pay for it, but to create, if you like, the repository of data that you can then base some of the research questions around. And whether that’s environmental data, climate data, health data, et cetera. Governments can make a lot more data available than they’re currently doing. I think there’s a lot of hesitancy around what is sensitive, what is not sensitive. When we worked on data protection laws, for example, in providing best practice and consultations, the default position was, oh, it’s all sensitive. It’s all a national security interest, et cetera. But what people don’t realize is that so much of that data could easily be anonymized or made impersonal, that you’re not giving away secrets by just sharing the data in a more meaningful way. So I think there is a lot of work that can be done there on just sharing data between departments within the government, but also with the private sector and others. On the other point, what can Google and other tech companies do to include the global south and the emerging markets in more of an infrastructure development? development. So first of all, the cost of compute and capacity to run models is going down all the time. So a lot of work that is happening at Google and other companies to just reduce the amount of compute and storage and everything else needed to come up with good functioning AI systems. And so Gemini 2.0, which was just announced last week, now uses 90% less compute than Gemini 1.5, which is a huge scaling down in terms of that. The other way is to bring a lot of the compute closer to the device and have the algorithms run on the edge or on the user device itself so you don’t need to run it all through global infrastructure. But we do recognize that a lot of global infrastructure will still be needed. And so we and I know other tech companies invest, for example, a lot in subsea cabling and satellite systems. One of my colleagues here just gave a talk on the interplanetary internet that is being developed. So how do you create an infrastructure that you can easily bring to markets that don’t have it today at a low cost? And so a lot of development going into that at the moment. Of course, the capacity building, scaling, all of that is super important as well. And making sure that the universities that exist, there are some very good institutions here, are connected to the research that’s happening in other parts of the world, including them. So that would be hopefully…

AUDIENCE: Can I add to this? Yeah, please. Okay. So I’m just going to be brief and quick on this. I think there is no one answer for everything. So in the sense of data, right? LLMs today have scrubbed the internet completely and now are generating synthetic data and are growing out of synthetic data. So I don’t know about Google Translate, maybe if that’s part of the uptake. But there is a lot of use of synthetic data there. So how to generate data when you don’t have enough data. This could be very interesting for the global south. And help in generating synthetic data can be very helpful to make sure that there is no under-representation at the data level in the global south. That’s one. The second thing is it depends on what AI we’re talking. We are always now talking about LLMs and agents on top of LLMs. But if you go all the way to the neural nets that are just the layers below, in terms of sophistication, I would say, or building blocks, you can do a lot with tools that are available either from private entity, like a colab, for example, available for free. And you can even do a lot with lower computationally hungry algorithms that provide you with a lower performance level. But that is still enough in many global south countries. Like if I achieve 70%, but I don’t need to use a data center, I can run it on my local PC. I achieve a 70% accuracy. Or do I go for a 98% accuracy, but then I’m dependent on the external data center? I have choices, essentially. So there are ways to adjust all of this. But in order to know that I have choices, I need the literacy for it in the first place.

Fadi Salim: Thank you. Let’s go.

Nibal Idlebi: Maybe GIS data or satellite information are also useful in some cases. Thank you.

Fadi Salim: Oh, I have the mic. OK, thank you very much for your question. And looking forward to your panel as well afterwards. We’ll look forward to your panel. All right. So as we started the questions, if there’s any other questions at the floor, I’ll come back to you. But I would like to take one question online. We have a vibrant, clearly, community out there. But let me read the question to you. What common cultural aspects deter the participative appetite of the global south? For instance, board member, public or private, how public and private board members are selected. Those members are responsible for overseeing cases, assessing data, readiness, internal governance, and so on. Who assesses board members and certifies them as AI worthy? How does culture affect such aspects? This is a very good question. I don’t know if anybody would like, you have, all of you have boards, one way or another. So is there anything to be learned on how these cultural aspects deter participation in these boards in our region or in the Global South in general?

AUDIENCE: Any insights or thoughts? Just one quick thought around good practices I’ve seen governments adopt in the region, which is, for example, implementing chief AI officers or AI officers across different government departments and empowering people to actually learn about the technology and then lean into those conversations when it comes to multi-stakeholder dialogue. So yes, there is some capacity building to be done still, but appointing people, giving them the mandate, and putting structures in place that actually allow this dialogue to happen is a very good first step.

Fadi Salim: Great, thanks. Any other comments on this? OK, we can move on. You have one?

AUDIENCE: Very quickly, I think one important aspect here is, how do you make sure that the people who are in charge, once these organizations or these structures are put in place, how do you make sure that they are actually effective and they have the capacity for it? So this is where you have some kind of, they can be certified or authorized or basically recognized for their capacity. So it’s like continuing education. We hear that a lot in the WENA regions, where basically, how do you make sure that people are always catching up with the technology that they are using or for which they need to make the important decisions? And there are courses and structures, like the ones that MBRSG offers, that can offer these trainings.

Fadi Salim: Thank you. And thank you, Sami Assa, for the question. Now we move on to another question from the floor. Can you please, let’s give you a mic. Yeah, because you need, everybody else needs to hear you.

Jasmin Alduri: Perfect. Hi, my name is Jasmin Alduri. I’m the co-director of the Responsible Tech Hub. We’re a youth-led non-profit focusing on responsible tech. So the name already gives it away. I really like the aspect that Dr. Niyabal actually brought up about the Global South being not as involved in AI developing and that mostly the Global North or the Western countries are doing it. Because I 100,000% agree on this. However, there’s this one aspect of training. training AI that is happening in the Global South, meaning most of the labelling is actually happening in the Global South with click workers doing the main work and to some extent also being exploited. So my question for the round would be how can we make sure that specifically click workers and the Global South actually does not only feel included but can actually benefit from the fact that it’s part of that developing stage of AI.

Fadi Salim: Is there any, who are you targeting your question to? I think it’s coming back to Martin, but yeah, so this is something that is common in all the, it’s AI. So in a way it’s how to exclude rather than include these from being exploited, right? So how to, because it happens. So is there any measures that Google or technology companies are applying to ensure that this is properly governed that we might learn from?

AUDIENCE: I think beyond skills programs and helping developers and people working in those industries in the click content work that you did mention. Of course, a lot of it is encouraging local businesses to adopt some of these technologies and the startup ecosystem to take those technologies and build things that are regionally relevant from the ground up. And so one of the things we’re focused on a lot is to work with the startup ecosystem in particular. We just had a program last year called the Women AI Founders Program, but we found that there is a huge gap in, well, women founders in general, I think in the MENA region it’s only 3% of startups are run by women. And then the funding gap is even worse. It’s 1% of funding going to women. So we realized that there is a huge amount of talent in the region that is not tapped into. properly and that help and support is required. So we run these accelerator programs for different groups of startups. We started generically looking at AI startups. We’re now starting to go down into more thematic approaches whether it’s around health or education or fintech, even gaming. We’re doing accelerators. So there are some very interesting sectors here, particularly in economies that are trying to diversify away from fossil fuels, etc. and encouraging the build-out of new economic sectors where there’s a lot of opportunity. And it’s just making sure that the ecosystems are there, the platforms that all this talent can tap into and work with. And that there are pathways to success, right, that people don’t get stuck. They graduate, they have a degree and then know where to go. There need to be the jobs to go with it.

Fadi Salim: I think, yeah, I want Jill to comment on this because IEEE has ethical specification for AI development, procurement, you name it. So is this embedded already in how for you as a assessor of AI ethics or AI ethical application of AI can look into or want to look into?

Jill: Certainly from an ethical perspective, part of the process of evaluating a solution is taking into consideration inclusively all of the stakeholders, including the labelers. So if you take the labelers in Kenya developing for some big company, some labeling for some LLM stuff and being mentally impacted by it, for example, or being underpaid for it, this is certainly something that would be caught at the identification, what we call the ethics profiling at the use case level. Now, this is part of, for example, the IEEE certified assessment framework, which allows you to assess solutions. So irrespective of whether or not you have an AI governance, you have a solution today and you want to know if it is ethical or not, you can go through a very detailed and formal process that will allow you to do this. But I’d like to, to tackle the question a bit differently as well. For every challenge, there is an opportunity. And in a sense, AI costs a lot of money. It costs a lot of money to countries, Western countries, so-called Western countries, that will go for cheaper labor in some developing countries, right? But at the same time, it is an opportunity, as Martin was referring to, to grow the capacity building into these developing countries and grow even the capacity for local employment and local expertise. And once you have that local expertise, then you can afford more AI solutions because you can afford local salaries instead of having to pay for external salaries there. And on top of that, closing the loop on the programs, the programs allow you to become authorized assessors. The IEEE certified program. And once you are an authorized assessor, you can work worldwide anywhere, so you can compete with others and it opens up opportunities that don’t force you into a niche market of labeling or specifically doing some tedious tasks there. So there are opportunities there that go beyond just the current economics that we see.

Fadi Salim: Thank you. And we still have around 10 minutes to go. You have a question to the panelists. If I may, if you allow it. Yeah, but that will mean that they will have to ask you a question.

Nibal Idlebi: If I may just ask a small question. We know that UNESCO have published ethics for AI. I want to know from you as a private sector or AIEEE, up to which limits you are applying these international ethics, I mean, of UNESCO? for example, in AI?

Fadi Salim: I’ll start and then Jill, let you weigh in as well. So we had, we published AI principles, I think back in 2018, quite a while ago, which defined what we will and what we won’t do with AI. And I think a lot of those have since been, you know, incorporated in some of the global governance standards as well. So it’s important not just to keep checking and assessing, but also to build these principles into the product from day one, right? And so when DeepMind or one of our units that works a lot on AI develops a product, it does so with those principles in mind. And this predates, by the way, Gen AI by many, many years. So, you know, our CEO declared Google to be an AI first company in 2017, I think. And it’s now in all the products, right? It’s in search, it’s in YouTube, it’s in maps, it’s in… And so there is a sort of established practice now of how do you take these principles and build them into products and there are working groups, product teams that check this on a very, very regular basis. So yes, I would say these principles are very much part of our everyday life and there are whole groups dedicated within the company to working on it. Would you like to comment? Yes.

AUDIENCE: Maybe quickly I’ll answer and then you can grab the mic. So I have to say that, I mean, since you are opening the door for it, actually IEEE pioneered social technical standards, which is the social impact of technology. Back in 2016, the first ethically aligned design framework was built from which a lot of recommendations and standards came out, including for software development, similar to what Google did, or for assessment like the IEEE certified, or for procurement, or even for governance. So all of these is the work of this grassroots, thank you. community work. The EAD principles actually were very much used in the UNESCO principles. So we are applying them from the start, and we are promoting their use worldwide for this.

Fadi Salim: Sorry. You have a question? Yeah. Okay. There’s a mic over there.

Lars Ratscheid: Thank you. My name is Lars Ratscheid. I’m from Germany, just like Yasmin, and I work in international cooperation. And now all three of you gave examples on regulation, on governing standards for AI. But bringing it back to the title of the session, how was the Global South or the global majority involved in each of these at Google, at UNESCO, and at IEEE? Thank you.

Fadi Salim: So I guess this is a closing question, right? It’s a closing question because we’re almost out of time. But in a way, it’s an important question. How can we learn? Do you have some examples of how inclusion happens within your organization? I know IEEE, maybe starting with you, Jill, IEEE has a massive working group, activities, volunteers, et cetera. Tell us more about the examples of inclusion that exists in AI.

Jill: Sure. So IEEE has chapters in every country in the world. So there is representation from every country in the world, and every country is encouraged to work with our chapter and

Fadi Salim: get… Recording didn’t work. I can’t hear you.

Agreement Points

Need for capacity building and literacy in AI

Nibal Idlebi

Jill Nelson

Roeske Martin

Need for capacity building at decision-making level

Need for literacy and capacity building to enable meaningful participation

Importance of creating pathways to success for local talent

All speakers emphasized the importance of building capacity and literacy in AI across various levels, from decision-makers to the general public, to enable meaningful participation in AI governance and development.

Importance of local data for AI development

Nibal Idlebi

Jill Nelson

Roeske Martin

Lack of local data limiting AI development

Use of synthetic data to address data scarcity

Potential for data commons and public data sharing

The speakers agreed on the critical role of local data in AI development and suggested various approaches to address data scarcity in the region.

Role of private sector in enabling inclusion

Jill Nelson

Roeske Martin

Importance of private sector involvement in enabling inclusion

Need to encourage local businesses and startups to adopt AI

Both speakers highlighted the crucial role of the private sector in enabling inclusion in AI governance and development, emphasizing the need to encourage local businesses and startups.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers proposed innovative solutions to address the lack of local data, suggesting initiatives to encourage data generation or the use of synthetic data.

Nibal Idlebi

Jill Nelson

Need for initiatives to encourage local data generation

Use of synthetic data to address data scarcity

Both speakers emphasized the importance of incorporating ethical considerations into AI development from the beginning, considering all stakeholders involved.

Jill

Roeske Martin

Need to consider all stakeholders, including labelers, in ethical assessments

Importance of building ethical principles into products from the start

Unexpected Consensus

Positive view on regulatory sandboxes

Roeske Martin

Nibal Idlebi

Role of regulatory sandboxes in enabling safe experimentation

Need for initiatives to encourage local data generation

Despite coming from different sectors (private and public), both speakers showed support for initiatives that allow controlled experimentation and innovation in AI, such as regulatory sandboxes and data generation initiatives.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the need for capacity building, the importance of local data for AI development, and the crucial role of the private sector in enabling inclusion. There was also consensus on the need for ethical considerations in AI development and support for initiatives that encourage innovation.

Consensus level

The level of consensus among the speakers was moderately high, with agreement on several key issues. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the challenges and potential solutions for AI governance and development in the MENA region. However, there were also some differences in emphasis and approach, reflecting the diverse perspectives of the speakers from different sectors and organizations. This level of consensus implies that there is potential for collaborative efforts in addressing AI governance challenges in the region, but also a need for continued dialogue to address remaining differences and develop comprehensive strategies.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to AI regulation

Nibal Idlebi

Roeske Martin

Need for capacity building at decision-making level

Regulatory uncertainty holding back private sector

Nibal Idlebi emphasizes the need for capacity building among decision-makers to participate in global AI governance, while Martin Roeske highlights that regulatory uncertainty, rather than lack of regulation, is holding back private sector involvement.

Focus of inclusion efforts

Nibal Idlebi

Jill Nelson

Need for initiatives to encourage local data generation

Importance of private sector involvement in enabling inclusion

Nibal Idlebi emphasizes the need for initiatives to encourage local data generation, while Jill Nelson stresses the importance of private sector involvement in enabling inclusion through literacy and capacity building.

Unexpected Differences

Ethical considerations in AI development

Roeske Martin

Jasmin Alduri

Importance of building ethical principles into products from the start

Exploitation of click workers in Global South

While Martin Roeske focuses on incorporating ethical principles into AI products from the start, Jasmin Alduri unexpectedly raises concerns about the exploitation of click workers in the Global South. This highlights a potential blind spot in ethical considerations that major tech companies might be overlooking.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around approaches to AI regulation, focus of inclusion efforts, and strategies to address data scarcity in the MENA region.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there are differences in approaches and focus areas, there is a general consensus on the importance of inclusion, capacity building, and fostering local AI ecosystems. These differences in perspective can be beneficial in developing a comprehensive approach to AI governance and development in the MENA region, as they highlight various aspects that need to be addressed.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need to address data scarcity in the MENA region, but propose different approaches. Nibal Idlebi suggests initiatives to encourage local data generation, Martin Roeske proposes data commons and public data sharing, while Jill suggests the use of synthetic data.

Nibal Idlebi

Roeske Martin

Jill Nelson

Lack of local data limiting AI development

Potential for data commons and public data sharing

Use of synthetic data to address data scarcity

Both Martin Roeske and Jill agree on the importance of fostering local AI ecosystems, but focus on different aspects. Roeske emphasizes encouraging local businesses and startups to adopt AI, while Jill highlights the opportunity to grow local expertise and employment.

Roeske Martin

Jill Nelson

Need to encourage local businesses and startups to adopt AI

Opportunity to grow local expertise and employment

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers proposed innovative solutions to address the lack of local data, suggesting initiatives to encourage data generation or the use of synthetic data.

Nibal Idlebi

Jill Nelson

Need for initiatives to encourage local data generation

Use of synthetic data to address data scarcity

Both speakers emphasized the importance of incorporating ethical considerations into AI development from the beginning, considering all stakeholders involved.

Jill Nelson

Roeske Martin

Need to consider all stakeholders, including labelers, in ethical assessments

Importance of building ethical principles into products from the start

Key Takeaways

There is a lack of representation from the MENA region and Global South in global AI governance forums and discussions

Regulatory uncertainty is holding back AI development and adoption by the private sector in the MENA region

There is a need for greater literacy, capacity building, and local data to enable meaningful participation in AI development

Ethical considerations, including the treatment of data labelers and click workers, need to be addressed in AI development

Fostering local AI ecosystems and talent is crucial for inclusion and development in the Global South

Resolutions and Action Items

Implement chief AI officers across government departments to build capacity and enable dialogue

Develop more accelerator programs and support for local AI startups, especially those led by underrepresented groups like women

Increase efforts to make AI tools and resources available in local languages like Arabic

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively bridge the technology gap between the Global North and South in AI development

How to balance innovation with regulation in emerging AI markets

How to ensure fair compensation and treatment of data labelers and click workers in the Global South

How to address the lack of computing power and infrastructure in developing countries for AI development

Suggested Compromises

Use of synthetic data to address data scarcity issues in the Global South

Implementing regulatory sandboxes to allow safe experimentation with AI technologies while developing appropriate governance frameworks

Leveraging existing global tech infrastructure (e.g. from companies like Google) to enable AI development in countries lacking local infrastructure, while building local capacity

There is technology gap between the South and the North. And this is behind the scene, everything is related to technology gap. There is a big gap nowadays between developed country or the Northern country and the Southern country. And from that, we can derive a lot of issues.

speaker

Nibal Idlebi

reason

This comment highlights a fundamental issue underlying many of the challenges discussed regarding AI governance and inclusion in the Global South.

impact

It shifted the conversation to focus more explicitly on the North-South divide and its implications for AI development and governance.

How can it be a race if we don’t all start from the same point? And that technology is an important priority nationally, certainly. But what about things like the inability to read and write? Or things like, you know, not enough access to proper health care.

speaker

Salma Alkhoudi

reason

This comment challenges the framing of AI development as a ‘race’ and highlights more fundamental development challenges faced by some countries.

impact

It broadened the discussion to consider the wider context of development challenges beyond just AI and technology.

We’re now starting to go down into more thematic approaches whether it’s around health or education or fintech, even gaming. We’re doing accelerators. So there are some very interesting sectors here, particularly in economies that are trying to diversify away from fossil fuels, etc. and encouraging the build-out of new economic sectors where there’s a lot of opportunity.

speaker

Martin Roeske

reason

This comment provides concrete examples of how AI development can be tailored to specific regional needs and opportunities.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards more practical, sector-specific applications of AI in the Global South.

For every challenge, there is an opportunity. And in a sense, AI costs a lot of money. It costs a lot of money to countries, Western countries, so-called Western countries, that will go for cheaper labor in some developing countries, right? But at the same time, it is an opportunity, as Martin was referring to, to grow the capacity building into these developing countries and grow even the capacity for local employment and local expertise.

speaker

Jill Nelson

reason

This comment reframes the issue of labor exploitation in AI development as a potential opportunity for capacity building in developing countries.

impact

It introduced a more optimistic perspective on the potential for AI to contribute to development in the Global South.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting the complex interplay between AI development, global inequalities, and development challenges. They moved the conversation beyond abstract discussions of AI governance to consider more concrete applications and opportunities, while also maintaining a critical perspective on the challenges faced by the Global South in participating fully in AI development and governance.

How can we build a unified AI ecosystem in a region with very diverse regulatory approaches, different development priorities, and varying levels of digital infrastructure?

speaker

Salma Alkhoudi

explanation

This is important to address the interoperability issues faced by companies trying to scale across countries in the MENA region.

How can we operationalize inclusion better in the AI governance ecosystem?

speaker

Fadi Salim

explanation

This is the core focus of the panel and crucial for ensuring diverse perspectives are represented in AI development and governance.

How can voices from countries without a seat at the table be represented at a higher level in the ecosystem of AI governance?

speaker

Fadi Salim

explanation

This is important for ensuring global AI governance decisions consider perspectives from all regions, not just an ‘elite club’.

What is the best approach to encourage the collection and use of local data?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

Local data is crucial for developing AI solutions that are relevant and representative of different regions.

Could big tech companies provide computing power as a service for developing countries to run local data for training AI models?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This could help bridge the gap in computing infrastructure between developed and developing countries.

How can we ensure that click workers and the Global South actually benefit from being part of the AI development stage?

speaker

Jasmin Alduri

explanation

This is important to address potential exploitation and ensure fair compensation for workers contributing to AI development.

How was the Global South or global majority involved in developing AI regulations and standards at Google, UNESCO, and IEEE?

speaker

Lars Ratscheid

explanation

This question directly addresses the core theme of inclusion in AI governance from a global perspective.